bvman1
THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF MAN
by Ray Shelton
INTRODUCTION
What is the Biblical view of man? What does the Bible say about the nature and origin of man? Let us go back to the early chapters of the book of Genesis and examine what it says about the creation and fall of man in order to begin our investigation and try to answer these questions and to understand the Biblical view of man.
The basic Biblical assertion about man is that he is created by God (Gen. 1:26-27).
“26 Then 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.’
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
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:
“13 For He [God] delivered us from the domain of darkness, and translated us to the kingdom of His beloved Son. 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins; 15 And 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.
“26 Then 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.’
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
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.'”
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 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.
But man did not stay in this original state — in the way God created him in His image. He fell away from the image of God. How did this happen? The second and third chapters of Genesis tell us how this happened. After God created man and placed him in a garden (Gen. 2:8, 15), God gave to him a command:
“16 And the Lord God commanded man, saying, ‘From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but 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)
And after the woman was created, she was tempted by the serpent (Gen. 3:1) who is also called Satan (the adversary) and devil (the slanderer, Rev. 12:9). 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: “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
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 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.
At the serpent’s suggestion, Eve ate of the tree and gave 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. 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 desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband and he ate.”
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. 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.
“14 You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people who are around about you; 15 for 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:
“2 Thus 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, 3 because 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. 4 Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, ‘Oh, do not do this abominable thing that I hate!’
5 But they did not listen or incline their ear, to turn from their wickedness and burn no incense to other gods. 6 Therefore 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.
“6 Those 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! 7 They 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. The classic illustration of the application of these criteria for determining which god is the true God is found in the story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal (I Kings 18:17-39). After challenging the apostate people of Israel to make up their minds between Jehovah and Baal: “If Jehovah be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” (verse 21, ARV), Elijah proposed a very concrete test by which the true God may be known and the false god be exposed as a fraud.
“23 ‘Now let them give us two oxen; and let them choose one ox for themselves and cut it up, and place it on the wood, but put no fire under it; and I will prepare the other ox, and lay it on the wood, and I will not put a fire under it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord, and the God who answers by fire, He is God.’ And all the people answered and said, ‘That is a good idea.'” (verses 23-24 NAS)
The test is to see which god can produce. For a false god cannot answer when it is called upon; it cannot act to deliver the one who cries to it in trouble or need.
“26 Then they [the prophets of Baal] took the ox which was given to them and they prepared it and called on the name of Baal, from morning until noon saying, ‘O Baal, answer us.’ But there was no voice and no one answered … 29 And it came about when midday was past, that they raved until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice; but there was no voice, no one answered, and no one paid attention.” (verses 26, 29 NAS)
By this test, all false gods may be detected: a false god cannot produce, cannot respond when called upon. Elijah’s proposal was the application of this test to determine which of the two rival gods, Jehovah or Baal, was the pretender and which was the true God. Elijah, like the other prophets of the true God, Jehovah, did not hesitate to apply this test because he knew what the true God could do.
“36 Then it came about at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, ‘O Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, today let it be known that Thou art God in Israel, and that I am Thy servant, and that I have done all these things at Thy word. 37 Answer me, O Lord, answer me, that this people may know that Thou, O Lord, art God, and that Thou hast turned their hearts back again.’ 38 Then fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. 39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces;
and they said, ‘The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God.'” (verses 36-39 NAS; see also Isa. 46:1-11; 40:18-26; Jer. 10:6-16)
Not only are false gods unable to produce, but they visit their worshippers with the opposite of what they promise. They entice their worshippers with glittering prospects, but then visit them with cruel disillusionment. The worshippers of a false god are betrayed into the opposite of what they want.
“Then Elijah said to them, ‘Seize the prophets of Baal; do not let one of them escape.’ So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.” (verse 40 NAS)
The modern sophisticated gods also disappoint their worshippers. For example, the god of Reason betrays its followers into blind irrationalism. Witness the irrationalism of the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution which was carried on in the name of Reason. Why cannot false gods produce? Some false gods cannot produce because they are non-persons, things. This is the point of Elijah’s taunts of the prophets of Baal.
“And it came about at noon, that Elijah mocked them and said, ‘Call out with a loud voice, for he is god; either he is occupied or gone aside, or is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and needs to be awakened.'” (verse 27 NAS)
Baal could not answer because he was not a person who could. It was not because he was preoccupied with musing, journeying, sleeping or anything else that he did not answer. He could not because he was not a being that could. A person is a being that is self-determining, that has free will. And Baal was not that kind of being. He was a “super-It”. It did 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 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.
“19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it to them. 20 For 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 He 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.
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.
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,
“4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. 5 They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. 6 They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. 7 They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. 8 Those 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,
“21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All 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.
“2 Because 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 – … 6 therefore thus says the Lord God: ‘Because you consider yourself wise as a god, 7 therefore, 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. 8 They 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).
The sin of the first man was the choice of knowledge and wisdom, that is, Reason, as his god. As important and good as reason is in its proper place, it is not supreme or ultimate; it is not God. Adam’s sin is basically an idolatry of Reason. And this is essentially what classical Greek philosophy involved, where Reason is the universal and necessary. Even though Greek philosophy was a rejection of the popular Homeric polytheistic religion, this does not mean that Greek philosophy is non-religious.
“Greek thought did not cease to be religious when it became philosophical.” [1]
The interest of the pre-Socratic philosophers was not, or not primarily, scientific but theological. They abandoned the myths of the Homeric poets and rejected the then popular Homeric polytheistic religion, not because these were unscientific but because they presented an unworthy picture of the Divine.
“The Being or Nature which philosophy sought to reach was thought of as a worthier conception of the divine than that presented by the anthropomorphic gods.” [2]
The religious language and concepts of the pre-Socratics are not just relics of the pre-scientific way of thought, not yet outgrown, but the expression of their fundamental religious orientation. As Werner Jaeger says in his Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers, “Though philosophy means the death to the old gods, it is itself religion.” [3] And this religion is a religion of Reason. This became explicit in the teaching of Socrates. Socrates lived and taught the ultimacy of Reason and was executed in 399 B.C. for nothing less than the crime of rationalism — an act of destroying the gods by reason. [4] But he was only substituting for faith in one set of gods faith in another god — Reason. Plato was inspired by his teacher Socrates to the same faith. The divine, according to the Greek conception of reality, is that which is not subject to change, decay or death; the gods in Homer are “immortals.” The divine, therefore, cannot be known through the senses because that which is known through the senses is a world characterized by change, decay or death. But since the objects of reason are always and everywhere the same, the divine can only be known through reason. This eternal, unchanging realm of the ideas, the objects of reason, is the divine.
“Plato does not hesitate to use religious language of this knowing. He says that both reason in man and the objects of reason are divine, and speaks of the kinship of one with other.” [5]
With this conception of the divine, Aristotle is basically in agreement but without the use of the religious language. He says,
“For while thought is held to be the most divine of things observed by us, the question how it must be situated in order to have that character involves difficulties.” [6]
After discussing these difficulties, he concludes:
“Therefore it must be of itself that divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things) and its thinking is a thinking on thinking.” [7]
This self-thinking thought is the divine. Thus both Plato and Aristotle held reason to be divine. God is the divine or eternal realm of the ideas in Plato’s philosophy, or he is a self-thinking thought of Aristotle’s philosophy. According to the Greek thinkers, Reason is the divine or God. But since the concepts of God and man are correlatives, the Greek concept of man reflects the image of this god. Since Reason is god, man is viewed in the light of this god; man is a rational animal. Reason is the divine part of man. Aristotle says,
“It would seem, too, this [reason] is the true self of every man, since it is the supreme and better part. It will be strange, then, if he should choose not his own life, but some other’s … What is naturally proper to every creature is the highest and pleasantest for him. And so, to man, this will be the life of Reason, since Reason is, in the highest sense, a man’s self.” [8]
This is not the Biblical view of man or God. God is not Reason. God is a person (or more accurately, three persons) whose existence is not in His reason but in His unlimited sovereign free decision and will; man is also a person (or more accurately, a unity of spirit [person] and body — see Gen. 2:7) whose existence is also to be found, not in his reason, but in his limited free decision and will. And since decisions involve a reference to an ultimate criterion in or beyond the self, to a god, the Biblical view of man is that he is a religious animal, a being who must have a god. Reason is not the divine part in man but is a function of the will of the person. To be is to choose, not to think or to know. Knowledge and reason depend upon a prior decision as to what is real.
“…whatever evidence one accepts, whether that of experience or that of logic, will depend upon neither logic or experience alone, but upon a decision by the individual concerned in favor of the one or the other.” [9]
It is upon decision that any knowledge finally depends. Reason is not the ultimate criterion but the sovereign will of the Creator who made all things and has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ.
Ultimate reality is not Reason, the universal and necessary, and this Reason is not man’s ultimate criterion but the sovereign will of the Creator who made all things and has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. This basic incompatibility between the Greek and Biblical view of God and man explains the conflict between Greek philosophy and the Christian faith, and the failure of the attempted synthesis of these divergent points of view by Augustine and Aquinas. All attempts to synthesize the classical Greek view of God and man with the Biblical view will fail. Worst of all, the Biblical view of God and man will be obscured and misunderstood.
And this is what happened in the early church as it sought to explain the relation of the divine and human in the God-man Jesus Christ. They misunderstood the rational soul of man as the third part of man, the spirit and body being the other two parts. But the rational soul of man is not the third part of man, but it is the expression of man’s spirit or person in and through his body (see Gen. 2:7). Thus the Biblical view of man is that man is a dipartite being having a body and a spirit (or person) with the soul as the union of a spirit and the body. Hence, man is neither the Greek view of man as a diparite being having two parts of a body and rational soul, nor the Platonic tripartite being having a body, an animal soul, and a rational soul, nor the view of the Christian synthesis that man is a triparite being having three parts of a body, rational soul, and spirit. The Biblical view of man is that his soul is not a third part of man but that his soul, both the rational and animal soul, is the expression of his spirit in and through his body, and thus his soul is union of his spirit and his body.
In the incarnation, the divine Word, the Son of God, took the place, not of the human soul (psuche), but of the human spirit (pneuma) in the man Jesus. His human soul is the union of His divine spirit and His human body. Thus Jesus is one person with two natures; His divine nature is the divine Word, the Son of God, and His human nature is His human soul and His human body where His human soul is the expression of His one divine spirit or person through His human body.
ENDNOTES FOR “IDOLATRY OF REASON”
[1] Michael B. Foster, Mystery and Philosophy
(London: SCM Press Ltd., 1957) p. 32.
[3] Werner Jaeger, Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers
(Oxford: The Claredon Press, 1947), p. 72.
[4] William Barrett, Irrational Man: A Study in Existential Philosophy
(New York: Doubleday & Co., 1958), p. 72.
[5] Forster, Mystery and Philosophy, p. 32.
[6] Aristotle Metaphysics 12. 9. 1074b16, in vol. 8 of
Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins
(Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 605.
[8] Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 10. 7. 1178a2-7,
quoted in Barrett, Irrational Man, p. 78.
[9] Cherbonnier, “Biblical Metaphysics,” p. 372.
To read this article, click here.