2. The content of the divine image.
The divine image in man does not only consist in the possession of intellect and will or in the fact that man is a person, but above all in the right condition of intellect and will, namely in the fact that man recognized God with his intellect and wanted with his will only what God wants. And if we still distinguish the faculty of desire (the sensual desire, appetitus sensitivus),
divine nature of Christ (according to newer theologians), the words Gen. 1:26-27 offer no support. nature of Christ (so the newer theologians), he words Gen. 1:26-27 do not offer any clue that the nature of Christ (according to newer theologians) was created. Rather, from the plural suffix "in our image," "according to our likeness," it is clear that man was created in the image of the triune God, that is, according to that which is common to the three persons, that is, according to the glorious divine nature. The dogmatists express it thus: Causa exemplaris imaginis divinae non una divinitatis persona, sed Deus triunus est. Moreover, the relation of the divine image to the human nature of Christ contradicts clear scriptural statements. According to 1 Cor. 15:45 ff. Christ is ό έσχατος ανϑρωπος according to his human nature, and Adam ό πρώτος ανϑρωπος. According to Heb. 2:14 Christ took on the flesh and blood of men; not conversely men took on Christ's flesh and blood. What Quenstedt I, 861 sq. says is a perfect refutation of all the thoughts of man that have been put on the market about the image of God in ancient and modern times. Quenstedt writes: Opinio Origemanorum et Osiandri statuentium: ,Adamum ad similitudinem formae naturae humanae Christi in mente divina praeconceptae esse creatum', refutatur: 1, ex Gen. 1:26, ubi Deus Pater, cum Filio et Spiritu Sancto loquens, non dicit: ,Faciamus hominem ad imaginem.tuam', scilicet Filii incarnandi, sed ,nostram'; 2. ex 1 Cor. 15:45, ubi Christus dicitur 'secundus Adam'; iam vero, si creationem Adami ordine praecessit idea vel forma humanae naturae Christi in mente divina praeconcepta, ad cuius similitudinem Adam creatus fuerit, Christus primus Adam potius dicendus erat quam secundus; ut taceam, nos non Christo hoc sensu, sed Christ nobis similem factum esse, excepto peccato, Ebr. 2:14. 3. [Google] Nullibi dicitur in Scriptura, hominem creatum esse κατά τον υιόν, secundum Filium, sed κατά τόν ϋ-εόν, secundum Deum indefinite sumptum. E contrario Filius Dei dicitur fuisse εν όμοιώματι σαρ-κός αμαρτίας, in similitudine carnis peccati, Rom. 8:3, et accepisse μορφήν δούλου, formam servi, Phil. 2:7. 4. Repugnat ordo decretorum divinorum. Decretum enim de homine formando ad imaginem Dei antecessit decretum de mittendo Filio Dei in carnem ad reparandam hanc effigiem amissam, ac proinde Filius Dei incarnandus in posteriori non potest esse exemplar imaginis divinae homini concreandae in priori. 5 Obstat missio Filii ipsa, quae facta est non ob similitudinem, sed ob beatitudinem hominis, 1 Tim. 1:15. 6 Imago Dei in cognitione Dei, iustitia et sanctitate constituitur, ut Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24, non autem in corporis membris, in figura aut statura corporis. 7. Per lapsum imago Dei deperdita est, corporea autem membra deperdita non sunt. [Google]
.
619 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 517]
e.g. of eating etc., from understanding and will, then we must say that also in this no God-opposing inclination was present. This is not only evident from Gen. 1:31 ("very good") and from Gen. 2:25 ("they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed"),1535) but this content of the divine image is clearly expressed in the report about the original state of man by two things: 1. by the fact that God gives commandments to man (Gen. 2:16-17: "You shall eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat"); 2. by the fact that man is portrayed as living in the most intimate intercourse and in undisturbed fellowship with God.1536) This presupposes knowledge of God and holiness of mind on the part of man. This content of the divine image is also taught in the New Testament, Col. 3:10 and Eph. 4:24. The new man is described Col. 3:10 thus: ό άνακαινούμένος εις επίγνωσιν κατ' εικόνα τον κτίσαν-τος αυτόν and Eph. 4:24: ό κατά ϑεόν κτισϑέντα εν δικαιοσύνη και όαιότητι τής άληϑείας.1537) As contrary to Scripture, therefore, are to be rejected all views which describe the original condition of man as animal-like, without speech, or yet as morally neither good nor evil ("morally indifferent"), or as already afflicted with a God-opposing tendency to pleasure ("sensuality"). According to Scripture, man was not created as an animal, but as a ruler over the animal world. Also man was not merely
1535) Cf. Luther's elaboration on the nakedness of man before and after the fall, St. L. 1, 170; Erl. (lat.) 1, 175 sqq.
1536) Gen. 2:19 ff. 3:2-3.
1537) The old teachers find in these New Testament passages a direct statement about the original state of man. If Meyer et al. deny this, but at the same time admit that the apostle Paul "very naturally had in mind, by analogy with the creation of Adam, the image of God which this first-created man had," and that we have in the apostle's words "a parallel with the creation of Adam in the image of God," this is a contradiction in terms. The "parallel" with the creation of Adam in God's image would disappear if we did not have here a direct statement about the original state of man. The right thing has been hit upon by Philippi and others more recent. Cf. Philippi, Glaubenslehre 3 III, 372 ff. Ellicott on Eph. 4:24 (against Jul. Müller) also correctly says: "From this passage [Eph. 4:24], compared with that from Colossians, we may appropriately deduce the great dogmatic truth, — 'ut quod perdideramus in Adam, id est, secundum imaginem et similitudinem esse Dei, hoc in Christo Iesu reciperemus.'"
620 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 518]
capable of education, but actually educated and gifted with language, positively intelligent, to the extent that he not only knew God, but also possessed a natural science such as is now unattainable by the most diligent study. Luther rightly says that only Adam before the fall deserved the name of philosopher.1538) But above all things man was not morally indifferent or created with a mere disposition to good,1539) but positively good (sanctae Dei voluntati conformis, amore et fiducia Dei praeditus), without any stirring sensuality or evil inclination, as we have seen from the biblical account. The contradiction against the scriptural doctrine of the created divine image or the iustitia originalis concreata is often based on a wrong concept of the moral good. One wants to accept as morally good only that which man produces himself by way of evolution (self-activity, self-decision, self-determination), not that which is created or given to man by God. When Luther calls the original state of man status medius, he does not describe man as morally in-different, but as not yet so fixed in the good that he could not fall.1540)
1538) Opp. ex. Lat., Eri. I, 83: Si volumus praedicare insignem philosophum, praedicemus primos nostros parentes, cum adhuc essent a peccato puri. Suttjer bentt baran, quod Adam et Heva omnes omnium animalium affectus, sensus et vires intellexerunt. [Google] St. L. I, 80. 81.
1539) Ritschl understands the divine image as a pre-dated ideal of life, i.e. not as what God has given to man in creation, but as what man makes of himself on the way of development. Cf. Rechtf, u. Versöhnung 3 III, 314 ff.
1540) Luther distinguishes (St. L. I, 135 ff.) between childly and manly innocence (innocentia puerilis and virilis). By filial innocence he understands a state in which man could still fall by the devil's deceit. Manly innocence is the state in which the angels fortified in goodness are now and the saved men will be in eternal life (inamissibilis innocentia et immortalitas). How little "indifferent" Luther thinks of the state of "childlike" innocence is evident from his description of it. Luther opposes the "antics" of the scholastics (nugantur), who described the original state as a mere disposition (qualitas) to goodness. Against this he says of original righteousness (Opp. ex., Eri. I, 141 sq.; St. L. I, 138): " If we want to follow Moses, we can say that the original righteousness can be called that, that the man was justified, true, sincere, not only bodily and outwardly, but especially inwardly in the heart, and that he knew God,
621 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The doctrines of man. [English ed. 518-519]