Well, we have continued for a considerable time in the series on regeneration and renewal, so much so that some are beginning to wonder when will this series ever end. And now that I preach somewhat less frequently than before, it would seem that this series is virtually never going to end. So every time — and I must tell you this — every time I intend to end this series, the Lord shows me something more that I have to say, so that I also begin to wonder when it will end. It's truly wonderful how the Lord continues to lead in this subject. And as a result of this, I will continue now in this series on regeneration and renewal.
Today's theme will be "In His Image." The subject: being in His image. Now both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, both in the old creation and in the new creation, we learn that we were created in God's image. And it is this that we need to understand more fully. What does it mean that both in the old creation and in the new creation, God created us in His image? That we are created even in the new creation in His image, as seen, for example, in Ephesians chapter 4 and verse 24: the new man — not the new nature, as the RSV has translated it quite incorrectly. Anthropos, the usual word for man. The new man created in the image of God, as Ephesians 4:24 reads. What then does it mean that we are created in His image? More precisely, what is the reason that God created you and created me in His image? What is the reason for this? What did God have in mind when He created man in His image?
Now of course, my question has already presupposed something. And it has presupposed something that we shall come to in a moment. Because according to Protestant theology, you and I are no longer in God's image. In which case, of course, there was only one man who ever was in God's image, namely Adam. And then after the fall, the image was wiped out, blurred, marred — whichever you like to call it. I am going to show you that this teaching, which is in fact very fundamental to Protestant theology, I have to tell you truthfully, is unscriptural, as I shall demonstrate to you today. And I shall also explain why Protestant theology holds such a view, and I will let you examine the scriptural evidence.
Now I find it distressing to myself, and I have to share this with you, that so many times when I have to expound the Scripture, I have to clear away so many of the obstacles that theology was supposed not to build. Theology was supposed to build for us a road of doctrine. Instead, it built for us hedges and walls. Or putting it in another figure of speech, it seems to us that many theologians, like the blind, have been leading the rest of the blind into the ditch. Now I ask forgiveness if these remarks sound rather harsh, but I am distressed. Indeed, I am almost angry that those who were meant to teach us have led us into the ditches instead of along the highways, even if it be a narrow highway, the way of life. Now we are going to look at evidence. But I say again that it disturbs me, that time and again when I want to expound some wonderful teaching in the Scripture, I find I have to clear away theological obstacles first before I can even get on to the subject. And I assure you that I take no delight in fighting this kind of battle. But the truth has to be stated. And I let every child of God discern for himself whether it be the truth or not.
We shall start, shall we say, with Adam. Adam was created in the image of God. And this we find in Genesis chapter 1, verses 26 and 27. Very familiar to most of us, but let me read it to you in any case. Genesis chapter 1, verses 26 and 27: "Then God said," after He had created all these other creatures, "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.' So God created man in His own image. In the image of God He created him. Male and female He created them." Now, here we find it's stated repeatedly that man — here, reference to Adam has not yet begun — but man was created in God's image.
Now, according to Protestant theology, the imago Dei, the image of God in man, was either marred or destroyed. Karl Barth, the spokesman for neo-orthodoxy of Protestant theology — the famous Karl Barth, who died not so long ago, professor at Basel in Switzerland, writer of volume after volume of dogmatics — he sums up the position of Protestant theology in the idea that since the fall of man, God's image in man was totally, completely destroyed. Well, Emil Brunner, another well-known Swiss theologian, however, does not agree with Barth on this position. He thinks Barth is a little too extreme, because he rightly sees that if Barth is correct, then every point of contact between God and man has been destroyed. There is no more point of contact between God and man. There is no more — he uses the term Anschlusspunkt in German, which can only be translated as a "point of contact" — because Brunner saw that the image of God was the important point of contact between God and man. If that is destroyed, how is man and God able to communicate at all, in any sense?
Well, however, Brunner himself maintains that the image of God, though not totally destroyed, has become marred, blurred. Of course, this is a rather vague position to take, because it leaves open the question: how marred is marred? How blurred is blurred? How blurred did it get? Because if you make it blurred enough — I mean, if it is, say, 98% blurred — then you might just as well use Karl Barth's position and say that it's been destroyed. Supposing there is a beautiful picture and somebody splashes ink all over it or paint all over it, and most of it has been covered up — I mean, would you say it's blurred, or would you say it's destroyed? I think you can just as well say it's destroyed, even if some part of the canvas is still showing. So, you see, Brunner's position is also quite unsatisfactory because it leaves quite doubtful the question: to what extent is it blurred? What is left of that image? If there is something left of it, when I look at you and when you look at me, is it possible to discern anything of that image? And if so, how do I know that I am looking at the image of God or not? Because I don't know whether it's blurred or not blurred, or to what extent it is blurred, or is it blurred in different people to different extents? Well, we see that this whole thing is merely confusing the issue and leaving us in the dark.
Similarly, A.A. Jones in the New Bible Dictionary, under the article "Image," says this: "Because of the sin of Adam, this image is blurred and is therefore not clearly seen in Adam's sons." There we are back to this blurred business again, and then we still have to question: how much blurred is blurred? But I won't even bother to waste time with this, because all you have to do is look at Scripture to see whether there is any truth in these dogmatic positions whatsoever. In other words, when you look at Scripture, I ask only for evidence as to where in Scripture — I ask you, where in Scripture does it say that the image of God was blurred, marred, destroyed, whatever you like? Where?
Well, A.A. Jones, New Bible Dictionary, cites Genesis 5:3. Well, let's look at Genesis 5:3. What does Genesis 5:3 say? That is — and by the way, the only verse he can produce — and this is what we read: "When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth." Well, so what's wrong with that? Well, in order to arrive at his conclusion, of course, you have to do a piece of reading-in, what in scriptural interpretation is called eisegesis. That is, you put something into the text or assume it says something that hasn't been said. Well, all I can see here is that Adam had a son and the son was in his image. Very good. So what's the problem?
Well, you see, he says, "Well, Adam had already sinned, and therefore the son was in his image." Oh, really? Well, let's read a bit further back. Verse 1: "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God." This is after the fall. It's still being repeated now. "Male and female He created them." Has anything changed? Are there no more male and female either? Or has that not been affected? I wonder which part and how we decided what has been affected. But anyway, "Male and female He created them, and He blessed them and named them Man when they were created." Has His name changed? He is still called Man presumably, and He is still male and female. All that part, we agree, has not changed. Then what has changed? And it is after this introduction that it goes on to say, "And Adam had a son, and he was in his own image." It has just been said that Adam was in God's image.
Now let me ask you, what would Moses have written had he had to change the word? Could he have written like this: "When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son in God's likeness, after God's image"? He is not. The sentence is merely saying that he is transmitting the likeness which he himself had to his son. And it has just been said that he was created in God's image, and that image which is now in himself is transmitted to his son. Now you have to read a lot into this verse, which theologians unfortunately are exceedingly good at — read a lot into that verse. In other words, we have to read our own presupposition and dogma into this verse to bring out of it the fact, or the supposition, that Seth was marred. But if Adam has not been said to have been marred, how does it happen that Seth is marred? Because nowhere before that was it said. Never was it said. Notice. We need a specific statement somewhere which says Adam lost the image of God, or that his image was lost. We must not assume it. That is the error of theology: to assume something that was not said.
Now, the truth of the matter is that, contrary to saying that the image of God was lost after the fall, we find it repeated both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament after the fall, that man is — not was — is in God's image. Let me give you an example. A few chapters on, Genesis chapter 9, verse 6. What do we read here? "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Now, if anyone kills, he will be killed. That is the reason. Why? The reason is now given: "For God made man in His own image." Man is in God's image. That is why if you kill a man, you must die for it. That is the reason. Now, it doesn't take a great logician to see that if man is no more in God's image, then the logic of this statement is destroyed. There is no reason not to shed blood, because the only reason that shedding blood is a crime is because man is in God's image. Isn't that what it is clearly saying? Therefore, because man is in God's image, to raise your hand against a man is to raise your hand against God. And to kill a man is to destroy God's image. It is, in other words, an assault upon God Himself. It is punishable by death. But you can see immediately that if man is no more in God's image, the whole basis of this verse is destroyed. If man is no more than an ordinary animal — nowhere in Scripture does it say you cannot kill an animal. The reason why man cannot be killed is already clearly given.
Now, we see in fact that not only is this so in the Old Testament; the same is true in the New Testament. Man is still seen to be in God's image in more than one place. Let us see one place in James chapter 3, verse 9, that I may make sure that you are rooted in the Scriptures and not in any suggestions of my own. James chapter 3, verse 9, reads like this. It is speaking about the tongue, and this is what James says: "With the tongue we bless the Lord and Father, and with the tongue we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God." Do you see the significance of the statement? In the Old Testament it says if you kill a man you will die for that. You have raised your hand against the image of God. But James is applying the same principle. If you try to kill a man with your tongue — you curse him, you speak evil about him, you destroy his reputation, you destroy his name — you are guilty of murder in much the same way as in the Old Testament. You have cursed the likeness of God, because man is in the likeness of God. If man were no longer in the likeness of God, this same sentence is meaningless, because the only person who ever was in the likeness of God would have been Adam. No one else. And the only person we could not curse would have been Adam, and the only person we couldn't kill would have been Adam — and we can't kill him anyway; he isn't around.
You see that again and again, man is seen to be in the image of God. Even now he is in the image of God. That is why the Ten Commandments embodies this very thing: any person who kills will himself be put to death. "Thou shalt not kill." Man is in the image of God. He still is. And that is why the Ten Commandments remain valid. In this very thing it shows the reason why we may not kill. It is not arbitrary. It is because in so doing, whether you kill with your hand or with your mouth, with your tongue — when you slander a person, when you speak evil of a person — remember this: you are speaking against the image of God. That gives new depth to the Sermon on the Mount. "Judge not, that you be not judged. Condemn not, that you be not condemned." That gives a new significance to this. Man is in God's image. Now that's very important for us to think. Very important for us to see.
So where do our theologians get the idea? Exactly where do they get the idea that the image of God in man was destroyed? I can't find it in Scripture. If you can find it, be so kind as to show it to me. But to base a dogmatic theology on Genesis chapter 5, verse 3, which says that Seth was in the image of Adam, is utterly ridiculous. I'm sorry to say it makes me angry that any responsible theologian can base a doctrine on such a text as that. It is utterly absurd. I almost wonder if this is willful blindness and trying to lead everyone into the ditch. But of course our friend Jones and the others can produce no other text from Scripture to show this. Nowhere does it say the image of God in man was destroyed.
We live in days, brothers and sisters, where we require the utmost discernment to be able to survive. Because I don't know where our theologians are going and whether they have become utterly blind for the most part. And again I beg your forgiveness for speaking so harshly. But I am concerned about the sheep of the flock. And I shall be hard on any shepherds who lead the sheep into the mouth of wolves or into ditches or into dangerous places. I shall not spare those shepherds. Neither will God, I can assure you, who bring this kind of doctrine out of Scripture. And so I warn you of the pitfalls of what is called dogmatic or systematic theology. Very dangerous indeed, because they are systematized by people whose grasp of Scripture is often exceedingly poor. Dogmatic theologians have not been noted as good exegetes at any time. I have to tell you that. And so the scriptural teaching itself has been ignored and disregarded.
Now why? Why do the dogmatic theologians produce this kind of doctrine? Particularly the Protestant theologians. The reason is quite easy to understand. Here I have to be particularly hard on Protestant theologians. It is the over-anxiety — I stress, over-anxiety — of Protestant theology to safeguard the doctrine of sola gratia. Sola gratia means "by grace alone." The doctrine that we are saved by grace alone. We are so anxious to protect this doctrine that we want to reduce mankind to imbeciles. We want to reduce them to degenerates. We want to reduce them all to criminals. Because then only it is all by grace alone. Now the intention may be exceedingly good. The logic is exceedingly stupid.
Let us consider this for a moment. We are nullifying the grace of God in order to establish the grace of God. What do we mean? That we are created in God's image at all — is that not the expression of His grace? Did we create ourselves in God's image? It is He, by His own grace, by His sovereign wisdom and power, He chose to create us in His image. If that is not grace, then what is grace? By any definition of grace — Protestant, Catholic, or any other kind — that is grace. Now we are going to say we are going to destroy all this grace by our dogmatic theology in order to establish grace alone. What are we doing? Is this not utter foolishness? Why must human beings be reduced to imbeciles, spiritual imbeciles, spiritual degenerates, before we can talk about grace alone? Why? I have not seen the logic of that at all, whatsoever.
The fact that man is in the image of God — does it mean that he can save himself? We must have jumped many stages of thinking or logic somewhere along the line that we have missed. The truth is that we have not understood the scriptural doctrine of the image of God at all. The truth is that our being in the image of God does not automatically save us, not in the least. The scriptural doctrine of the image of God, as we shall see further on, is that God, in giving us His image, has given us the potential of becoming fully like Him. Whether we reach that potential is another matter. But we can never reach that potential except by God's grace alone. This is not difficult for any of us who have been born again to understand. The fact that you and I are born again means that we have the image of God now, and nobody can take that truth away from us — not even these Protestant theologians can. The fact that you and I now are created in the new creation in the image of God — does it mean that from now on, because we are created in the image of God, we can save ourselves? Of course not. It means, in fact, quite the reverse. It means that every moment since regeneration, we are utterly, totally dependent on His saving grace. So where is the logic of our Protestant theologians? What are we talking about? Again, I apologize. I apologize again and again, if I may, for being so hard on the theologians. But what I will not apologize for is that our friends are leading the church into the ditches, and this we will not stand for.
Now, having had this unpleasant task of clearing these obstacles — for which again I apologize to have to take time on these matters — but if I don't tell you these things, you will go out and find other people saying, "Oh yeah, but haven't you seen that Scripture says that man lost the image of God?" Man never lost the image of God, not at least until anyone can demonstrate that to me from Scripture. But this raises, of course, the question: what is the image of God that got lost? If they claim that the image of God got lost, then what is the image? What got lost? How can sin destroy this image? Because first you have to assume something about that image before sin can destroy it. So, what after all is this image of God in man?
Well, when we come looking at this, we find that there are many suggestions, and I'll take you back to our theologian friends again. And in this time, maybe, hopefully, they're not too far off the mark. But if they are not far off the mark, then clearly they have contradicted themselves. Now, take for example the German Old Testament theologian, Ludwig Koehler. He thought that the likeness of God in man consists in the erect stature of man. Now, before you think this is too funny — you think, "What? Is this serious, or is this a joke?" — no, no, he is very serious. What he means is that man, you see, stands upright. Of course, monkeys stand upright too, occasionally. But only occasionally. Man normally stands upright. Sometimes I almost find it embarrassing to talk about theology. But anyway, so man stands upright, which, according to him, symbolizes man's elevation over the animals and his power to rule them — his elevation over the animals. Well, it seems to me — it seems to me the giraffe is an awful lot taller than man. And it seems to me that by that qualification, the giraffe would be ruling over man, because he stands head and shoulder — and I mean literally head and shoulder — above any man. Again, I apologize for being so rude to our theologian friends, but I find it a little bit difficult to refrain from some sense of amusement. Anyway, so he stands upright most of the time.
Now, Walter Eichrodt, another German theologian, thinks that the likeness is to be placed in the spiritual qualities of man. Now, I find that there we are talking much more something that makes sense. And because after all, the Bible is concerned to speak about spiritual qualities. And the spiritual qualities Eichrodt sees is self-consciousness and self-determination — namely, that man's likeness to God is seen in his personality. Now, clearly we are coming much closer to the truth of the matter. But if Eichrodt is right, that man's likeness to God is seen in his self-consciousness, then how can that image be marred or blurred? If you and I are like God in our personality, in our being self-conscious beings, self-determined — and he uses also the term "beings with self-determination," that is, you are able to make decisions, you are able to think and to reason — then how can the image be blurred or marred, whatever, even less destroyed? Because if it were destroyed, then man must be totally mad by now. And if self-consciousness were destroyed by the fall, then man wouldn't even be a human being. I mean, what is man without self-consciousness? So again, you see, Eichrodt himself is a Protestant theologian, and now you see the Protestant theologians beginning to contradict each other.
The early Greek fathers, some of the early Greek fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa, had similar thoughts. He saw the likeness of God in man in the fact that man has free will. And others saw the likeness in man's capacity to reason. And Augustine, for example — our friend Augustine — he saw the likeness of God in man entirely in the intellectual capacities. He sees, for example, that man has memory, intellect, and will. And he sees that as comparable to the Trinity: that memory is comparable to the Father, the intellect to the Son, and the will to the Spirit, so that man is a trinity of being, rather like God, who is a trinity of being. But characteristic of Augustine, he has put the whole thing onto the intellectual level rather than the spiritual level. And why he saw the parallel in memory, intellect, and will, of course, we will see at once as totally arbitrary. It has no other justification than it just occurred to Augustine that it was a nice idea. But we could just as well have said that man is body, mind, and spirit — a trinity of body, mind, and spirit — which would make just as much sense as Augustine's suggestion. So it is this image of God in man which distinguishes him from the animal, and it distinguishes him particularly in this respect: that he is capable of reason, that he has self-determination or free will, or a combination of all these qualities. Then of course we see again what I said earlier, that it is nonsense to talk about these things as having been destroyed — as having been destroyed by sin.
Now, we need to look more fully into the question: what is this image? The question is, is this fully covering the matter of the image of God in man, when we say that man is distinguished from animals, not so much in his erect position and such like, but in his capacity to reason, or in his having free will? I would say something far more important. I would say that the distinguishing feature about God's image in man in Scripture is that man, like God, is spirit. He is body and spirit. That's what distinguishes him. God is spirit, and we are like Him in that we have spirit. To my surprise, I have not seen any theologian mention this, but all you have to do is take a concordance and see how frequently the word "spirit," in the sense of human spirit, is referred to in the Old Testament.
Now, the word "spirit" in the Bible — spirit with a small s, referring to the human spirit — can just mean life. Sometimes it just means life. "His spirit left him" means that his life left him. But at other times it has a much more specific sense. It refers to a certain quality in man that resembles God — that quality in man which is spirit. Now, this is exceedingly important, and I would stress this point in particular: you have the image of God insofar as you are spirit. You are spirit. You are body and you are spirit. And spirit comprehends these other things. In Scripture, intellectual ability is not something that stands out by itself. It is simply a subordinate function of the spirit of man. Will is a subordinate function or an essential function of the spirit of man. For this I leave you to study the use of "spirit" in Scripture. But it must occur to us immediately, very evidently, that the place that man most resembles God is precisely in the spirit. Is it not? Why should we put the stress on intellectual capacity, as though God is simply a great mind? This is the Greek notion, not the Hebrew notion. And the Western world is saturated with Greek notions: the centrality of the mind, the dominance of mind, rather than of spirit. But the Bible sees man as dominated by spirit. The most important thing about a human being is his spirit. And so Ecclesiastes chapter 12 says that when a man dies, his spirit returns to God. He goes to be with God. His body goes to the ground.
Now let us pursue this question. What then is the image of God? We see that it is centered in the spirit of man — man as a spiritual being. And in this sense, God is spirit; man is made in that image. But we must ask yet a more important question for all of us, significant for all of us. And that is: why did God make man in His spirit and in His image? Now you will say, are we dealing with very impractical questions? No, no. We are dealing with questions of the utmost importance. God made us in His image. But why? Why did He do this? It affects our whole understanding of man. I want to point out to you that true theology is intimately tied up with anthropology. Theology is the study of God. Anthropology is the study of man — anthropos, from the Greek word for man. Of course, there is a branch of science today called anthropology. I am using the word in the general sense: the knowledge or study of man. And we are talking about biblical anthropology. How you think about man means that is the way you will think about life in general. Indeed, it will govern the way you think about yourself, about your spiritual future, about the way you deal with other people. So now you can see that we are not dealing with high and lofty and rather mystical theological doctrines. We are talking about practical things: about how you think about man in general, about life in general, about yourself in particular. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the image of God. Why did God make you in His image?
Now we can see that we are talking about a valid subject. Because if you are no longer in God's image, or if man has never been in God's image since Adam, there is no point talking about this subject at all. We don't have a doctrine of man except to say that men are spiritual imbeciles, degenerate, corrupt, perverts. Well, let us study this a little more closely. And when we read Genesis chapter 1, verses 26 and 27, as we did earlier, you will notice that three times in those two verses it is thrice repeated that man was created in God's image. The word "image" — Hebrew word tselem — is used outside of Genesis in virtually every instance, to our surprise, to refer to idol — the image which is an idol. Now all you have to do again is look at a concordance under the word tselem, whether you use Young's or a Hebrew dictionary, whichever, and you will see that outside of Genesis this word refers again and again, virtually in every instance, to an idol. God speaks about these "images of the nations," which refers to the idols of those nations. And in Daniel chapter 2 and chapter 3, there you find that this word, the root, the word of the same root, refers to the great image in chapter 2 that Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, saw in his dream. And in chapter 3 it refers to this 90-foot pillar or image that Nebuchadnezzar set up — an image of gold to be worshipped, an idol that Nebuchadnezzar set up. And because of that idol, God struck him down so that he became, in fact, crawling around like a beast for some time, as an act of judgment.
Now, think of the significance of this. Can you put it together in your mind? In Deuteronomy chapter 4, verse 16, let us read this for a moment. Let me read Deuteronomy chapter 4, verse 16, to you. And this is what we read here: "Beware" — here the Lord speaks to Israel — "beware lest you act corruptly," Deuteronomy 4:16, "by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, like the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth," and so on. And verse 19: "And beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars and all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them and serve them, things which the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven."
Man was not to make any image, Deuteronomy 4 tells us, of any creature — not even man himself, whether male or female. He is to make no image of anything so that he may not worship them. Man was not to worship any other thing except God Himself. There was no image to be made. But there is only one image of God in the world: man himself. Man as a living being is that image. Remember the word is for "idol" elsewhere — outside Genesis. Man was not to make any idol, any image, for this astonishing reason: that man himself is the only image of God. And amazingly, that only image is made by God Himself of Himself. That is an astonishing realization. That is why man must make no image of anything else, because the living person himself is the only image of God that walks upon this earth. And that image of God is made by Himself for everyone to see.
You see, this is a wonderful doctrine, the image of God. That every man is the image of God. That God has given an image of Himself, and you are that image. Incredible. That is really mind-boggling. And no wonder — no wonder we are going to say, "No, no, no, cannot be me, the image of God. We must be looking at somebody else. Somebody else. That can't be me." We realize that we are totally unworthy. And that is the beauty of the doctrine of the image of God. Because far from making us feel self-satisfied, we immediately realize that we are such an unworthy image of God. We are such a terrible picture of God in our present state. It is precisely this that drives us to the grace of God. Is it not?
Now, let us look at the word "likeness." Genesis uses two words. Genesis chapter 1, verse 26, says that God makes man in His image and in His likeness. Two words. As though to emphasize the thing twice over. We are in God's image; we are in His likeness. Now that's very important. This word "likeness" is used precisely in Genesis chapter 5, verse 3, where it tells us that Seth was in Adam's image, in his likeness. What does that tell us? It tells us that man bears God's image in much the same way as Seth bears Adam's image. It is a father and son image. Now this is very important for understanding the scriptural doctrine of the image of God. You see, it shows that there is an internal relationship and an external relationship. Man is related to God internally by way of his spirit. He is also related externally, for others to see that he bears God's image. Most significant. But it also shows that though there is a relationship, there is not an identity. Man is like God, but he is not God. And there is a very important statement. Man is indeed like God, but he is not God. The doctrine of the image of God exalts man and at the same time keeps him humble. Do you see that? For theology to destroy this doctrine is to destroy wonderful things out of God's law.
Man sometimes imagines in his stupidity and in his vanity, like Nebuchadnezzar, that he has somehow become God. No, no. The image of God says you bear His likeness, but you are not God. Oh, no way. The son is not the father. Seth is not Adam. He bears Adam's likeness, but he is not Adam. We bear God's likeness, but we are not God. They don't ever remember this.
Now, this is very, very significant. And I stress again that our theology directly affects our anthropology. That is, our understanding of God's word directly affects our understanding of one another. You see, if we take the humanist understanding, and we say that man's liberal understanding — or the Protestant theological understanding — that the image of God in man is destroyed, think for a moment what happens. If you follow that theology, what happens? If the image of God in man is destroyed, then man is really no different from a beast. He has now, after the fall of Adam, become no different from an animal. And of course, that is what we would rather like to say about most people — that they are no different from animals. In fact, about our enemies, we would like to say that they are worse than animals. It gives us some satisfaction to say this, almost. But the Scripture will not allow us that satisfaction. I say it will not allow us the satisfaction to say you are an animal. To say that is to insult God. We may not say this.
What is more — let me tell you this — that if you hold the view that because of Adam's fall, the image of God in man has been destroyed, and that man is therefore really no different from an animal, then your understanding — or the Protestant theological understanding of man — is essentially no different from that of the humanist, from that of the evolutionist. Because that is what the evolutionists have said all along: that man is basically a monkey. That is what he is. Man is simply a glorified monkey. He is an animal. You see. I mean, isn't that what evolution has been telling us? We've been sitting in school — in China, I mean, this is required doctrine for us. We were hammered by the teaching in mainland China that we are all evolved from monkeys, and therefore you and I are simply glorified monkeys. Intelligent chimpanzees. Civilized orangutans. That's what we are. An educated baboon. That's what we are. What else? Right? So maybe you like to stress the "educated" part, but "baboon" is still there. I mean, you're still a baboon, even if you're an educated one. Ah, we say, "How true to life. The guy I know in school is really an educated baboon." All right, maybe you like to use that imagery, but let's get back to Scripture. Curse man with the tongue? You have insulted the image of God.
But now it shows you — and you see how dangerous is that pit that I said that our theologians are leading us into — that we may say we believe in the Bible and we end up with a doctrine that is exactly the same as that of the evolutionists. No different in essence. In practical application there is none. I would say, with one proviso. In fact, our evangelical understanding of man is worse than that of the evolutionists. You know why? Because we maintain — or have been maintaining — a doctrine of total depravity. Total depravity. That after the fall of Adam, man became totally depraved. What does "totally depraved" mean? Well, "depraved" comes from a Latin word, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a Latin word which means "crooked." Depraved means, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, "to be morally perverse or vicious." Depravity means "moral perverseness and moral viciousness." That is, in other words, to say that man is totally degenerate, corrupt, rotten to the core, radically evil in himself. In other words, he is worse than an animal, because an animal is just ignorant. But a human being is vicious and evil, totally depraved.
Now you say, "Ah, yeah, how true to life." Wait, wait, wait. Not so fast. Not so fast. Because you might find yourself guilty of that very thing that James warned you not to get into: to curse man. We have a very low opinion of men. Because we in the evangelical tradition were brought up on a very low opinion of men. Is it not so? So much so that I find it very difficult, when I was a young Christian, to reach out to the non-Christian. Because every time you come to the non-Christian, how do you regard him? Totally depraved. That's what you've been taught. So I approach with a certain sense of revulsion and disgust. I mean, when did you ever want to embrace total depravity? I mean, this is absolutely impossible. I mean, he is totally rotten and degenerate. Do you want to love him? And so we twist our minds and say, "Yeah, yeah, well, we don't love the corruption in him, we just love the man." But how do you separate the two? With what intellectual stunt can you get around to separating the two? He is depraved — not something inside of him that can be detached from him, in which you say, "Well, that part I don't love, but this part I love." I mean, this kind of mental acrobatics I am not very successful at. I don't know how to go about this thing. If he is depraved, then he is depraved and worthy of condemnation, destruction, and death. What are we mincing words about here? You see, it directly affects the way we look at people. That is why this doctrine is so dangerous.
I remember vividly as a young Christian listening to an interview on radio between a news reporter and a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Sorry I have to mention names. Now the Plymouth Brethren are a very closed sect. They are called Closed Brethren, and this was referring to an extreme sect of the Plymouth Brethren, which carried this doctrine to its logical conclusion: that since all men are utterly corrupt and rotten and degenerate to the core, then we must have nothing to do with people. In fact, you cannot even get into that church without applying through a special series of applications in order just to attend the service, never mind become a member of it. Even if you are a Christian, you will not be admitted to their meetings. You have to be scrutinized to see whether most of the rottenness has been removed from you, whether you are no longer as perverse as Adam was, and maybe you might be considered being admitted to the meeting. These people don't want to reach out to those degenerate, perishing, rotten people outside the church. "We have no time for the likes of such perverts." There you see, this doctrine is a very dangerous doctrine because it completely corrupts the way we look at people.
Now, my question simply to ask is: is this the way the Lord Jesus looked at people? Did He look at people as a bunch of corrupt perverts, evil in the very root of their being? When I look at the Gospels, I don't see that. I realized that something was wrong, and I confess this to you. I realized that something was wrong when I looked at people in a way quite different from the Lord Jesus. I was brought up on the evangelical doctrine of the total depravity of man. This so affected the way I look at people that I found it virtually impossible to love a non-Christian. Impossible, because he's a pervert. He's corrupt. He's rotten. He's in rebellion against God. He's degenerate at the core of his being. You want to love this type of person? No way. I mean, if you want to help this person, it is like coming to a person with leprosy. You hold your nose and you stretch out your arm and give him a tract. "Take it, take it, and get out of here. For the sake of your soul, read it. But don't come too close. Just keep your distance. When you get saved, come and see me again."
Now, I'm exaggerating. But I must say, I must say that my mind was in confusion. I didn't know how it was possible to love a pervert. And God's love — I know in Scripture it says something about love your enemies — but enemies are not necessarily perverts. We are talking about moral corruption. But the greatest danger, as I said, came when I realized that God's view, the Lord Jesus' view of man, was quite different from mine.
Let us read Matthew 9, verse 36. "When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." And notice, He didn't just have compassion. Two verses later, He sends His disciples out on a mission to save — the wonderful mission on which these disciples went out in chapter 10. He had compassion. How did He regard people? He looked at them as sheep. Let me ask you, are sheep degenerate, perverse, corrupt? That is the furthest thing you can think about sheep, is that they are perverse and corrupt. But He looked at people as sheep. Sheep with no shepherd. That means to say they would be attacked by any wolf that came along, tearing them to pieces, harassing them, destroying them. He looked at people as sheep — totally lost, but not totally depraved. Totally lost, yes. But totally depraved, no. Now that's a vital difference. Because if you see people as lost, you have pity for them, you feel sorry for them. But if you see people as perverse and depraved, you feel revulsion and disgust for them. Obviously.
The way you look at people, brothers and sisters, is absolutely vital to your future life as a Christian. To whether you will reach out or not. To how you look at the people in the place of work. To the people who study with you in school. To the way you associate with business people in the world. It is vital how you look at them. Jesus, our Lord, looked at them as pitiful sheep — totally lost. Utterly lost. Have you seen the picture of a sheep lost? Going around looking, "Where am I? What am I supposed to do?" It calls forth compassion. And this word "compassion" is used so many times of the Lord Jesus in the Gospels. Again and again it is used about the Lord Jesus that He had compassion on this person and He had compassion on that one. He looked at people from different eyes, and I immediately realized that that's not the way I looked at people. I'd been taught to regard them as rotten, and therefore I have a sense of disgust about them. I am disgusted about the unbeliever. I tolerate him. And this is not at all the feeling that a doctor has towards his patients. A doctor who comes to his patients — presumably though he is mangled, he is broken up, say in a car accident — he has pity and compassion upon him. Because injury and sickness is not the same as corruption and perversion. It's not the same picture at all. If I see the person as sick, then I have pity on him. If I see him as corrupt, then I have a sense of revulsion. I see him as a rotten criminal. You don't have pity on that type. You're going to bring back the death penalty for this kind of people again. You don't have pity on these.
How you look at people, brothers and sisters, is absolutely vital. That is the picture in Scripture. "All we," Paul says in Romans, quoting the Old Testament, "all we like sheep have gone astray." That is the picture in Scripture. Everywhere people are compared to sheep. In the Old Testament, in Ezekiel, for example, Ezekiel denounces the shepherds for feeding on the sheep, for getting their personal benefit out of the sheep, for eating them up. The prophets time and time again have attacked the shepherds of Israel for eating up the sheep. The people of Israel are simply regarded as the sheep. But the prophets are particularly severe, as I have been today, with the shepherds — with the teachers, with the theologians, with the pastors. With these we will be severe. But with the sheep, let us be gentle, be merciful. They don't know where they are going.
Now, our time is pretty nearly gone and we have not by any means finished the subject. And we shall continue the next time. Today we have concentrated mainly in the Old Testament. Next time we will study the New Testament. But before I close, let me give you four points very quickly that we shall try to pick up again next time. What then is the significance, the meaning, the purpose of this image of God in man? We can understand it in the light of four relationships that man has: man's relationship to other created beings, other material beings, other creatures; man's relationship to the world as a material world; secondly, in man's relationship to other people; thirdly, in his relationship to spiritual beings; and fourthly, in his relationship to God. These are the four main relationships in the Bible that man has.
Very briefly then, in our relationship to other creatures, God created man in order that he may have dominion. Both before and after the passage that we read in Genesis chapter 1, verses 26 and 27, it says that man is to have dominion. That is to say, man was meant to act as God's viceroy, as God's governor, in the world that God created. That is why he is in God's image, because he is meant to represent God, to govern the world as God's representative. But there is a process involved, and I shall not go into that today, because that will take us into other important matters.
Secondly, in relation to other people, God's intention was that we should be able to reveal God to one another. We should be able, as I look at you and you look at me, to learn about God from each other. It is not to be one way, one person doing all the teaching and all the others doing all the learning. We were meant to learn from one another. When I look at some people, I can learn so much about the Lord from them. I look at their lives and I say, "This person is much kinder than I am. I can see the kindness of God in you. I need to learn that. You are teaching me about God's kindness." I look at another person and I say, "That person is much more considerate than I am. I see God's goodness, God's thoughtfulness in you." I can learn something from everybody. Everybody teaches me about God, because God's image of the new creation, in this case, is in you. And this is what God's intention was. That we don't have any idols anywhere, because God made an image of Himself. I can't carry a mirror around looking at myself, but I can look at His image all around me. God created a society in which everywhere His image is to be seen. Wonderful. Colossians chapter 3, verse 16: "Teaching and admonishing one another." That was the point. And we teach and admonish not by word only, but by the way we live. The church was meant to build each other up in this way.
Thirdly, the spiritual world. Man was created by God to be seen not only by the animals, to subdue the material creation; not merely that we see one another, but — you know that the whole spiritual world is looking at you? That there are angelic beings and demonic beings, spiritual beings of great power. And we are being watched by them. They are looking at what God is doing in you and in me. Is that fanciful? Not at all. Let me read to you 1 Corinthians chapter 4, verse 9. And this is what we read here: "For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and to men." Ah! We are a spectacle to the angels and to men. The whole universe looks at us. The spiritual world of beings are looking at us. The image of God — the Bible has in the creation of man a cosmic aspect that we have no time to go into yet. But it is not just this world that is affected by Christ's redemption. The entire universe is affected by it, as Paul speaks about it in Romans chapter 8. And the entire spiritual universe is watching you and watching me to see what God is doing.
Fourthly, we must close very quickly. God created us in His image not just to have dominion over creatures, not just to reveal God to one another and teach one another about His likeness in us by the way we live, not just that the whole spiritual universe can watch us, but that we may commune with Him in our relationship to Himself. That we may come into closeness of communion with Him. And that we may come to know His mind, to understand the way He thinks. You can commune with a dog — yes, you can, up to a point. When I was small I had dogs, and I love to play with animals, and dogs are very good companions in many ways. But when it comes to deeper things, you cannot share it with a dog. You have to share it with somebody in your own likeness who understands you, who understands your mind. That is why God created us. He wanted to have someone He could commune with at the deepest level. Sure, He can communicate with other creatures, just as we can communicate with dogs, and they are very good friends. But there are times we need deeper communication. God made us in His image for this very reason.
I have been speaking about perfection and the prophetic ministry. How? It is so that when we enter into this aspect of our being in His image, that we can communicate closely with Him. That is what a prophet is. A prophet is simply a person who understands God's mind because he's been communicating so closely with Him. That is why he can say, "Thus says the Lord." I know what the Lord says. I've been communing with Him. I know what He thinks about this matter. There you see why God created us.
The Lord willing, we shall continue further in this important subject. And may the Lord continue to help us to realize why He made us as we are, that the whole range of His wonderful purpose will be fulfilled in us. Let us pray.
# In His Image (Part 2)
Today we continue to look into the Word of God, and we have, as many of you will know, been expounding the scriptural teaching on regeneration and renewal. And the first six messages in this series were concerned directly with regeneration and renewal. From the seventh message in this series, we began to look at the scriptural teaching on perfection, because we saw that the whole goal and direction of regeneration and renewal is to perfection — that we may be perfect even as He, our God and our King, is perfect. And the last two messages, and now including this one, so that three messages will have been concerned with the image of God. This is the third then, on the image of God.
Now, today we want to particularly examine the practical aspect of the scriptural teaching on the image of God. Why were we created in the image of God? And evidently the answer to this, put right at the beginning and very simply, is that God intends that His glory will be revealed through us. Put in another way, He intends that His glory, His character, will be made visible in this world through us. Now that's a very high calling indeed. And now we begin to understand why Paul speaks of our high calling. Too often the gospel has been presented as though the only purpose why the gospel is being preached is so that we can be saved and get to heaven. And that is indeed an inadequate, and therefore a misrepresentation of the purpose of the gospel. He saved us with a specific purpose in view: that we should manifest His glory in the world.
He gave us the Holy Spirit. What for? If salvation is simply to get to heaven, what exactly do we need the Holy Spirit for? Because according to many, once you are saved, you are saved anyway. So what do you need the Holy Spirit for, if your place is already reserved in heaven? But if the purpose for which He saved us is so that we may manifest His glory, that we may make His glory visible in this generation, and make it visible to the world in such a way that their hearts will be drawn to God — then we can see what is the purpose of regeneration, what is the purpose of renewal, why we have been given the Holy Spirit of God. And I am saying not mainly "we," but each one of us. And I am saying you in particular have been called — and don't pass the buck to the next guy — you have been called to manifest His glory. And God will not allow you to escape, and I mean you will not be allowed to escape the responsibility that you should manifest His glory in your place of study, or place of work, whatever the situation may be.
So in this third message, I'd like to summarize first and foremost what we have been studying so far, and then begin to examine the practical implication of our being created in God's image. Now in the previous messages, we have seen that Adam was created in God's image right at the beginning, indicating very clearly to us what was the reason for creating Adam at all: namely, to manifest, as we have seen, God's glory. But a very important thing we must bear in mind is this: that Adam was created physically in God's image. Now if we fail to grasp this distinction, we are going to end up like so many theologians in complete error. Adam — and I stress this once more, and I shall indicate to you the scriptural evidence for all this — Adam was created physically, or in an earthly sense, in God's image. That is to say, we must distinguish between two kinds of the image of God in Scripture: the image of God in the earthly sense, and the image of God in the heavenly sense. And when we exegetically fail to distinguish between these two, we will end up talking all manner of nonsense, as indeed many of our theological friends have been doing.
It is because there was the failure to distinguish between these two types of image of God in us that the theologians began to talk about Adam having lost the image of God when he sinned. And as we have seen in our previous messages, there is no scriptural justification whatever for such a statement. The tragedy in the church has been for us that our theologians have been very bad exegetes, and I make that statement with no apology whatsoever. They have been terrible exegetes. They don't seem to understand the elements of exegesis. I would maintain for the safety of the church in the future that no one has the right to be a theologian, or to be called by such a name, who has not been solely equipped in the matters of exegesis. We have suffered quite enough from all the doctrinal nonsense that so many theologians have been speaking to us.
We have seen that in Scripture there is no talk whatsoever of the image of God in Adam having been lost. There is no statement anywhere to that effect, whether in the Old Testament or in the New. And there is no danger of my statement being challenged whatsoever because it cannot be challenged. That's the fact of the matter. In fact, only two days ago when I was looking in the article on the image in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Brown, the statement is there clearly observed. In fact, I saw that the one writing the article was able to state categorically and quite correctly that there is no doctrine of Adam having lost the image of God in the Old Testament. Correct. So the theological dictionary is quite correct on this point. He could have also added equally correctly that there is no such statement in the New Testament either. However, as he goes on in the article, he is obviously confused by the doctrine on which he was nurtured up, so that it is a little bit difficult to reconcile what he says further on from what he says at the beginning, which shows how difficult it is to think clearly and spiritually in these days.
Now, the first thing then, let me stress again, is that there are two images. We have and we still bear the image of God physically. It has never been lost. But we will and we are in the process of bearing the spiritual image of God as it is in Christ. Now let's get this very clear in our minds. Adam was created in God's image in the earthly sense. Christ bears the image of God in the spiritual sense.
Let's look again at 1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 49, to get this into focus. 1 Corinthians chapter 15, verse 49. And this is what we read here: "Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven." There you have this image — the same word again. Just as we have — and we still do — bear the image of the man of dust, Adam — or rather, more correctly stated, the image of God as transmitted to us in Adam — so we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven, or the image of God in Christ. Now of course, if you have been already so brainwashed by the idea that the image of God in Adam has fallen, then you would of course say we have borne the image of the fallen image of God in Adam, whatever that would mean. Of course, if that's what you are doing, then what you are doing is you are reading a doctrinal presupposition into Paul's statement, because Paul has already made it clear that the image of God in Adam has not been lost.
Where do we see this? He has already told us that four chapters earlier, in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 7. So let me read to you 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 7, and this is what Paul says: "For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man." Now let's look at the first part of the statement. And if our theologians had ever done the most elementary exegesis, they would have seen that Paul is asserting that the man is — not was — the glory of God and the image of God. I mean, this is something so elementary in exegesis that it is just beyond belief that people like Karl Barth or Calvin or anyone else can blunder so astonishingly into such a thing as talking about the fallen image of God. Well, Paul doesn't know about any fallen image of God; neither does the Old Testament, as we have seen. No, no. Paul, on the contrary, asserts: "For a man is the image and glory of God" — not "was." And of course, if it's already fallen, his argument in the whole of 1 Corinthians 11 would collapse. Paul would have no case at all.
He is saying — and notice this, and this is very important for understanding — that the man is. And I should point out to you that the word translated "man" is the word masculine in Greek, which means it refers to the male. There are two Greek words translated "man" in the New Testament. One is anthropos and the other is aner. Anthropos is where you have the English word "anthropology" from, which is simply the generic term for human beings; it may refer to a man who is male, but it may also refer simply to the human race generally. But that's not the word used here. The word used here is aner, which refers to the male of the human species only. The male is the image and glory of God. That's a very important statement in Paul. And what he is saying here is that the man, because he was created directly by God in the first instance, was created in God's image, and he is still in that image. The woman, of course, also bears the image of God, but in a derivative sense, because she was taken out from Adam. Now this is the point, the whole point on which Paul's statement here rests. And therefore to this day, because man is still in the image of God, he must not cover his head, lest he hide God's glory. But because woman is derived from man in the Genesis account, as you know, she is therefore the glory of man, and the glory of man is to be covered in the presence of God. So this shows that in the physical sense, the image of God is for Paul very much the basis of his reasoning here in 1 Corinthians 11.
Now as I have mentioned, in Scripture there are two types or two levels of the image of God. One is the physical level; the other is the spiritual level. What is true on the physical level is not true on the spiritual level. It is true on the physical level that man was created — that is the other thing to notice, of course, from the exegetical point of view — is that in verse 7 we have the present tense, and that's where it says "man is," correctly translated "is" because it is a present participle here in the Greek text. So man is right now still on the physical level the image of God, but not necessarily so on the spiritual level. That is why he becomes — and he becomes a partaker of the image of God on the spiritual level only through regeneration or through the new creation.
Now once the theologians had so much as grasped this point, we would not have been in the messy doctrinal situation we are in today. I would like you to observe that the very foundation of Western theology is based on the notion that Adam's fall destroyed the image of God in man. And I mentioned this before. And this morning, the very thought of that prevented me from going to sleep again. After four hours of sleep I woke up, and the realization that the foundations of Western theology was actually built on a mistaken piece of doctrine of scriptural teaching so shattered me that I couldn't sleep anymore after that for hours. I was calling upon the Lord and saying, "Lord, what is the fearful situation of the church, that so important an aspect of Your word has been misrepresented to us?"
As you know, it is the first and cardinal point of Calvinistic teaching that man has fallen. It is called total depravity or original sin. And because of that first point, the other points followed from the whole Calvinistic system, which of course was borrowed from Augustine — it was nothing invented by Calvin; he borrowed the entire system from Augustine — and the whole of Western theology is based on something that doesn't exist in Scripture: the fallen image of God in Adam. It doesn't exist in Scripture. And the realization of this, as it dawned upon me, was quite shattering. I thought to myself, "Lord, have pity upon us. We have an entire system of theology based on a piece of non-existent scriptural teaching. It doesn't exist in Scripture. It is, to put it rather frankly, a piece of pure invention — this idea of the image of God in Adam having fallen."
I don't know if the realization, the shock of this, is beginning to come through to you, but the shock of it as it came to me is — it's hard for me to convey, as you see I'm running out of words to know how to express this thing, that since the days of Augustine, 1,500 years, we have perpetrated a system — and a whole system of theology — that isn't to be found in Scripture. We can only cry out to God: "Lord, have mercy upon us. Lord, raise up for Your people in these days people who are committed to the truth of Your word." And as I had said earlier, if only we had paid a little more attention to our Jewish friends, we would not have made so astonishing a blunder as this. The Jews have always told us there is no such teaching in the Old Testament. And after all, they have dedicated their entire history to the study of the Old Testament, which is the word of God for them. They have warned: there is no such teaching in the Old Testament. But Christian theologians thought they knew better, and invented a system which is non-existent.
Only recently I've been reading an anthology of the writings of A.J. Heschel, that great Jewish scholar and rabbi, great thinker, and also I would say a great man of God. And he already said in that anthology of his writings called "Between God and Man" — there he stated categorically, he said, "Judaism is not committed to any doctrine of original sin." It is not committed to any doctrine of original sin. Why? Because it's not in Scripture. It's as simple as that. It doesn't exist in Scripture. But we are not listening. We think we are superior to the Jews. We think that they are blind and we see. Pity — Lord, have pity upon Your church. It turns out that we are blind and they see. We do well to attend carefully to those who have been warning us along the way.
But let us continue to press on. It raises the question then, that so much of our dogma has been controlled by theological interests, not by the teaching of the word of God. You see, there was the notion, as we saw, that if Adam did not fall, then somehow he would have automatically inherited the kingdom of God, and Jesus would not have had to come, and He wouldn't have had to die. And as we saw in an earlier message, we almost have to plead with Adam that he might sin so that the grace of God might come — exactly as Paul said in Romans: "Shall we sin that grace might abound?" Is it that God's grace would be hampered by the lack of sin, that the more we sin, the more God has a chance to express His grace? And we saw how ridiculous is this notion. God's grace does not depend upon our sins, or else we should be grateful for sins, because if we didn't sin, then God's grace would be frustrated and have no occasion to express itself.
If only we had understood the scriptural teaching — Adam, even if he had never sinned, would still need God's grace. He would still need to be regenerate. Did you realize that? Why? Because the earthly cannot inherit the heavenly. It's as simple as that. As the Lord Jesus says in John chapter 3 and verse 6: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." What does that mean? That means, in terms of salvation, as the Apostle Paul made it clear for us in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 and verse 50, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is something spiritual. Flesh and blood — you and I in our natural state, no matter how good we were, no matter how righteous we were — could never inherit the kingdom of God. The righteousness of man cannot inherit the kingdom of God because it is flesh and blood. We need to be born of the Spirit before we can inherit what is Spirit.
Put in simpler language: you cannot have eternal life, no matter how righteous you are, because eternal life is spiritual and you are carnal. And Adam is carnal. And even if he never sinned, he could still not inherit eternal life. His physical life might go on, but physical life is not eternal life. And an endless physical life is not equivalent to eternal life in the Bible. Do we realize that? When will God's people see and understand the things which are of God? Even if Adam never died physically, that is not eternal life in the Bible. Endless life, unending life, is not eternal life. Eternal life is spiritual life. It is God's life. It is a totally different quality of life from our earthly life. If I did not die, if I could live tomorrow and the day after for a thousand years and ten thousand years, that is not eternal life in the Bible. That is simply physical life — an extended and continual physical life. Adam himself, even if he never sinned, could never have inherited the kingdom of God. Do we understand the Scriptures? Even Adam had to be born again of the Spirit of God in order to inherit eternal life. You see, that is why I said in an earlier message: even if Adam never sinned, he would still have to be born again. As every righteous man, even if he never sinned, would still have to be born again. Therefore we do not have to try to drag people down into sin before they can be saved — almost we would wish that they would sin. How absurd, as though God's grace depended on man's sin to manifest itself. We live by grace, as we saw, in every detail, just as the angels of God who never sin depend on God's grace. And we utterly depend on God's grace for His mercy and His kindness and His salvation. And your righteousness, even if you had never sinned, would make no difference to that.
That man sins is a fact. That God has been merciful to us is also a fact. But let us never be foolish enough to imagine that Adam somehow — that God had to hope that Adam would sin so that He could manifest His grace. I hope now you understand that there are two levels of the image of God, and one does not pass automatically from the one to the other. There is no automatic transfer from the one to the other. There is a barrier between the flesh and the Spirit that no man can get across except by regeneration, except by the power of God transforming him. None of us get across that barrier, and no amount of righteousness on your part can get you across that barrier. No amount of merit and good works can get you across the barrier, because what is of flesh is flesh. So plain is the teaching of Scripture. It's so clear.
So let us proceed. And my heart pains me for the church of Christ. Oh, what have our theologians done to us, and created and invented systems of absurdity to prove a point that didn't need proving, because it was there all the time in Scripture.
Now another important distinction between these two images, and another important distinction between the image of God in us on the earthly level and the image of God that will be in us on the spiritual level, we find in Scripture is this: the image of God in us on the earthly level is already complete. It is always in Scripture spoken of as the complete image. There is no question of development of that image. But the spiritual image of God in us is always spoken of in us as being incomplete. Very important to grasp this distinction too.
Let us look, for example, at Colossians chapter 3, verse 10. Let me read to you Colossians 3:10, and it reads like this: "And you have put on the new man, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." You have already put on the new man, which is however being renewed. Notice, it's in the process. That's why we spoke of regeneration and renewal. This image of God in us is not perfect yet. It is being renewed. That's why we can see why we are talking about perfection and image under the terms of regeneration and renewal, because this image in us is not, in this present time, perfect. It is in the process of being renewed in the image of its Creator, that is, of God.
Now we see this also in 2 Corinthians chapter 3 and verse 18. And let me read this passage to you also, for some of us this passage is very familiar already, as I have referred to it many times before: "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness" — notice again, it's a process — "are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit." We are being changed from one degree of glory to another. The image of God is gradually being formed in us, and there are different degrees of it depending on your present spiritual state. This means that some people right now are manifesting more of the glory of God — which is, by the way, a synonym for the image of God. Notice how "glory" and "image" — man, as we saw in 1 Corinthians 11 and verse 7, man is also on the physical level the glory and image of God. These two terms, "image" and "glory," are constantly linked, and here also they are linked. We are being transformed into the same image, from one degree of glory to another. And that means that some people manifest more of the glory, a higher degree of God's glory, than others, which is a matter of common experience. You look around and you can see some obviously manifesting more of God's glory than others.