life1
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF LIFE
by Ray Shelton
INTRODUCTION
What is life? In the Biblical view of life, there are three kinds of life: physical life, spiritual life, and eternal life.
According to the Biblical view of man, man was created with physical and spiritual life.
The basic Biblical assertion about man is that he is created by God.
“26Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:26-27).
Man is a creature. He is not God. He is not divine. He does not have a “spark of the divine” in him. He is a created being, and as such is under the sovereignty and dominion of God by creation. But even though man is a creation of God, he is different from the rest of creation. Genesis 1:26-27 tells us that God created man in His own image. This makes man different from the other creations of God. What is the image of God? The image of God is a person, the Son of God:
“13For He [God] delivered us from the domain of darkness, and translated us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. 14in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins; 15And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.” (Col. 1:13-15 NAS; compare II Cor. 4:4; Rom. 8:29);
God’s Beloved Son is the plan and pattern according to which God created man. As such He is the first-born of all creation. Not that He is the first created being, but that He is the pattern by which all men will be born. God created man with the anticipation that His Son would become man, a human being. Thus the Son of God is the first-born of all creation. Note that the Scriptures never say that the image of God is in man, but rather that man has been created in the image of God. What does it mean for man to be created in the image of God?
The answer may be seen in Genesis 1:26-27.
“26Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:26-27).
In this passage of Scripture, we find that there are two aspects to man being created in the image of God. The first aspect is found in the words “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,… over all the earth ….” God has given man dominion, sovereignty, and lordship over the creation (Psa. 8:4-8). As God has sovereignty and dominion over all He has created, so God has given man sovereignty and dominion over all the earth. Man in his limited sovereignty over creation is like God in His unlimited sovereignty. In this sense, man is like God. Man’s lordship over creation is the first aspect of man being created in the image of God. This passage in Genesis justifies the task and existence of all the sciences and especially biology. But it is not only the study and knowledge of creation that is involved here. Man has a God-given right to use this creation for the good of mankind and for the glory of God.
But there is also a second aspect to man being created in the image of God. In these verses of Genesis one, we see this aspect in the words “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him: male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:26). This does not mean that God is male and female but that He is more than one person existing in an unique personal relationship or fellowship. As God has created man, he cannot live alone. In Genesis 2:18,
“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'” (Gen. 2:18)
Of all the creatures God had created “there was not found a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:20). So God created, out of man, woman. Man, in the very way in which he was created had a social need — a need for fellowship. This need could only be satisfied through an equal fellow creature. None of the animals could satisfy this need for fellowship. So God made an equal being, a woman. Man as a social being is able to enjoy a reciprocal personal relationship or fellowship with an equal being. In this respect, man is also like God. In God, there is an equality and fellowship between the three persons of the Godhead.
Man’s dominion over creation and his fellowship with an equal being — woman — are two aspects of man being created in the image of God. Both of these presuppose freedom — freedom of choice and freedom of action. This freedom is the presupposition and the possibility of being in the image of God. Since God created man with freedom, dominion over creation and fellowship with equal beings become possible. With freedom of choice and action man can exercise his dominion over creation. And since love is the essence of fellowship, with his freedom of choice and action, man can love an equal being and thus enter into fellowship with her. This freedom of choice and not his reason, neither his self-consciousness, nor self-transcendence, is that which make possible man’s dominion over creation and fellowship with an equal being. This is what distinguishes man from the rest of creation. This freedom of decision is what gives to man his existence as a person or self and to his reason that human and personal character. Man is a personal being in a created physical world and as such is a union of spirit (person or self) and body (physiological organism).
“Then the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul (nepesh)” (Gen. 2:7 KJV).
When God breathed into the nostrils of the body of man the breath of life, He created man’s spirit and man became a living soul. The soul of man is the union of this created spirit and the body formed from the dust of the ground. Thus man is diparite being having two parts, spirit and body; the soul is not a third part of man but is the union of man’s created spirit and his body.
According to the Biblical view of man, man was created with physical and spiritual life. According to Genesis 2:7, when God breathed into the nostrils of the body of man the breath of life, He created man’s spirit and man became a living soul. Thus man was created with physical life.
But man was not only created with physical life, he was also created with spiritual life. After God created man, He placed him in a garden and spoke to him.
“And the Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man He had formed.” (Gen. 2:8 NAS)
“15Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.'” (Gen. 2:15-17, NAS)
And after the woman was created, she was tempted by the serpent (Gen. 3:1) who is also called Satan (the adversary) and the devil (the slanderer, Rev. 12:9).
1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God made. And he said to the woman, ‘Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die'” 4And the serpent said to the woman, “You surely shall not die! 5For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and shall be like God, knnowing good and evil.” 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband and he ate. (Gen. 3:1-6 NAS)
The serpent’s temptation contained two lies:
(a) “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1, NAS) and
(b) “You surely shall not die!” (Gen. 3:4, NAS).
The first lie attacks God’s goodness indirectly by implying that God makes unreasonable demands. The serpent misstates God’s command. And the woman corrects the serpent’s misstatement but accepts his insinuation that God makes unreasonable demands. This is the reason that she changes God’s command by adding “neither shall you touch it” (Gen. 3:3). This leads to the serpent’s second lie. For if it is unreasonable to forbid touching the fruit, then it is unreasonable to think that she would die if she touched it. This second lie attacks God’s goodness directly by implying that He is untruthful. This second lie is supported by the implication of the statement in verse five that God is withholding something good from them: The serpent said:
“For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:5)
These lies are attacks on God’s goodness and love. This is the first element of this satanic temptation: Satan begins with an attack on God’s character. God’s goodness is attacked indirectly and then directly. The second element of this satanic temptation is the offering of a substitute for the true God — a false god, an idol (compare Matt. 4:8-10). Having undermined her faith and confidence in the goodness of God, the serpent offers Eve the knowledge of good and evil as a substitute for God. The third element in this temptation is the presenting of a method to obtain the substitute god. Satan implied that this knowledge of good and evil could be obtained only through the process of eating. This was part of Satan’s strategy. He had to obscure the basic fact that knowledge, moral as well as scientific, is obtained by decision, a choice, an acceptance or rejection. Adam and Eve could have known good and evil by their acceptance of the good (obeying God’s command) and their rejection of the evil (Satan’s temptation to disobey God’s command). Evil may be equally known in its rejection as in its acceptance. Rejection is a far better way to know evil, for one does not have to receive the painful consequences of the choice of evil. The knowledge of good and evil was not something God was trying to keep from them, contrary to Satan’s lie. God was trying to give to them in the only way possible, by decision, by a choice between good and evil. Of course it was necessary for Satan to obscure this fact that knowledge comes by decision. Otherwise there would be no necessity for eating of the fruit of the tree and thus disobeying God and sin.
At the serpent’s suggestion, Eve ate of the tree and gave it to her husband, Adam, who also ate (Gen. 3:6). Thus did man first sin. What was the nature of Adam’s sin? Was it disobedince, unbelief, rebellion, or a transgression? It was all of these, but also something more basically. It was not merely something negative but something positive. It was idolatry. In Genesis 3:6, the Biblical explanation of Adam’s sin is given:
“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband and he ate.” (Gen. 3:6 NAS)
The woman saw it was good for food — she had probably observed this many times before; we have no record that the serpent told her that. She saw that it was a delight to the eyes. She had surely noticed this before also. Neither of these appeals had previously made this fruit a temptation to her. It was the third element that made it a temptation: It was a tree to be desired to make one wise. As was seen above, the serpent added this element (Gen. 3:5). This was not a temptation to pride as some have affirmed; it was a temptation to put wisdom and knowledge in the place of God. Adam’s sin was basically misplaced ultimate allegiance. It was not just unbelief but wrong faith: trust in that which is not God. The technical Biblical term for it is idolatry.
“You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3) This first of the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic Law introduces us to the Biblical view of sin. From the Biblical point of view, sin must be understood in terms of idolatry, faith in a false god. It is the central theme of the message of the Law and the prophets concerning sin. The first two commandments of the Law are about idolatry (Exodus 20:3-6; 20:23; 22:20; 34:12-17; Deut. 5:7-9). Moses often and strongly warns the children of Israel against this sin.
“14You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people who are around about you; 15for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; lest the anger of the Lord your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.” (Deut. 6:14-15; See also Deut. 4:15-19, 23-28; 7:4-5, 16, 25-26; 8:19; 11:16-17, 28; 12:2-4, 29-31; 13:1-16; 17:2-5; 29:24-28;
31:16-18; 32:15-22).
The message of the prophets is also directed against this sin. The prophet Jeremiah writes:
“2Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: you have seen all the evil that I brought upon Jerusalem and upon all the cities of Judah. Behold, this day they are a desolation, and no one dwells in them, 3because of the wickedness which they committed, provoking me to anger, in that they went to burn incense and serve other gods that they knew not, neither they, nor you, nor your fathers. 4Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, ‘Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!’
5But they did not listen or incline their ear, to turn from their wickedness and burn no incense to other gods. 6Therefore my wrath and my anger were poured forth and kindled in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they became a waste and a desolation as at this day.” (Jer. 44:2-6; See also Josh. 23:15-16; Judges 2:11-15; 3:7-8; 10:6-7; I Kings 14:9; 16:25-26; 22:53; II Kings 17:9-18; 21:2-6; Psa. 44:20-21; 78:56-64; 81:8-10; 96:4-5; 106:19-21, 34-39; 115:2-8; 135:15-18; Isa. 2:8; 37:18-20; 40:18-20; 41:29; 42:8,17; 43:10-12; 44:6-20; 45:5-6, 16-17, 20-22; 46:5-7; Jer. 1:16; 2:11-13, 26-28; 5:19; 8:19; 10:1-16; 19:4-5; 44:22-23; Ezek. 14:2-11; 20:15-18, 23-24; 36:17-18; Hosea 2:13; 4:11-13; Micah 5:13-15; Hab. 2:18-19; Zeph. 1:4-6.
Thus, it can be seen that the Old Testament writers were primarily concerned with the sin of idolatry. Idolatry is not just the worship of graven images made of wood, stone or metal (Col. 3:5; see also Eph. 5:5). The false gods whose worship is idolatry are not always so crude or absurd. Many things such as pleasure, wealth, power, education, the family, society, the state, democracy, experience, reason and science, which are good in their proper place, may become a person’s god. One of these sophisticated deities has recently been given the following public confession:
“Men bet their lives on it [science] as they do on other gods, and on the record, it functions no less divinely than any other …. ‘God’ is no less fitting an appellation for this [science] than for any that churchmem so name and require laymen to bet their lives on, worship and adjure.” [1]
Science, of course, is not the only god to which modern man looks for deliverance. Today’s pantheon is as full of gods as those of ancient Greece and Rome. The only difference is that these twentieth century gods are not so easily identified as such. They have become more sophisticated and civilized. But the absence of a label does not alter the content of the package. Although anonymous, they are none the less gods when they become the object of faith and trust in a man’s life. If anything, they are more dangerous and deceptive because they are not generally recognized as gods. What is a god? Martin Luther in his comments on the first commandment in his Large Catechism answers this question very clearly:
“A god is that to which we look for all good and in which we find refuge in every time of need. To have a god is nothing else than to trust and believe in him with our whole heart. As I have often said, the trust and faith of the heart alone make both God and the idol … For these two belong together, faith and God. That to which your heart clings and entrusts itself is, I say, really your God.” [2]
Faith is the commitment and devotion of a person to some object which is for that person of ultimate significance and supreme importance. That object to which a person is committed and devoted is that person’s “god.” The term “god” need not refer to the personal triune God of the Christian religion nor to the object of faith and trust of any historical or formal religion. It is a functional term, that is, a term which takes its meaning from the particular function or operation performed by the object to which the term applies. A god performs the function of the object of supreme importance and ultimate significance to which a person or group of persons may commit and devote themselves.
“Taken by itself this word [god] carries as little specific meaning as the word ‘good.’ Both are empty receptacles whose content varies from man to man and from religion to religion.” [3]
At the suggestion that he worships a god, the irreligious and atheist may be shocked and incredulous. But every man must have a god. By his very constitution a man must necessarily have a god to which he can commit and devote himself, in which he can trust. This is apparent from an analysis of human freedom. There are three elements in every decision:
(a) an agent with the ability to choose,
(b) the alternatives to choose between, and
(c) the criterion by which the choice is to be made.
This last element is often overlooked or ignored in the analysis of freedom. The choice between the alternatives is made with reference to some criterion of choice, and the choice cannot be made without this reference. That is, it is impossible to make any decision as to how to act or think without appealing to some criterion of the good and the true. Every human decision necessarily involves a relationship to something in or beyond the self as a criterion of decision. In other words, behind every decision as to what a person should do or think there must be a reason. And the ultimate reason for any decision, practical or theoretical, must be given in terms of some particular criterion, an ultimate reference or orientation point in or beyond the self or person making the decision. This ultimate criterion is that person’s god. In this sense, every man must have god, that is, an ultimate criterion of decision. Thus in the very exercise of his freedom — decision — man shows he is a creature who must have a god. [4]
From this point of view, no man is an atheist in the basic meaning of the word, that is, no god. Every man must have a god. Man is a religious animal who necessarily must have some object of ultimate allegiance and trust which functions as his guide of truth and his norm of conduct. Every man must choose a god. Though free to adopt the god of his choice, no man is free to avoid this decision. Every attempt to do so turns out to be not a denial of having a god but an exchange of gods. To ask whether one believes in the existence of God is to completely misunderstand the issue. The issue is not whether one should choose between theism or atheism, that is, to believe in the existence of God or not, but whether one should choose this god or that god as the true God. The atheist’s god is that there is no god.
Since everyone must have a god, the crucial question for every man is: which god is the true God? Or to put the question differently: how are we to distinguish between the one true God on the one hand, and the many false gods on the other? In other words, by what means can we determine which of all possible gods are pretenders and which is the true one? The clue to the answer to these questions may be found in a further analysis of freedom.
As we have already seen, every man by the structure of his freedom must have a god. That is, in every one of his choices a man must necessarily appeal to some criterion by reference to which the decision is made. And the ultimate criterion by which a man makes his choices is his god. Clearly then, the choice of one’s god is the most basic and fundamental choice that a man can make, it lies behind and is presupposed by every other decision as to what a man will do or think; it is clearly the most important exercise of his freedom. What should one choose as his ultimate criterion of his decisions? Negatively, he should not choose that as his ultimate criterion which will destroy or negate the very freedom of choice by which it is chosen. And positively, he should choose only that ultimate criterion which will enhance and fulfill that freedom. Any ultimate criterion that denies or takes away the very freedom of choice by which it is chosen cannot be the true God. The choice of such an ultimate criterion is a contradiction of man’s basic freedom of choice; such a god is fatal to man’s freedom.
By freedom, we do not mean purposeless caprice or chance, indeterminism, but rather the ability of choice, freedom of decision, self-determination. Neither is this freedom an abstract entity, “freedom-in-general,” Freiheit, but rather the concrete decision of someone, of a free agent. The most appropriate word for such a being who has such freedom is the word “person.” A person is a being that is self-determining, not determined, who has freedom, free will, the ability to choose. A person is to be distinguished from a non-person, a thing, an “it,” a being that is determined, not self-determining, that has no freedom, no free will, no ability to choose.
A god that is a thing has less freedom than the person who chooses it. Such a god who does not have as much freedom as the one who chooses it cannot be the true God. It cannot do any more for them than they can do for themselves. Such a god is only the projection of the whims and fancies of the worshippers because it is in reality inferior to its worshippers. As a minimum criterion, therefore, a god can be recognized as a false god if it has less freedom than man himself. [5] An impersonal or non-personal god is, therefore, a false god. To choose such a god as one’s ultimate criterion of choice would be a denial of one’s freedom of choice and the worst kind of bondage. A false god can also be recognized by the effect that it has upon the freedom of the one who gives it his allegiance. An impersonal or non-personal god because it does not have as much freedom as the one who chooses it as his god limits the freedom and puts into bondage the one who chooses it. The true God, on the other hand, must be at least a person in order to have at least as much freedom as the one who chooses him as his god. But the true God must not only be a person, He must also have unlimited freedom if He is to be able to do the things that He has promises and to deliver the one who cries to Him in trouble and need. A god without unlimited freedom might not be able to keep his promises or to save the one who cries to Him for help. Therefore, a god that does not have unlimited freedom must be a false god. The prophet Isaiah applies this criterion to the denumciation of idolatry.
“6Those who lavish gold from the purse, and weigh out silver in the scales, hire a goldsmith, and he makes it into a god; then they fall down and worship! 7They lift it upon their shoulders, they carry it, they set it in its place. If one cries to it, it does not answer or save him from his trouble.” (Isa. 46:6-7; See also Isa. 44:18-20; 45:20-21; Psa. 115:2-7; 135:5-7, 15-17).
The true God, on the other hand, has unlimited freedom; He can do whatever He pleases (Psa. 115:3; 135:6); He can save when He is called upon (Isa. 43:11; 45:15-17). The true God, therefore, is a person (or persons) with unlimited freedom. A person is a being that is self-determining, that has free will. And false god does not have that kind of being. It is a “super-It”. It does not even have as much freedom as its worshippers. It should now be obvious why false gods cannot produce. They either do not have freedom, self-determination, or their freedom is limited. The true God, since he has freedom — he is a person or persons — and his freedom is unlimited — he is all powerful, the Creator, and He can fulfill the promises He can make; He can answer when He is called upon and deliver the one who cries to Him in trouble and need. The Apostle Paul, in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, also refers to these same criteria to show that man is without excuse for his idolatry.
“19Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it to them. 20For since the creation of the world
the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:19-20 ERS)
In verse 19, Paul refers to a knowledge of God which all men have and in verse 20, he says two things about this knowledge:
(a) This knowledge is a knowledge of the “invisible things of him,” of God, namely, “his eternal power and Godhead” or divine nature.
(b) These two “invisible things of him” are clearly seen (verse 20), that is, manifested, laid open to public view (verse 19).
This paradoxical way of stating the source of this knowledge raises the question: how are these unseen things clearly seen? The answer is given in the phrase “being understood by the things that are made” (verse 20). They are seen by a rational act, the act of the mind, “by the things that are made”. For the things that are made are analogous in their being to the unseen things of Him. That which God created reflects the invisible things of Him, the Creator, like a work of art reflects the artist. (Of course, this analogy of the artist and his work cannot be applied to the Creator and His creation without reservations.) All examples of power in the physical world, the earthquakes, storms, even nuclear energy, are like God’s eternal power. The creation reflects the Creator in His power. If this be so, then what in all creation is like His Godhead or divine nature? Only man himself is analoguous to God’s divine nature because man alone has been created in the image of God (compare verse 19: “that which is known of God is manifest in them“). Man’s person is similar to God’s person. Paul uses this same analogy between God’s being and man’s being in his address on Mars Hill, the Areopagus, in Athens recorded in Acts 17:22-31 to argue against idolatry. After he had quoted one of the Greek’s own poets as saying “For we are also his offspring,” Paul argues,
“Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.” (Acts 17:29 NAS; Compare to theion translated “Divine nature” in this verse with theiotes in Rom. 1:20 which is also translated “divine nature” NAS.)
Since we were created by God in His image, the nature of God must be at least as personal as our nature. Therefore, the true God cannot be a non-person, a thing made of gold or silver or stone, an image made by man. God’s being must be as personal as our being, if we are the offspring of God, that is, created in His image.
But not only is it true that in man alone is there found that which is like God’s being, but it is also true that in man alone is there found that which is the best analogy of God’s eternal power. The human will in its limited power and freedom is the best analogy in all creation of the divine will with its unlimited power and freedom. (Note that power, dunamis, means “to be able”, dunamai.) What greater created power is there than the power to bless or destroy? In this sense, the human power to choose to use the nuclear bomb is greater than the power of the bomb itself. The power of human freedom of decision is greater than the power of physical energy. In man, therefore, we find that which is the analogy in creation of God’s eternal power and His divine personal nature. The mind of man employing these analogies of being perceives the invisible things of Him through the things that are made or created by God. Thus “God manifest it [the truth] unto them” (verse 19). The unseen things of God are clearly seen because that which is known of God is manifested in them. So man is without excuse for his idolatry, exchanging the truth about God for a lie and worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). Man has no excuse for choosing a false god. He knows that it is not the true God because a false god is impersonal and/or powerless; it is less of a person than he is and has as little or less power or freedom than he has.
It is this knowledge about what the true God must be like that lies behind all primitive religions, with their anthropomorphic gods. Primitive man knows what a god must be like in order to be the true God. This knowledge derived intuitively from the nature of his freedom makes him uneasy about the things that he worships as god. He knows that the true God must be a living God. But having failed to encounter such a God, he fills the vacuum with what he imagines to be facsimile of Him. And since the highest living being he knows is himself, he makes gods in his own image. He also knows that the true God must be a God of unlimited power, not limited like man himself. He therefore identifies these anthropomorphic creations with the powerful forces that he sees in the physical world about him. Beyond the simple and profound suspicion that such a God does exist, he is at the end of his knowledge (“…whom ye ignorantly worship…” Acts 17:23 KJV). [6]
In what way can man find any additional knowledge of the true God? In the same way in which he gets knowledge about another person: by what the other person says and does. But the initiative lies with the other person. If he remains silent and inactive, no knowledge is available in addition to the fact that he is there. Therefore, if man is to know anything additional about the true God, God must take the initiative and reveal Himself in word and/or deed. And God has taken the initiative and has revealed Himself in word and deed. The Bible is a record of the “words and the mighty acts of God.” The true God is not silent and He is not inactive; He has spoken and He has acted. This is recorded for us in a book, the Bible. And we know that these are the words and deeds of the true God because they are the words and the acts of a God who is a personal being and has unlimited freedom. The God who is revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the living God who created all things. (The living God – Joshua 3:10; I Sam. 17:26; Psa. 84:2; Jer. 10:10; Matt. 16:16; Acts 14:15; I Thess. 1:9; I Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:31; The Creator – Gen. 1:1; 2:3-4; Ex. 4:11; Neh. 9:6; Job 38:4; Psa. 90:2; 102:25; 104:1-5,24; Isa. 40:28; 44:24; 45:11-12, 18; 48:12-13; Jer. 10:11-12; John 1:1-3; Acts 17:24; I Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2,10; 11:3; Rev. 4:11). Because God is a person, He is alive; and because He has unlimited freedom, He is the all powerful Creator of all things. The God of the Bible is the true God, and all other gods are false. The choice of any other god than this one is idolatry.
Idolatry is the basic sin. This may be clearly seen from the Ten Commandments of the Mosaic law. For the first two commandments are about the sin of idolatry (Exodus 20:3-6). This is because a false god usurps the place of the true God in a man’s life. In a sense, all sins are against God (Compare II Sam. 12:13; Job 7:20; Psa. 41:4; 51:4), but the sin of idolatry is very clearly directed against God Himself. It is a direct repudiation of the Creator for the creature; it is a direct insult to the true God and an affront to His divine majesty. No more serious sin could be imagined than this one. Since it is the most serious sin, it is also the most basic.
The basic sin is not only not to trust in the true God but to trust in something other than the true God. This is the sin of sins. Rebellion against, unbelief in, and disobedience to the Creator, bad as they are, are only negative sins — rebellion is the rejection of God’s authority; unbelief is not to trust in God’s love; and disobedience is not to obey God’s commands. But idolatry is a positive sin which turns to an alternate and replacement for the true God. It is to give one’s allegiance, trust and obedience to something other than the One who should have that allegiance, trust and obedience. It is the more serious sin. As Samuel said to Saul:
“For rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry.” (I Sam. 15:23).
Here Samuel compares rebellion and insubordination with the more serious sin of idolatry. (Divination in the Old Testament times was almost always associated with idolatry [Deut. 4:19; 17:3; 18:9-14; II Kings 17:16-17; Isa. 41:21-24; Ezek. 13:17-23; 21:21-22]. The parallelism in I Sam. 15:23 shows that idolatry and divination are nearly synonymous.) Rebellion and insubordination are only the negative side of the sin of idolatry; that is, the act of turning against the true God is only negative part of the act of turning to a false god. Idolatry is the more serious sin and hence the more basic sin.
But idolatry is also the basic sin because this sin leads to other sins. It leads to other sins because a person’s god, being his ultimate criterion of decision, ultimately controls the direction and character of a man’s decisions. The wrong choice of a false god will lead to other wrong choices. That is, the god to which a person commits and devotes himself will determine the quality of his whole life. It furnishes him with an entire set of values and these values will in turn govern his every specific decision, intellectual and practical. Thus every god stamps its worshippers with its own trademark. In fact, the worshipper becomes like the god he worships. As the Psalmist says concerning the idolater,
“4Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. 5They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. 6They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. 7They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. 8Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them.” (Psa. 115:4-8; see also Psa. 135:15-18)
Since out of the heart are the issues of life (Prov. 4:23), and as a man thinks in his heart, so is he (Prov. 23:7), then what a man has set up in his heart as his god will affect the quality and character of his whole life. It is what a man believes in his heart that determines what he says and does. As Jesus said, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:33-35; Luke 6:43-45). Thus if a man sets up an idol in his heart (Ezek. 14:3-5), then out of the heart will come all manner of sins. Jesus recognized this when he declared,
“21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.” (Mark 7:21-23; compare Matt. 15:15-20)
Thus if in his heart a man clings to a false god, his actions and speech will show it. In this way also, idolatry is the basic sin. From the discussion of idolatry as the basic sin, it should be clear that sin in general must be defined in terms of the true God. Accordingly, sin should be defined as any free, uncoerced act of the will (decision, choice) that is contrary to ultimate personal allegiance to the true God. That is, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23 KJV). In other words, sin is any choice that is contrary to faith and trust in the true God (John 16:9; compare John 3:18). According to this definition, unbelief (infidelity, not incredulity) is sin. But so are disobedience and rebellion sins. It is not just any unbelief that is sin but unbelief in God. Unbelief as such is not sin. Unbelief is sin only in reference to God; it is sin only when it is God who is not trusted. Similarly with respect to disobedience and rebellion. Disobedience as such is not sin, neither is rebellion. They are sin only in reference to God. Disobedience is sin only when it is God who is disobeyed; and rebellion is sin only when it is God who is rebelled against. Sin in all cases must be defined in terms of true God.
But because man must have a god, sin is more than not trusting in the true God; it is trusting in a false god. A man must make his decisions with reference to the true God or some false one. No middle ground exists. To be is to choose, and to choose is to have a god. To be, therefore, is to have a god. By the structure of his freedom, the being of man is necessarily linked to some god. Therefore, if a man does not trust in the true God, he will trust in a false god. In fact, a man does not trust in the true God because he has put his trust in a false god. In general, the rejection of one god can only be done in the name of another. Accordingly, sin is more than unbelief, not trusting in God; it is trusting in a false god. Similarly, sin is more than disobedience, not obeying God; it is obedience to a false god. Likewise, sin is more than rebellion against God; it is allegiance to a false god. Sin, in general, is not only any choice contrary to faith and trust in the true God, but it is also any choice that implies faith and trust in a false god. Pride is not the basic sin; it is a by-product of idolatry. Pride is that attitude of heart that trusts and boasts in a false god.
“Blessed is the man who makes the Lord his trust, who does not turn to the proud, to those go astray after false gods!” (Psa. 40:4)
Not all pride is wrong. Pride and boasting in the Lord is good and is commanded in the Scriptures.
“Therefore, as it is written, ‘Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.'” (I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17)
“But let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord who practice steadfast love, judgment, and righteousness in the earth; for in these things I delight, says the Lord.” (Jer. 9:23 ERS)
The pride of Satan was an idolatry of himself; he put himself in the place of God as a substitute for the true God.
“2Because your heart is proud, and you have said, ‘I am a god, I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas,’ yet you are but a man, and no god, though you consider yourself as wise a god – … 6therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Because you consider yourself wise as a god, 7therefore, behold, I will bring strangers upon you, the most terrible of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and defile your splendor. 8They shall thrust you down into the Pit, and you shall die the death of the slain in the heart of the seas.” (Ezek. 28:2,6-8; see also Isa. 14:12-14)
Idolatry of the self makes pride of self appear to be the basic sin, but this is because idolatry is not recognized as the basic sin and pride (in the negative sense) as the by-product of idolatry. Also pride in itself cannot be the basic sin because it is not prohibited in the Ten Commandments. Since by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20), the Ten Commandments of the law surely must prohibit the most basic sin. The first two commandments are directly concerned with idolatry, and the third warns against taking God’s name lightly. But pride is not even mentioned, either in the Ten Commandments or in Christ’s summary of the law. Rather He says that the first (and therefore most basic) commandment is to love God with one’s whole being. In fact, He adds that the love of God and of one’s neighbor is the foundation of the whole law and of the teaching of the prophets (Matt. 22:37-40). The sin of idolatry is the opposite of the love of the true God; it is the love of a false god. Idolatry, not pride, is the most basic sin.
Sin, in general, must be defined in terms of this basic sin. Accordingly, sin would be defined as an act of the will that is contrary to personal ultimate allegiance to the true God. That is, “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23 KJV).
Why do men sin? What is the origin of sin? The Biblical answer is twofold:
(a) sin had its historical origin in the act of Adam which is called the fall, and
(b) sin has its immediate, contemporary and personal origin in the spiritual death which along with physical death spread upon the whole race because of Adam’s act of sin.
The classical passage of Scripture that sets forth this twofold origin of sin is Romans 5:12.
“Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed unto all men, because of which all sinned:–” (ERS)
The historical origin of sin set forth in the phrase, “through one man sin entered into the world.” This is a direct reference to the first man, Adam, and his act of sin, the Fall of Man.
The consequence of Adam’s act of sin is expressed in the second clause of Romans 5:12: “and death through sin.” God had given Adam an explicit command, a prohibition, the transgression of which would result in death.
“16And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.'” (Gen. 2:16-17 NAS)
Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and died. But in what sense did they die? Obviously they did not immediately die physically. But since God promised that they would die in the day that they ate of the tree and since God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29; Psa. 89:35; Heb. 6:18), they must have died that day in some other sense than physical death. The death that they experienced that day has been called spiritual death. Even though the distinction between spiritual and physical death is not made explicitly anywhere in the Scriptures, the distinction is implied by (Gen. 3:8) and assumed by the Scriptures (I Tim. 5:6). Jesus recognized this distinction between spiritual death and physical death when he said, “Let the dead bury their dead” (Matt. 8:22 KJV; Luke 9:60), that is, “Let the spiritual dead bury their physical dead.” [7] That Adam and Eve died spiritually is clearly seen in that they hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God (Gen. 3:8) and later were driven out of the garden, away from the tree of life (Gen. 3:22-24), lest they eat and live physically forever.
“22Then the Lord God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand
and take also of tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’ — 23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. 24He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned in every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.” (Gen. 3:22-24).
Just as physical death is separation of man’s spirit (the person or self) from the body and not extinction, annihilation or merely the dissolution of the living organism, so spiritual death is the separation, alienation of man from God — not the death or annihilation of the spirit (Eph 4:18; Col. 1:21; James 2:26). It is the opposite of spiritual life which is to know God personally and have fellowship and communion with Him (John 17:3; 5:24; Eph. 2:1; Gal. 4:8-9; I Cor. 1:9; I John 1:3,5-8). Spiritual death is a negative or no personal relationship between man and God. It is like a barrier or “iron curtain” between them. It is separation from God or, more accurately, death separates man from God. Death is a power. It is personified in the Scriptures as a king who reigns over the whole human race. Paul says, “by the offense of one, death reigned through one” (Rom. 5:17; see also Rom. 5:14). Death as a kingly power separates man from God (spiritual death) and brings about eventually the separation of man’s spirit from his body (physical death). Physical death is the outward expression and necessary accompaniment of spiritual death (Psa. 88:3-5; Isa. 38:10-11, 18; Psa. 6:5; 30:9; 115:17; Eccl. 9:18). Even though we may distinguish between them, they are never separated from each other. From the Biblical point of view spiritual and physical death are inseparable, and in the Scriptures death always seems to include both. This may be the reason that Jesus (John 11:11-14) and other early Christians (Acts 7:60-8:1; I Cor. 15:18, 20; I Thess. 4:13-15) spoke of physical death as “fallen asleep” in Christ. Since believers in Christ had been saved “from death to life” in Christ, they had not really died when they died physically but had just “fallen asleep” in Christ.
But spiritual death not only affects the relationship of man to God, it also affects the relationship of man with his fellowman. This is apparent from the fact that Adam and Eve were ashamed before each other of their nakeness and sought to make themselves clothes for covering (Gen. 3:7). Men cannot bear the thought of letting other people see their true selves. They hide themselves behind masks and often pretend to be something other than they really are. This is because the fellowhip with their fellow man is broken. They are separated and alienated from each other as well as from God (I John 3:14). Spiritual death is spiritual isolation from man and from God. But spiritual death also affects the relationship of man to himself. Man’s body is no longer under the complete control of man’s will. Just as man has lost his dominion over the physical and biological world as a result of Adam’s sin, he has also lost his dominion over his own body. He can no longer completely control his desires and impulses. It too lies under the curse (Gen. 3:17-19). We groan inwardly because of the effects of the curse on our physical bodies (Rom. 8:22-23; II Cor. 5:2-4). Our bodies are not only physically dying, subject to physical death, mortal, but they are spiritually dead also — out of fellowship with our spirits. “Your bodies are dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10), because of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12). As the result, physical and spiritual death are at work in us (II Cor. 4:12a).
“For the flesh sets its desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you wish” (Gal. 5:17 ERS).
This is not to say that the body is sinful or that we have a sinful nature. This only means that our bodies are spiritually dead, not under the complete control of our spirits (Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38). Spiritual death has affected the relationship of man to himself as well as to God and his fellow man. And this is the result of Adam’s act of sin. Man has fallen from the image of God in which he was created. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost both the dominion over creation (Gen. 3:17-19) and fellowship with each other (Gen. 3:7, 11-12). However, the presupposition of these — the freedom of choice — was not lost; the possibility of restoration to the image of God is still there in man.
Adam’s sin did not just affect himself and his wife alone, but all his descendants. This is expressed in the third clause of Romans 5:12: “and so death passed unto all men.” Adam’s descendants are not born in the image of God but in the image of Adam. For when Adam became the father of a son, Seth, he begat him in his own likeness, after his own image (Gen. 5:3). Adam’s descendants now bear the image of the man of dust (I Cor. 15:47-49), the old man (Col. 3:9; Eph. 4:22). They are each subject to death, physical and spiritual. According to Romans 5:14 and 17 death reigns as a king over the human race. Men today, Adam’s descendants, are different from Adam himself. As Adam was originally created, he was physically and spiritually alive, walking in fellowship with God (Gen. 3:8). There was no barrier between him and God. But this is not true of Adam’s descendants. They are born spiritually dead and in the process of dying physically. From birth they are in a state of alienation from God. This is not because of anything they have done but because of what Adam had done. Paul makes this important point by the digression in Romans 5:13-14:
“13For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression of Adam.” (Rom. 5:13-14 ERS)
In the period between Adam and Moses, before the Mosaic law was given, there was no law. And since there was no law, there could be no transgression of it (Rom. 4:15b) and death was not the result of men’s sin. Those between Adam and Moses did not have a divine commandment like Adam or a divine law like the children of Israel after Moses that makes death the result of sin. They did not sin like Adam; their sin was not a transgression of a commandment or of the law which made death the result of sin. But yet death reigned between Adam and Moses. They died not because of their own sins but because of the sin of Adam. And this is true not only of those descendants of Adam between Adam and Moses but of all Adam’s descendants: they are all born spiritually dead and in the process of dying physically not because of their own sins but because of Adam’s sin.
Man is not responsible for this condition of spiritual and physical death inherited from Adam. The descendants of Adam are neither held accountable for the sin of Adam nor for the spiritual or physical death resulting from it (Rom. 5:13-14). They are only responsible for their own personal rejection of the true God and their ultimate commitment to and trust in a false god. Even though man is born into the world spiritually dead, alienated from God, not knowing God personally, he is not thereby exempt from responsibility for the choice of a false god. As Paul says in Romans 1:20,
“…since the creation of the world the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:30 ERS)
This knowledge of the true God leaves man without an excuse for his idolatry. This knowledge does not save him because it is a knowledge about God and not a personal knowledge of God. But even though it does not save him, it is sufficient to leave man without excuse for his idolatry. He knows that his impersonal and/or powerless god is a false god and is not the personal, all powerful true God (Isa. 46:5-11; Jer. 10:10-15). Man is thus responsible for his personal rejection of the true God and his trust in a false god. And man is also responsible for remaining in the state of spiritual death when deliverance from it is offered to him in the person of Jesus Christ. If he refuses and rejects the gift of eternal and spiritual life in Christ Jesus (I John 5:12), he must reap the harvest and receive the wages of his decision, eternal death.
“The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).
If a man refuses the gift of spiritual and eternal life in Jesus Christ and continues to put his trust in a false god and to remain in spiritual death, then after he dies physically, at the judgment (Heb. 9:27) he will receive the wages of his decision, eternal death. Eternal death is the continuation of spiritual death, after physical death and the last judgment, into eternity without the possibility of change. This is hell, eternal separation from God, the second death (Rev. 20:14; 21:6-8). No one sends a man to hell; he chooses it himself and the last judgment confirms that decision for eternity. Thus there are three kinds of death: physical, spiritual and eternal death. Man is not responsible for the physical or spiritual death, which he has received from Adam, but only for the eternal death.
The relationship between the death, spiritual and physical, that was passed unto all men, and the sin of all men is given in the last clause of Romans 5:12: eph ho pantes hamarton which is usually translated “because all [men] sinned” (RSV, NAS, NIV).
The interpretation of this clause hangs on the meaning of the Greek prepositional phrase at its beginning, eph ho. This phrase is made up of a preposition epi and a relative pronoun ho. The preposition epi has several different meanings depending upon the immediate context and the case of the noun or pronoun with which it occurs. Its primary meaning is superposition, on, upon. Since the relative pronoun ho is in the dative case, the metaphorical meaning of ground, or reason, seems best here for the preposition epi. Thus it should be translated on the ground of, by reason of, on the condition of, because of. The meaning of the relative pronoun depends upon its antecedent. In the Greek language, the relative pronoun agrees with the antecedent in number and gender. Here the relative pronoun is singular in number but it may be either masculine or neuter in gender.
If the relative pronoun ho is taken as masculine and the word ho thanatos [the death] in the preceding clause, which is singular and masculine, is taken as its antecedent. Then the prepositional phrase eph ho would be equivalent to epi thanato [because of death]. In that case, the phrase should be translated “because of which” or “upon which condition.” With this meaning given to the prepositional phrase, the whole clause may be translated “because of which all sinned” and interpreted to mean that all men sinned because of death that has been transmitted to them from Adam. In other words, the transmitted death from Adam provides the grounds or condition upon which all men sin.
How is it possible for all men to sin because of death? This may be explained in the following way. Since man is born into this world spiritually dead, not knowing the true God personally, and since man by the structure of his freedom must choose a god, then he will obviously choose a false god because he does not personally know the true God. Since the true God is not a living reality to him, and since he must have a god, man will choose some part or aspect of reality as his god, deifying it.
“…they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator…” (Rom. 1:25).
Paul, writing to the Galatians, described this relationship of sin-because-death when he reminded them of their condition before they became Christians.
“Formerly, when you did not know God, you were in bondage to beings that by nature are no gods” (Gal. 4:8).
Not to “know God” personally as a living reality is to be spiritually dead. And a man is in “in bondage to beings that are no gods” when he chooses them as his gods. He is then in bondage to them because he does not know personally the only true God, that is, because he is spiritually dead. Thus man sins (chooses a false god) because he is spiritually dead. This relationship between death and sin is what Paul is describing in the last clause of Romans 5:12: “because of which [death] all men sinned” (ERS). Spiritual death in the case of Adam’s descendants leads to sin; not the other way around.
To continue, type here.
ENDNOTES
[1] Horace M. Kallen, Democracy’s True Religion
(Boston: The Beacon Press, 1951), p. 10;
quoted in E. LaB. Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart
(New York: Doubleday & Co., 1955), p. 153.
[2] Martin Luther, The Large Catechism of Martin Luther
trans. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), p. 9.
[3] Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart, p. 40.
[4] Ibid., pp. 39-40. See also E. LaB. Cherbonnier,
“Biblical Metaphysic and Christian Philosophy,”
Theology Today 9 (October 1952): 367.
To read this article, click here.
[5] Cherbonnier, “Biblical Metaphysics,” pp. 367-370.
To read this article, click here.
[6] Cherbonnier, “Biblical Metaphysics,” p. 369.
To read this article, click here.
[7] This distinction between spiritual and physical death seems to have originated very early in Christian theology.
“Now there is a certain bond and fellowship in the sinful passions between soul and body, and a certain analogy between bodily and spiritual death. Just as we call the body’s separation from sentient life ‘death,’ so we give the same name to the soul’s separation from genuine life.”
Gregory of Nyssa, “Address on Religious Instruction,” 8, in
The Library of Christian Classics,
ed. Edward Rochie Hardy and Cyril C. Richardson, vol. 3.
(Philadelpha: Westminster Press, 1954), p. 284.
Earlier Irenaeus defined spiritual life and death.
“And to as many as continue in their love toward God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation for God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store.”
Irenaeus Against Heresies bk. 5. ch. 27.2. in
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, ed.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson
(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1885 – no reprint date), p. 556.
See discussion of this passage in Gustaf Wingren,
Man and the Incarnation,
(Philadephia: Muhlenberg Press, 1959), p. 57-58.