THE CREATION OF MAN

I. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MAN’S CREATION

The biblical record alone gives us accurate information about the origin of mankind. Certain characteristics of this act stand out in the text.

A. It Was Planned by God (Gen. 1:26)

The act of creating man was based on the deliberate counsel of God. Though all that God had done in Creation up to that point He pronounced as good, Creation was incomplete without man. Man was no afterthought, but the result of deliberate forethought on the part of the Godhead. And after God created man He then said that everything He had made was “very good” (v. 31).

B. It Was Direct, Special, and Immediate (Gen. 1:27; 2:7)

It did not involve any evolutionary processes that relate man to some sub-, non-, or prehuman brute forms (contrast A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Philadelphia: Judson, 1907], pp. 465-76). That would mean that as far as his physical nature was concerned man was derived from some nonhuman animal form into which God breathed the breath of life. Genesis 2:7 does not support this theory at all. Indeed, it reinforces the fact of special creation from materials that were inorganic; it does not lend support to the idea of a derived creation from some previously living form.

If one could sustain the theory that Adam was created from some preorganic form, Eve certainly was not. Her body was clearly a direct, special, and immediate act of creation. To acknowledge this in the case of Eve while denying it in the case of Adam is, to say the least, illogical.

Furthermore, the dust of the ground out of which man’s body was made cannot be an allegorical reference to some animal form because God said man will return to dust when he dies, and man does not return to an animal state at death (3:19).

C. It Involved Two Facets

God used the dust from the ground into which He breathed the breath of life. This caused man to become animate. The same phrase (“a living creature”) is also used of animals (1:21, 24; 2:19), but since animals were not created in the image of God, as was man, there exists a clear distinction between animals and man.

In the case of Eve, God first took a rib with its surrounding flesh from Adam’s side and then fashioned or built it into a woman (vv. 21-23). God constructed Eve after taking the parts from Adam’s side. “Build applies to the fashioning of a structure of some importance; it involves constructive effort” (H.C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis [Columbus: Wartburg, 1942J, p. 135).

II. THE PATTERN FOR MAN’S CREATION

God created man in His image and according to His likeness (1:26-27). Other relevant Scriptures to this doctrine include 5:1, 3 which speak of the transmission of the image from Adam to his descendants; 9:6 which relates the concept to capital punishment; 1 Corinthians 11:7 which correlates the doctrine to headship; Colossians 3:10 which exhorts the believer to put on the new man which is according to the image of his Creator; and James 3:9 which relates the concept to proper speech. Psalm 8, though not containing the phrase “image of God” deals in poetic form with the creation of man and his dominion.

A. The Meaning of the Words “Image” and “Likeness”

The Hebrew words in Genesis 1:26-27 are tselem and demuth (translated in the Vulgate by imago and similitudo). The equivalent New Testament words are eikon and homoiosis. Though some have attempted to make a distinction between the two words to teach two aspects of the image of God, no sharp distinction between them can be sustained linguistically. Tselem means a fashioned image, a shaped and representative figure, an image in some concrete sense (2 Kings 11:18; Ezek. 23:14; Amos 5:26). Demuth refers also to the idea of similarity but more in the abstract or ideal. By using the two words together, the biblical author “seems to be attempting to express a very difficult idea in which he wants to make clear that man is in some way the concrete reflection of God, but at the same time he wants to spiritualize this toward abstraction” (Addison H. Leitch, “Image of God,” The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], 3:256).

The Greek and Latin fathers distinguished between image and likeness, referring the former to the physical and the latter to the ethical part of God’s image. Irenaeus understood the image to refer to man’s freedom and reason and likeness to the gift of supernatural communion with God which was lost in the Fall. But such distinctions cannot be substantiated on the basis of the words. Note also that the prepositions are used interchangeably in Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-3.

B. The Meaning of the Concept

Much has been written attempting to explain what is meant by man’s being created in the image of God. Here are some of the explanations.

1. The corporeal view. This relates the image of God to man’s total being including his corporeality. Strictly speaking, it includes both the material and immaterial aspects of man. But since it includes the material body of man as part of the image of God, it may be labeled the corporeal view. “Man is a representative by his entire being, for Israelite thought always views man in his totality, by his physical being as well as by his spiritual functions, and if choice had to be made between the two we would say that the external appearance is perhaps even more important than spiritual resemblance. According to L. Koehler the image of God could consist in man’s upright position . . . [but] the solemnity with which the priestly writer speaks of the imago Dei seems to prove that he did not restrict it to this single aspect. . . . It is also to a rather physical sense that we are directed by the passage in Genesis which refers to the image of God over the matter of blood vengeance (9:6)” (Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament [New York: Harper & Row, 1958], pp. 168-9).

Two obstacles appear to stand in the way of accepting this view.

(1) Since God is spirit and has no body, how could the image of God in which man was created be corporeal? (2) Animals have bodies but are not said to have been created in the image of God, so corporeality does not necessarily have to be related to the image of God.

2. The noncorporeal view. This view connects the image of God to facets of personality Many writers emphasize moral likeness dominion the exercise of will and intellectual faculties (ability to speak organize etc. ) as specifics of the noncorporeal image of God

3 A combination view. I would suggest a combination of the two previous views as follows Genesis 1:27 states that mankind male and female was created in the image of God No one attributes sex to God because of this statement; yet male and female indicate sex. Similarly, just because man, created in the image of God, has a body, does not necessitate attributing a body to God. But obviously man was created a total being, material and immaterial, and that total being was created in the image of God.

Therefore, (1) man’s body is included in the image of God. “While God is not physical in any way, there is a sense in which even a man’s body is included in the image of God, for man is a unitary being composed of both body and soul. His body is a fit instrument for the self-expression of a soul made for fellowship with the Creator and is suited eschatologically to become a ‘spiritual body’ (1 Cor. 15:44). . . . [His body] was not something apart from the real self of Adam, but was essentially one with it” (Ralph E. Powell, “Image of God” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia [Chicago: Moody, 1975], 1:832).

(2) To be created in the image of God also means to be a living being. This was Paul’s emphasis on Areopagus (Acts 17:28-29). Refuting the belief that inanimate idols could represent the living God, he argues that since mankind is the offspring of God, and since human beings are living beings, God must also be a living Being.

(3) Man is not only a living being, but a being like God with both intelligence and will that give him the ability to make decisions that enable him to have dominion over the world (Gen. 1:28).

(4) Adam was not only a unitary, living, intelligent, determining being, but also one who was able to have unhindered fellowship with God. How can we express Adam’s original condition? Some use the word innocent, but Adam was more than innocent, which seems to connote only the absence of wrong. Adam’s original holiness was positive; yet it was not equal with God’s—it was creaturely. Because it was subject to testing, it was unconfirmed. It provided immortality, for until Adam failed the test, he was not subject to the inevitable law of death due to sin.

To sum up: the image of God in which man was created included the totality of his being as living, intelligent, determining, and moral.

4. The Roman Catholic view. This distinguishes image and likeness. Image is the natural image which belongs to man as created and includes spirituality, freedom, and immortality. Likeness indicates that moral image which did not belong to man as originally created but was rapidly and very early superadded to him. It needed to be added because of concupiscence which is a natural bent toward the lower appetites, though not in and of itself sinful. Likeness adds original righteousness and holiness.

When man sinned he lost the likeness but kept the image. That original righteousness which was lost in the Fall can be added through the sacraments of the Roman church.

5. The neoorthodox view. Among neoorthodox writers Brunner’s concept is somewhat similar to that of the Roman Catholic church. He taught that there was a formal image which could not be lost in the Fall because it constituted man as man. He also saw a material image which was lost through the Fall.

Barth rejected the idea of a formal image because of his belief that man was utterly corrupted by sin.

C. Ramifications of the Concept

When sin entered the human race, the image of God in which man was created was not lost. One may say it was defaced though not erased. If the image concept was described correctly, then if man lost it he would no longer be a living, rational being.

Further evidence that the image was not lost is found in the use the Scripture makes of it after the Fall. The fact that man was created in the image of God is the basis for the institution of capital punishment (9:6). Headship of the man is also based on his being in the image of God (1 Cor. 11:7). James cautions us about cursing a fellow human being on the ground that mankind was made in the likeness of God (James 3:9). These passages would have no basis if the image had been erased in the Fall.

Regeneration and sanctification serve to renew the believer according to the image of Christ to whose image we shall someday be perfectly conformed (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). Only grace can do this.

III. THE TRANSMISSION OF MAN’S BEING

When Adam begat Seth, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image (Gen. 5:3). Though Adam was made directly in the image of God, his children were generated in Adam’s image which, of course, still bore God’s image even after the Fall (cf. 1 Cor. 11:7). Thus the transmission of man’s being was and is through natural generation.

No one questions this as far as the material aspect of man’s being is concerned. Our bodies come from our parents, and theirs from theirs, etc. But how is the immaterial aspect of man passed from generation to generation? To this question several answers have traditionally been proposed.

A. Preexistence

This view states that at the beginning God created all human souls which were confined in physical bodies as punishment. Souls go through various incarnations throughout history and in the process incur sinfulness. Plato and the Greeks taught this transmigration of souls, and in the early church Origen held a similar view (ca. 185-ca. 254). In modern times it is taught by theosophy, Hinduism, and philosopher F.R. Tennant. Orthodox Christianity has never held this view, for it has no biblical basis. Furthermore, the reincarnation aspect of the teaching stands in direct conflict with the biblical teaching on eternal life or eternal punishment for every individual born into this world.

B. Creationism

As defended by Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940], 2:70ff.), creationism teaches that God creates the soul at the moment of conception or birth and immediately unites it with the body. The soul is sinful not because its creation was somehow defective, but because of its contact with inherited guilt through the body. Hodge offers three arguments in support of creationism. (1) It is more in accord with Scriptures like Numbers 16:22 and Hebrews 12:9 which say the soul comes from God (while, in contrast, the body comes from earthly parents). (2) Since the nature of the soul is immaterial it could not be transmitted by natural generation. (3) Christ’s sinlessness could only be true if His soul were created (and of course it would not have been united with a sinful body—hence His Person would be sinless). Roman Catholics and many Reformed theologians prefer creationism.

C. Traducianism

This view holds that the soul is transmitted along with the body through the processes of natural generation. William G.T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theology [New York: Scribners, 1891], 2:7ff.) cites three kinds of support for this view. (1) Scriptural: Hebrews 7:10 indicates a rational and moral act on the part of unborn Levi; Genesis 2:1-3 states that God rested on the seventh day of Creation because His work of Creation was finished. No fresh acts, like creating new souls, are indicated; and verse 7 does not allow for the breath of life to be breathed into anyone else other than Adam. (2) Theological: creationism places God in the position of creating a perfect soul (He could not create a sinful one), then having it fall in the case of each newborn infant. The case of the sinless Christ is in every respect an exception and not the pattern for deciding this question. (3) Physiological: man is always seen as a union of soul and body; therefore, it is more natural to consider both the psychical and physical as developing together.

It seems to me that traducianism provides a more natural explanation than creationism does. I agree with J.O. Buswell’s observation: “As between these two views, it does seem to me that there is a certain obvious fact which has been neglected in the historical discussion, and that is the perfect uniformity and regularity of the arrival of a soul whenever a human life begins to he In our ordinary thinking when we observe such perfect uniformity and regularity in other matters, we usually ascribe the results to the secondary forces which God has created and which He maintains by His divine providence. For this reason, and for this reason only, I am inclined toward the traducian view, but I do not feel that it can be firmly established on the grounds of any explicit scriptural teaching” (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962], p. 252).

THE FACETS OF MAN

I. THE NATURE OF MAN

A. Bipartite Unity

When God created Adam He took the dust of the earth and breathed into it the breath of life to make a living person (Gen. 2:7). While there were two steps to the act of creating, the result was a single, unitary living person. To be sure, the particles of the earth provided the material while God’s breath effected life. Material and immaterial combined to produce a single entity. Within the material exists a variety of features—arteries, brain, muscles, hair, etc., and within the immaterial we also find a variety—soul, spirit, heart, will, conscience, etc. But without the unity of man’s being, this diversity could not function. “ . . . the biblical view of man shows him to us in an impressive diversity, but it never loses sight of the unity of the whole man, but rather brings it out and accentuates it” (G.C. Berkouwer, Man The Image of God [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952], p. 200).

That man is bipartite in nature is undebatable. Man is a material and nonmaterial entity, the two aspects being distinguishable. Physical death is described as the separation of body and spirit (James 2:26). Biblical dichotomy differs from Plato’s teaching that the body was perishable but the soul existed in the heavenly world of pure form or idea before its incarnation in the human body and was therefore uncreated and immortal, a part of Deity. Biblical dichotomy certainly does not teach that the body is the prison house of the soul which is released at death to return to the heavenly world or to be reincarnated in another body. Biblical dichotomy is radically different from Platonic dualism.

B. Not Trichotomy (“cut in three parts”)

Aristotle further developed Plato’s twofold division by dividing the soul into (a)an animal soul (the breathing aspect) and (b) the rational soul (the intellectual aspect). This distinction was further developed in Roman Catholic doctrine through Thomas Aquinas. Early Christian writers, influenced by the Greeks, thought they found support for trichotomy in certain New Testament passages, as do some modern writers.

Popular trichotomy (man is composed of body, soul, and spirit) makes the spirit superior to the soul, and the spirit and soul superior to the body. Body relates to self, soul to the world, but spirit to God. Spirit and the spiritual are to be cultivated, while soulishness and body are deprecated. This prioritizing is incompatible with popular trichotomy’s attempt to draw an analogy between the tripartite nature of God and man. Certainly the Persons of the Trinity are equal, though the parts of man are not. To which Person of the Trinity would the body correspond? Trichotomy, popular or formal, cannot be substantiated logically, analogically, or scripturally.

But what about the passages commonly cited to support trichotomy?

Hebrews 4:12 seems to separate soul from spirit, thus supporting the trichotomy view. However, the verse does not say that the Word severs soul from spirit but that it pierces through to divide soul and spirit, thus exposing the innermost aspects of man. The point is simply that the Word of God leaves nothing hidden.

First Thessalonians 5:23 seems to indicate that the immaterial aspect of man is composed of soul and spirit. Trichotomists understand spirit, soul, and body in this verse as defining the parts of man; dichotomists say they represent the whole man. If these three terms are inclusive of all the aspects of man, then what place do heart, mind, will, and conscience have? Why did not Paul also include them in the list? The emphasis of the verse is on the completeness of sanctification.

First Corinthians 15:44 appears to teach a difference between the present body (a soul body) and the resurrection body (a spiritual body). But that does not mean that the spirit is superior to the soul. Also John saw people in heaven as “souls” (Rev. 6:9; 20:4).

The spirit can partake of pollution along with the flesh (2 Cor. 7:1). Trichotomy ought to have pollution affecting the flesh and soul, not the spirit. Fleshly lusts war against the soul (1 Peter 2:11). Trichotomy ought to have flesh warring against the spirit, or soul against spirit. How can the Lord command us to love Him with all our souls if the soul is world-conscious, not God-conscious? (Mark 12:30) Trichotomy ought to have the command read “with all your spirit,” but spirit is not mentioned at all in the command. In Hebrews 10:38 soul is used of God.

Man is made up of two substances, material and immaterial. Each consists of a variety within. The many facets of the material and the many facets of the immaterial join together to make up the whole of each person. Man is rich diversity in unity.

II. THE FACETS OF THE IMMATERIAL ASPECT OF MAN

Man is like a diamond with its many facets. Those facets are not separate entities, yet they reflect various aspects of the whole. They may serve similar or overlapping functions, yet they are distinguishable. They are not parts; they are aspects, facets, faces of the whole.

A. Soul

In its most basic sense, the Hebrew word, nephesh, means “life.” It designates man originally created as a living being (soul) (Gen. 2:7) as well as other forms of life (1:20-21, 24, 30; Lev. 17:11). Notice also Exodus 21:23 and Joshua 2:13. This is the sense in which English would speak of an individual as a soul.

That life principle departs at the time of physical death (Gen. 35:18; Jer. 15:2). Yet the corpse is called soul (Lev. 21:22, Num. 6:6, 9:6). In the Old Testament “soul” does not exist apart from the body, emphasizing again the unity of man’s being. “Rich and abundant though this use of n. (nephesh, soul) for life is, we must not fail to observe that the n. is never given the meaning of an indestructible core of being, in contradistinction to the physical life, and even capable of living when cut off from that life” (Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974], p. 20).

Soul also is the center of various spiritual and emotional experiences of mankind. These include sympathy (Job 30:25), despair (Ps. 43:5), bitterness (2 Kings 4:27), hate (2 Sam. 5:8), love (Song 1:7; 3:1-4), and grief (Jer. 13:17).

The New Testament reveals some similarities and differences in its use of the word soul (psyche). It denotes the whole individual person (Acts 2:41; 27:37, KJV). But it also can refer only to the immaterial part of man (Matt. 10:28). It also designates people in the intermediate state between death and the resurrection of the body (Rev. 6:9).

Soul seems to be a principal focus of redemption (though of course, the physical body also experiences the effects of redemption). Notice passages like Hebrews 10:39; 13:17; James 1:21; 1 Peter 1:9, 22; 2:11, 25.

To sum up: soul can mean the whole person, alive or after death; it can designate the immaterial part of a person with its many feelings and emotions; and it is an important focus of spiritual redemption and growth.

B. Spirit

Spirit (ruach and pneuma) refers only to the immaterial part of man, unlike soul which can denote the whole man, material and immaterial. Man is a soul, but man is not said to be a spirit—he has a spirit.

The spirit originates from God, and all people have spirits (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9). It is simply not biblical to talk of man not having a spirit until he receives the Holy Spirit at salvation (cf. 1 Cor. 2:11; Heb. 4:12, James 2:26).

As a facet of the immaterial part of man, one’s spirit is the center of various traits, emotions, and activities. Some of these include thinking (Isa. 29:24), remembering (Ps. 77:6), humility (Matt. 5:3), grief (Gen. 26:35), vexation (John 13:21), jealousy (Num. 5:14), haughtiness (Prov. 16:18), and contriteness (Ps. 34:18). Because it may evince undesirable emotions, the spirit needs attention in the spiritual life (Ps. 51:10; 2 Cor. 7:1).

Though soul and spirit can relate to the same activities or emotions, there does seem to be a distinction and contrast between soul and spirit in Pauline thought. This accounts for his emphasis on the spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14; 3:1; 15:45; Eph. 1:3; 5:19; Col. 1:9; 3:16). Why? “When Paul became a Christian, the experience of God in Christ became the determining factor, not only in his view of God, but in everything. Because Paul was a Jew, his attitude to God affected and determined all his thoughts. In Christian experience, psyche, the term for purely human vitality, became unimportant. Pneuma, the term that began with God but proceeded into man, became central. The infrequency of the use of psyche in Paul is the key to the understanding of it. . . . Paul’s knowledge of the Holy Spirit set the basis of his anthropology and pneuma took the leading role” (W. David Stacey, The Pauline View of Man [London: Macmillan, 1956], pp. 126-7).

To sum up: spirit does not indicate the whole person, but the immaterial part with its various functions and feelings. In Pauline thought it assumes prominence in relation to the spiritual life.

C. Heart

Heart is a very comprehensive concept in both Old and New Testaments. Used about 955 times it stands for the center and seat of life, both physical and psychical. Only a relatively few occurrences refer to the physical organ (2 Sam. 18:14; 2 Kings 9:24). The greater number use heart to denote the inner man, the essence of the many facets of his personality. Some of these include the following.

1. Heart is the seat of intellectual life. It considers (Deut. 8:5); it obtains a knowledge of the Word (Ps. 119:11); it is the source of evil thoughts and actions (Matt. 15:19-20); it has thoughts and intentions (Heb. 4:12); it can be deceitful (Jer. 17:9).

2. Heart is the seat of the emotional life. It loves (Deut. 6:5); it produces self-reproach (Job 27:6); it rejoices and is glad (Ps. 104:15; Isa. 30:29); it can be sorrowful (Neh. 2:2; Rom. 9:2); it has desires (Ps. 37:4); it can be bitter (73:21).

3. It is the seat of the volitional life. It seeks (Deut. 4:29); it can be turned aside (Ex. 14:5); it can be hardened (8:15; Heb. 4:7); it is capable of choice (Ex. 7:22-23); it can be uncircumcised (Jer. 9:26; Acts 7:51).

4. It is the seat of spiritual life. With the heart man believes resulting in righteousness (Rom. 10:9-10). For the believer the heart is the abode of the Father (1 Peter 3:15), the Son (Eph. 3:17), and the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:22). The believer’s heart should be pure (1 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 10:22) and circumcised (Rom. 2:29).

D. Conscience

The conscience is a witness within man that tells him he ought to do what he believes to be right and not to do what he believes to be wrong. Conscience does not teach us what is right or wrong but prods us to do what we have been taught to be right. One can do what is wrong in good conscience because he has been misinformed as to what is right and wrong (Acts 23:1).

Conscience appears only in the New Testament. Those functions of conscience are assigned to the heart in the Old Testament (e.g., 1 Sam. 24:5; Job 27:6). In the New Testament conscience occurs most often in Paul’s writings (John uses the word heart as in 1 John 3:19-21). The unsaved person’s conscience may be a good guide (John 8:9; Rom. 2:15) or it may not be even though it may seem to guide correctly (Acts 23:1; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15; Heb. 10:22). Conscience may be likened to unreliable brakes on an automobile. They may do their job at times, but they cannot be counted on. The Christian’s conscience operates to prod him to do what is right in various relationships of life. (1) It prods him to obey the government under which he lives (Rom. 13:5). (2) It tells him to bear up under an unjust employer (1 Peter 2:19). (3) The conscience of a weaker brother which does not permit him to eat meat sacrificed to idols should be respected by the stronger brother (1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12). (4) Conscience may be called to witness to the depth and reality of a spiritual commitment (Rom. 9:2; 2 Cor. 1:12; 4:2).

E. Mind

Like conscience, mind is more specifically a New Testament concept. In the Old Testament heart is usually the word behind the translation mind. Mind includes both the faculties of perceiving and understanding as well as those of feeling, judging, and determining. Phroneo, nous, and sunesis are the principal New Testament words for this concept.

The unsaved man’s mind is said to be reprobate (Rom. 1:28, KJV), vain (Eph. 4:17, KJV), defiled (Titus 1:15), blinded (2 Cor. 4:4), and darkened Eph. 4:18). Further, he is without that critical faculty represented by sunesis (Rom. 3;11).

The believer’s mind occupies a central place in his spiritual development. God uses it in his understanding of truth (Luke 24:45; 1 Cor. 14:14-15). The dedicated life must include a renewed mind (Rom. 12:2). The mind is involved in deciding doubtful things (14:5), in pursuing holiness (1 Peter 1:13), in understanding the Lord’s will (Eph. 5:17), and in loving the Lord (Matt. 22:37). Very thought must be captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

F. Flesh

Though flesh sometimes refers to tissue (Luke 24:39) or to the whole material part of man (1 Cor. 15:39; Heb. 5:7), when used of a facet of the immaterial nature it refers to that disposition to sin and to oppose God (Rom. 7:18; 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 1;12; Gal. 5:17; Col. 2:18; 2 Peter 2:10; 1 John 2:16). Both the believer and unbeliever possess this capacity.

G. Will

Actually the Bible say much more about the will of God than man’s will, and what it does say is unsystematic. A believer can will to do what is right or what is wrong (Rom. 7:15-25; 1 Tim. 6:9; James 4:4). Will may be more of an expression of oneself through the other facets of his personality, rather than a distinct faculty in and of itself. These are the facets of the immaterial part of man through which he may glorify himself or glorify and serve his Lord.

I. THE TEMPTED

What was Adam’s nature and his relation to God before he sinned?

A. His Endowments

We know that Adam possessed powers of understanding and reason which enabled him to name the animals and to reason about the relationship of Eve to himself (Gen. 2:19-23). God also endowed him with the ability to use language so that communication was possible between God and himself (vv. 16, 20, 23).

B. His Moral Nature

However we describe Adam’s moral nature before the Fall, it is clear that he was without sin. Some say this means a kind of passive holiness in that Adam was innocent of wrong. His holiness was such as to enable him to enjoy complete fellowship with God. Perhaps it is too strong to speak of a positive holiness since Adam was able to choose to sin. I prefer a description like this: Adam possessed unconfirmed (because he had neither passed nor failed the test) creature (because his holiness was not the same as the Creator’s) holiness (because he was more than innocent”).

Adam had a free will and a mind capable of weighing choices. “Adam, therefore, could have stood if he would, since he fell merely by his own will; but because his will was flexible to either side, and he was not endued with constancy to persevere, therefore he so easily fell. Yet his choice of good and evil was free; and not only so, but his mind and will were possessed of consummate rectitude, and all his organic parts were rightly disposed to obedience, till, destroying himself, he corrupted all his excellencies” (John Calvin, Institutes, I, XV, 215).

C. His Responsibilities

1. To exercise dominion over the earth (1:26, 28). Theonomists understand this so-called “cultural mandate” as authorizing man to bring all the world’s structures under the lordship of Christ, demolishing every kind of opposition to God. Reformed writers understand it similarly except that they do not emphasize the establishment of Old Testament law in all its aspects on society today. However, observe that the phrase “subdue the earth” is not part of the mandate given to Noah and his descendants (which we are) after the Flood (9:1). Further observe that the word “subdue” in 1:28 comes from a root that means “to knead” or “to tread” and refers to bringing the earth under cultivation so that the race could multiply. Adam was to administer the earth and its creatures so that it would sustain the people who would fill it. This was the context in which Adam was commanded to cultivate and keep the Garden of Eden (2:15). Presumably it could have grown in exuberant disorder if Adam had not attended to it.

2. To enjoy the fruits of his care of the Garden (vv. 16-17).

II. THE TEST

Ultimately the test was whether Adam and Eve would obey God or not. The particular way they could prove that was by not eating the fruit of one of the trees in the Garden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In one sense it was a minor prohibition in comparison with the many trees in the Garden from which they could eat the fruits. In another sense it was a major matter, since this was the specific way they could show their obedience or disobedience to God. By way of contrast, how many ways can we show our obedience or disobedience to God in the course of a single day?

In setting a test at all, God showed that He wanted men to voluntarily choose to obey Him and to serve Him. He did not want automatons.

III. THE TEMPTER

Satan wisely used a creature Eve was acquainted with instead of appearing himself, something that would likely have alerted her to the unusual and put her on guard. Satan used an actual serpent since the serpent as well as Satan were cursed after the Fall. For some reason Eve was not alarmed that the serpent spoke with her. “The tempter addresses himself to the woman, probably [because] . . . the woman had not personally received the prohibition from God, as Adam had; cf. verses 16-17” (Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948], p. 45).

IV. THE TEMPTATION

A. Satan’s Counterfeit

A counterfeit, of course, attempts to come as close to the genuine article as possible, while leaving something costly out. A master counterfeiter, Satan had previously aspired to be like God, not unlike God (Isa. 14:14). Now he approached Eve with the suggestion that his plan was like God’s but without the restriction of total obedience. When approached with the question whether God had placed any tree in the Garden off limits, Eve quickly affirmed that she and Adam could eat of all the trees of the Garden except one. And that exception seems to come to her mind almost as an afterthought. Satan had hinted at the possibility that God had placed too-sweeping restrictions on them, and Eve began to entertain that thought.

Then Satan proceeded to offer his own plan which did not have that restriction. “The woman acts on the supposition that God’s intent is unfriendly, whilst Satan is animated with the desire to promote her well-being” (Vos, Biblical Theology, p. 47). Satan was attempting to counterfeit the goodness of God.

Satan’s temptation may be viewed in the form of a syllogism. The major premise was that the restrictions were not good. The minor premise was that God’s plan included a restriction. The conclusion then was that God’s plan was not good. On the other hand, Satan’s plan did not include any restrictions; therefore, it was good. The validity of the conclusion depends on the truth of the major premise, which in this case is not true. Restrictions are not necessarily wrong or undesirable. Indeed, the restriction placed on Adam and Eve in the Garden was good in that it provided the principal way they could show their obedience to the will of God. Satan’s counterfeit plan did away with that restriction and offered the false hope that if Eve ate the forbidden fruit she could be like God.

B. Eve’s Rationalizations

Eve’s rationalization of what she was about to do may have been along these lines. As she examined Satan’s proposition, she reasoned that the fruit would be good to eat, and providing good things for Adam was one of her wifely responsibilities. Further, why would God withhold the fruit which was beautiful to the eyes, since He made so many other beautiful things for them to enjoy? And, of course, God would certainly want them to be wise. Therefore, it would be desirable, even necessary, to eat this fruit. Gone from her mind was God’s express command not to eat it. Quickly forgotten were all the blessings He had provided. Eve’s mind seemed only to be filled with her rationalizations—the fruit would give physical sustenance; it would cultivate their aesthetic tastes, and it would add to their wisdom. Having justified what she was about to do, she took fruit from the tree and ate it.


2. Death. Adam and mankind would return to the dust of the ground at death.

3. Expulsion. Adam was driven from the Garden which was both a geographic and spiritual act symbolizing the break in fellowship.