Doctrine of Humanity (Creation and Fall)
God
willingly created the universe and humanity to display his glory. He had no
need to do so but did so voluntarily. In creating mankind in his image, we were
to serve as a mirror reflecting his glory. However, we have turned from him
into sin with grave consequences. Exploring the Doctrine of Creation and the Fall
requires answering several questions. We must ask what, when, where, and how, but
most importantly we need to know who and why. Understanding and coming to
conclusions regarding creation, humanity, and sin will have effects on the rest
of our doctrine and how we minister.
Since
God was the only one present at creation, we must depend on what he has
revealed concerning it. In looking at relevant scriptures dealing with creation
and the fall we lean heavily on the creation narrative in Genesis, but other passages
will fill in details. One facet of the human condition I will explore is how
the fall impacted our ability to reflect God’s glory and the unique distinction
between reflecting glory and being created in God’s image. Historical debates
on the issue of who bears God’s image are important as this has had numerous
social implications through the years. Contemporary debates on how to interpret
the “days” of creation continue in many circles. My key idea that Only God is
Certain, We Live by Faith can be applied in the uncertainties behind the
details of the mechanics of creation. In desiring certainty for themselves Adam
and Eve fell from their place as glory reflecting image bearers. They broke
God’s command and consumed the fruit of their lack of faith in him. As always,
we must begin our consideration of these doctrines from a starting point of
humility. Particularly because the process of Creation involved many mysteries
and uncertainties, we must develop a doctrine that illuminates fundamental
aspects but leaves room for some openness on secondary issues.
First,
we look to the scriptures and observe that Creation was a willing act of the
entire Trinity. God spoke, the Spirit hovered, and through his Logos everything
that has been made was made (Gen 1; Ps 33:6; Jn 1). His work in creation
continues and he does so freely, not out of compulsion or because he had a need
to be filled (Jn 5:17; Neh 9:6; Acts 17:25). Everything God has made serves his
purposes and proclaims his glory (Prv 16:4; Ps 19:1). After creating the world,
God spoke humanity into being by saying, “Let us make mankind in our own
image.” As discussed in my previous paper this is particularly notable because
of its use of the plural pronoun and reinforces the role of the entire Trinity
in creation. In creating humanity, God set apart humans to be his image
bearers, unlike anything else in all of creation. A unique purpose of humanity
is to enjoy God’s glory and, as I will detail later, reflect his glory to
others. God also created people to rule over the creation, be fruitful and
multiply, and to love and obey him.
The
concept that humanity was created in God’s image needs to be explored. Some theologians
have interpreted the verse on being made in God’s image and likeness as two distinct
ideas, but I consider them to be synonyms (Gen 1:26). Those who held a
trichotomic view of human composition believed that people were made of body,
soul, and spirit and in that way reflected the triune nature of God. I believe the constitutional nature of humans is more unified. Other
ideas of what signify the image of God include our capacity for reason, free
will, and dominion. These things indeed differentiate us from the rest of creation
and reflect communicable attributes of God. However, I tend toward centering my
understanding of humanity being made in the image of God as our capacity to be
in relationship, communing with other image bearers. I agree with Brunner and Barth
and their relational view of the image of God and the importance of the
male-female relationship in partnership as a reflection of the Trinity
(Erickson p. 464). On his own Adam could not fulfill the purposes of being
fruitful and multiplying and ruling over creation. God said let us make ‘them’
in our image and I wonder if Adam could not fully reflect the image of a triune
God without his female counterpart to be in relationship with. Could this be
part of why it was ‘not good’ that he was alone?
Considering
the original audience of the book of Genesis can aid our understanding what it
means to be made in God’s image. Moses was writing to recently freed slaves who
had been accustomed to seeing the image of gods all throughout Egypt. At Mount
Sinai they were given ten words to live by, including one forbidding the making
of graven images. This command was swiftly disobeyed since the desire to have a
visual and physical image of God was tempting. The intent of that law was to
instill the fact that the one true God they served could not be reduced to an
image made with hands. As they heard the first chapters of Genesis it would
have been striking that instead of graven images, humanity itself was meant to
be the representative images for God in the world, reflecting his glory and
fulfilling their purpose (Is 43:7). So, what went wrong?
Genesis
3 gives us the backstory of how God’s image in the world came to be defaced. God
gave Adam and Eve a command and they turned aside to seek their own autonomy.
Though they were created in the image of God they also wanted to be like him in
all things, being equal and uncreated. They wanted to
take on his incommunicable attribute of omniscience by knowing good and evil. This
was not God’s fault as he had given them everything they needed, but with their
freedom they chose to reject him. As the earth turns from the sun and the
darkness overtakes the world, so humanity entered into darkness as our first
parents turned from God. Their disobedience had colossal effects for all of
humanity and the future of the creation. Their relationship with their creator
was broken and they were separated from him. They experienced brokenness and
shame in their relationships with others and their experience of the natural
world was altered. The serpent spoke doubt into their hearts with the original
lie, “You will not die.” This was in direct contradiction to God’s command that
they would experience death if they ate the forbidden fruit. The genealogy of
Genesis 5 highlights the consequences over and over by emphasizing, “and he
died,” “and he died,” “and he died,” as a refrain to remind the reader of God’s
faithfulness to his promise of judgement. Humanity experiences both physical
and spiritual death because of the fall.
The
implications of being created in the image of God distinguishes us from all
other creatures and all humans have equally been made in his image. The image
of God persists in humanity through the fall (Gen 9:6) and yet something about
our nature must be renewed in the image of God (Col 3:10). I believe the
difference is primarily in our ability to reflect the glory of God. Although we
have been created in his image, we no longer reflect his glory perfectly
because we lost his presence. In the Old Testament the glory of God is often
paired with his presence. The cloud of glory and pillar of fire went with the
people in the wilderness (Ex 13:21) and later that cloud covered the tent of
meeting and the glory of God filled the tabernacle (Ex. 40:34). Moses had to
veil his face after being in the presence of the Lord because it was radiant
and reflected God’s glory (Ex 34:29-35). The presence of God with his people is
an important theme throughout the entire Bible. After the fall Adam and Eve hid
from the presence of God (Gen 3:8) and we still await the restoration of God’s
presence dwelling with his people (Rev 21:3). We see the covenant curses fulfilled
in Ezekiel 10 when God’s glorious presence leaves the temple. Yet, Isaiah also
provides hope as he speaks of one to come called ‘Immanuel,’ God with us. The
problem of sin and our separation from God is solved by the incarnation, death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The veil that separated us from God’s
glorious presence has been removed in Christ. After the promised gift of the
Holy Spirit, believers now are temples for God’s presence to dwell in (1 Cor
3:16). Through the work of the Spirit, we behold the glory of God and are
transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor
3:13-18). In our sanctification we are being conformed to the image of Christ
(Rom 8:29) who was not created in the image of God but who is the
image of God, the exact representation of his being and the radiance of his
glory (Col 1:15, Heb 1:3). Glory be to God that he allows us to reflect the
radiance of his glory.
Across
history the understanding of who is created in the image of God has varied and
had enormous implications on society. Most theologians agree that all humans
were created in the image of God, but this was not always the case. Augustine
was challenged by how to understand 1 Corinthians 11 and denied that women bore
the image of God in the same way as men (McGrath p 329). However, the image of
God in humanity is not affected by the diversity of people in sex, ethnicity,
economic status, age, ability, or any other incidental difference in persons. As
seen in the abuse and subjugation of women, when women are not seen as equal
bearers of God’s image it is easy to justify their lesser treatment. Indeed,
the sociological creation of different ‘races’ in the 1500s had the express
purpose of devaluing persons to rationalize the abhorrent ethnic slave trade.
Racism is a misnomer because there is only one human race, all created in God’s
image, after his own kind. I think it is sad that we must take space to explain
the concept that all humans are made in his image, but it is essential because
of the vast ramifications of the abuses on the Imago Dei in vulnerable people.
A
contemporary renewal of an old debate is how to understand the days of creation.
There are several theories ranging from a literal view (Six-Day Creationism) to
a literary view (Framework Hypothesis). A six, 24-hour day creation is
certainly possible since God can do anything, however when viewed within the
context of the other chapters in Genesis it does not seem necessary to take the
text literally in order to take it seriously. In chapter one, Genesis speaks of creation in terms of days but
uses the same word in chapter two to speak of the consequences of eating from
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Lord says to Adam, “On the day
you eat from it, you will surely die” (Gen 2:17) yet we see that Adam did not
die within 24 hours. In addition to hermeneutical arguments against a literal
translation there are many theories against a six-day creation stemming from
scientific discoveries. There is a resurgence of
anti-intellectualism occurring among fundamentalist Christians and their
insistence that if one does not hold to a literal six-day creation it amounts
to the denial of the inerrancy of scripture. I reject this supposition and, while
still believing that a six-day creation is possible, I do not think it is
probable. I tend toward interpreting the text in its literary context, viewing
the 6 days of creation as a establishing a form and filling the earth. The
Framework Hypothesis points to the rhythm God’s people were to keep each week
as they mirrored God’s six days of work and rest on the Sabbath. Other views
like Progressive Creationism or Theistic Evolution also have strengths and
weaknesses too many to detail here. The bottom line is the implications any of
these views have on how we read the rest of the Bible. Personally, I do not
think that any one view of creation explains everything perfectly and is
necessary to hold in order to interpret other scriptures well. In fact, I think
that holding to one creation view with absolutism is the main problem in these
debates. If you rigidly hold to a six-day creationism will end up interpreting other
passages in the Bible more literally, even if they are within a figurative
context. On the other hand, if you fastidiously believe in Theistic Evolution
because the idea of creation happening in six days does not seem possible, you
will end up interpreting miracles or supernatural events in the Bible as mere
coincidences or deny them all together. When people cannot hold their views
with humility, they are less likely to flex when new information comes to light
that may challenge their view. We have some confidence, but not certainty, when
it comes to the mysteries of creation. Faithful believers throughout time have
fallen in everywhere on this spectrum of theories. For me, the creation account
in Genesis is less about the mechanics of when and how creation came about and
more about answering the question of who and why.
This
fits together with my key idea that God Alone is Certain, We Live by Faith. As
I consider the doctrine of the fall, a lack of faith and a desire for certainty
is revealed in Adam and Eve. They had been given a command and, although they
had everything they needed, they wanted certainty for themselves rather than to
live by faith. Without certainty of what was good and evil they had to trust
that God would lead them. The serpent planted doubt in their hearts and instead
of turning in faith to God they decided to seek out autonomy that would enable
them to decide for themselves what was good or evil. God has left mysteries in
the world, things only he knows. As we seek out knowledge we must do so in the
fear of the Lord (Prov 1:7).
The
doctrine of Creation and the Fall impacts my ministry in various ways. If an
important part of being made in the image of God is the partnership that we
experience with other humans, it is easy to see how the fall makes it
impossible to realize this in a perfect way. We were created to experience
God’s presence in relationship with him. He created us to be in fellowship with
other image bearers and yet that is often broken. We reflect the unity and diversity
within the Trinity as each of us reflects his image in different ways. He has
given unique and diverse gifts to each believer to make up the church. In my
context as a woman in ministry among majority men, part of my role is to bring
my unique nature to our church’s leadership team. I reflect God’s image and
glorify him in ways that may look different from my male co-laborers. Each
person, Christian and non-Christian, is made in God’s image and therefore has unique
dignity. We do not need to earn significance; it is part of our inherent nature
simply as beings made in his image. This should impact every interaction we
have with other image bearers. Since God created us, we are infused with
purpose. We reflect his glory as we grow in Christ and become more like him.
The fall marred the way we reflect him just as a broken or warped mirror shows
some similarities to the image but in distorted ways. As we are conformed to
the image of Christ in our sanctification, we become truer and more effective
reflections of his glory.
Comments