The Shorter Catechism: Question 10
Question: How did God create man?
Answer: God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures. (Gen. 1:26–28, Col. 3:10, Eph. 4:24)
The Catechism teaches us that man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:26, Gen 5:1, 9:6, 1 Cor 11:7, Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, James 3:9), this does not in any way mean that God resembles man in his appearance, but that man was created as a moral, rational spiritual beings with a soul. We can understand this better when we see the length that Paul goes to in explaining the restoration of the image of God in our union with Christ (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). Calvin explains anthropomorphic language in the Bible:
The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height. (Institutes 1.13.1)
Dominion over the Earth was given to Adam before the fall and the affect of sin. We should remember that Adam was to use his dominion in service to God in the glorification of God. The catechism tells us that Adam had this “knowledge of righteousness and holiness” as we will see this was distorted by the fall. Adam was to use his dominion over the Earth for the glory of God and so should we.
I wonder if Stewardship is a better model for our care of the earth than ‘Dominion’? I know Calvinists have a fancy for God’s sovereignty and glory, but surely the language of care is ultimately more theologically sound than the language of domination.
pastormack,
Thanks for your comment, it is appreciated.
I am not opposed to “stewardship” but it does not have the same implications that the word in Gen 1:28 being referenced by the confession. “Dominion” does not mean exploitation and it certainly does not command it. In fact I think that when you consider dominion as “manage or govern an entity, people or government with considerable or forceful authority” (1) then we see that dominion surpasses stewardship in moral responsibility for God’s creation. Calvin quoting Chrysostom says that man is acting as “God’s vicegerent in the government of the world” (2) from my preservative this imply a higher moral responsibility to act in accord with the will of God then a simple “steward”.
(1) Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (DBLH 8097, #1).
(2) John Calvin. Commentary on Genesis – Volume 1 (34). Joseph Kreifels.
Gen. 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: . . .
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen. 5:3 ¶ And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Why thank you, but this does not mean that God is a man (John 4:24).
John 4:24 says, “God is a Spirit.”
There are several problems with this objection. First, Paul wrote, “But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (1 Cor. 6:17). To say that God is “a spirit” is grammatically equivalent to the statement that a man joined to the Lord is “one spirit,” and yet, Christians obviously have bodies as well as spirits.
Second, there are no indefinite articles (“a” or “an”) in ancient Greek, so the passage can be translated “God is a Spirit” or “God is Spirit.” Most modern translations have chosen the latter, because John’s statement “God is Spirit” is parallel to two passages in his first epistle, “God is light” (1 John 1:5) and “God is love” (1 John 4:8). In context, all of these passages seem to be referring to God’s activity toward men rather than to the nature of His “Being,” and of course we would never say that God is “a love” or “a light.”
Furthermore, Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School explains how such statements would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:
By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure. [Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 98.]
It must always be remembered that the Bible was written by Hebrews, and the New Testament writers were all Jews. And the Hebrews consistently pictured God in human form.
As another commentator noted:
That God is spirit is not meant as a definition of God’s being—though this is how the Stoics [a branch of Greek philosophy] would have understood it. It is a metaphor of his mode of operation, as life-giving power, and it is no more to be taken literally than 1 John 1:5, “God is light,” or Deut. 4:24, “Your God is a devouring fire.” It is only those who have received this power through Christ who can offer God a real worship.[J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, , edited and completed by B. A. Mastin, (New York, Harper & Row, 1968), 147–148.]
Finally, I do not believe that “spirit” is incorporeal (i.e. “without substance”), and neither did the earliest Christians. The great Protestant historian, Adolf von Harnack, wrote,
God was naturally conceived and represented as corporeal by uncultured Christians, though not by these alone, as the later controversies prove.[Adolf von Harnack, History of Dogma, tr. Neil Buchanan (New York: Dover, 1961), 1:180 n.1.]
For instance, the great Christian writer, Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.) wrote,
For who will deny that God is a body, although ‘God is a Spirit?’ For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.[Tertullian, "Against Praxeas," (7) Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:602.]
Why did Christians start believing otherwise? J.W.C. Wand, a historian and former Anglican bishop of London, writes that one of the Greek philosophical schools (Neoplatonism), which was popular in the days of the Roman Empire, exerted a particular influence in this respect.
It is easy to see what influence this school of thought [Neoplatonism] must have had upon Christian leaders. It was from it that they learnt what was involved in a metaphysical sense by calling God a Spirit. They were also helped to free themselves from their primitive eschatology and to get rid of that crude anthropomorphism which made even Tertullian believe that God had a material body.[J.W.C.Wand, A History of the Early Church to A.D. 500 (London: Methuen & Co., 1937), 140.]
GB,
Thank you for the quotes. FAIR is only partially correct (http://en.fairmormon.org/God_is_a_Spirit) John 4:24 is better rendered “God is Spirit…” (as the NET bible notes explain), this is another reason to use modern translations instead of the AV, but we cannot accept that God’s attributes, love, light, holiness, or spirit, are to be seen in relation to humanity as they cannot be separated from God. This is another example of the errors that are compounded by anthropomorphism. God is love simply because that is what God is not because there is a humanity to love, God does not require our existence to be what He is. God is Holy and righteous simply because he is, he could be nothing else. God is spirit, not man and as Christ says a spirit does not have flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).
Christ is a spirit and yet He has a body of flesh and bones. You are a spirit and yet you have a body of flesh and bones. It is obvious from the context of this verse that in this insistence Christ’s word “spirit” is referring to an un-embodied entity.
Clarification.
It is obvious from the context of this verse that in this insistence Christ’s phrase “a spirit” is referring to an un-embodied entity.
Also,
If Christ has a body of flesh and bones and if Christ is a God, THEN a God can have a body of flesh and bones (and be anthropomorphic).
Now I wonder if you are going to degrade the miracle of the resurrection of Christ by claiming that it was only temporary. If it is only temporary then why even do it at all? If it is only temporary then what assurance do we have that our resurrection will be anything but temporary? If God doesn’t have a body but is only a spirit, why would we care about being resurrected in the first place?
vv. 21-2, the evangelist underlines that Jesus himself is a Jew (cf. v. 9) and that salvation comes to the nations through the Jews (cf. Isa 40:1-31 and the synoptic tradition). But at the same time Jesus questions the two places of worship, Mt. Gerezim and Jerusalem. vv. 23-24, ‘in spirit and truth’ is a double phrase with a single sense, similar to ‘Spirit of Truth’ in 14:17; 15:26; 16:13. It means an openness towards the Spirit whom Jesus gives (3:6; 4:14) and the truth that he reveals (1:14, 17; 14:6). ‘God is spirit’ has nothing to do with the Enlightenment description of the nature of God, but underlines that God will give his Spirit through his Messiah.
Rene Kieffer, “John”, The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press, NY, 2001. pp. 968.
GB,
Nothing against Rene Kieffer but Tatian makes this comment in the second century, well before the Enlightenment.
“God is a Spirit, not pervading matter, but the Maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter; He is invisible, impalpable, being Himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things. Him we know from His creation, and apprehend His invisible power by His works.”
Calvin who predated the Enlightenment by a century says “Christ simply declares here that his Father is of a spiritual nature, and, therefore, is not moved by frivolous matters, as men, through the lightness and unsteadiness of their character, are wont to be.” in his commentary on John 4:24.
What Tatian said is not even close to what Kieffer said.
Tatian mistakenly asserts that John 4:24 says something about the physical nature of God (He is invisible, impalpable . . ). Whereas Kieffer denies any such possibility (‘God is spirit’ has nothing to do with the Enlightenment description of the nature of God).
GB,
My point is that Tatian’s comment was made in the second century, prior to the Enlightenment, and refers to the nature of God as Spirit in John 4:24. This shows that writers in the Church saw this passage as relating to the nature of God contradicting Kieffer’s claim that this is an Enlightenment era invention.
From a first look and only seeing what you have posted I think that Kieffer is conflating the future tense of John 4:14 and the present tense of John 4:24. I don’t know if Kieffer comments on verse 22 “You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know…” that most commentators (I think even Talmage) says answers the underlying question about the Samaritan worship at Mount Gerizim. I also do not see any comments on verse 21 where in a future tense Christ points to the fullfilment of Zephaniah 2:11 and Malachi 1:11 and the obsolescence of temple worship.
Basically this quote from Lehi’s Library doesn’t help your case when you read from Church history unless you can explain how Enlightenment though is different from either Tatian, Calvin or any churchmen who predates the Enlightenment.
Your assignment then, should you choose to accept it, is to find the difference between Enlightenment thought on the nature of God as spirit and the pre-Enlightenment thought. Then we can determine if the Enlightenment changed orthodox protestant though on this subject and affected the work of the Westminster divines in 1640-49.
From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/186589/Encratites/186589rellinks/Related-Links
“Tatian converted to Christianity while studying in Rome under the Christian apologist Justin Martyr. He early showed his ascetic bent, and, after Justin’s martyrdom (c. ad 165), Tatian drifted further toward dualism and Gnosticism, severed his ties with the church, and returned to Syria, where his association with the Encratites began. He formulated the doctrine that denied salvation to Adam, and he reinterpreted some of the Pauline texts of the New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:3–6) to make them concur with the Encratite view that marriage was licentious and a service of the devil. Eusebius of Caesarea stated in his 4th-century history of the church that the Encratites actually rejected both the Pauline Letters and The Acts of the Apostles.”
And this is the guy you turn to for support?
NET Bible
Ezekiel 1:26 Above the platform over their heads was something like a sapphire shaped like a throne. High above on the throne was a form that appeared to be a man.
KJV
Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
If you really want to know what God looks like you should accept the description of those who have seen Him.
How is the Glory of God described? Ex 24:16,Ex 16:10,Lev 9:23, Num 14:10,16:42
I thought we were talking about God, Himself, not His glory.
GB,
I appreciated the comment you made that if I wanted to know what God looked like I should read Acts 7:55 and 56, Stephen saw the “glory of God” and His glory is described in these verses Ex 24:16, Ex 16:10, Lev 9:23, Num 14:10, 16:42.
Stephen saw His glory AND “Jesus standing on the right hand of God”. It is obvious from the verse that Jesus is separate from God, the Father AND that Jesus was STANDING on the Father RIGHT HAND meaning standing at His right side like one man would stand at the right hand of another.
Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College summarizes this phenomenon as follows:
In short, to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. “in the form of man”)—not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly.(Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier, “In Defense of Anthropomorphism,”)
Christopher Stead of the Cambridge Divinity School agrees that
The Hebrews…pictured the God whom they worshipped as having a body and mind like our own, though transcending humanity in the splendour of his appearance, in his power, his wisdom, and the constancy of his care for his creatures. (Christopher Stead, Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 120.)
I think there are others who disagree (1 Sam 15:29).
1 Sam 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, THAT HE SHOULD REPENT.
NOTHING in there about what God looks like. God being unlike man in that He is sinless, doesn’t need to REPENT.
GB,
1 Sam 15:29 states that God is not a man, there is no way around it. This is not an isolated passage and the same theme is found elsewhere (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9) and it cannot be more simply stated, God is not a man.
Num 23:19 God is not a man, THAT HE SHOULD LIE; neither the son of man, THAT HE SHOULD REPENT: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Hos 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.
These verses do clearly make distinctions between God and man. But NOWHERE do those differences include IMAGE, shape or form!!
We were created in God’s image. Jesus was in God’s image and yet Jesus was in the image of a man.
Heb. 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
“the express image of his person” is very clear language that Jesus looks exactly like God, the Father. Jesus affirms this in John 14:9 . . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Why? Because Jesus looks EXACTLY like the Father!
Now if Jesus looks exactly like the Father and if Jesus looks like a man then God, the Father looks like a man. Is he a man? No! He is GOD!!! Yet His person looks like a man. Man is in His image.
Gen. 1:27 (Moses 2:27) God created man in his own image
Gen. 5:1 God created man, in the likeness of God made he him
Gen. 9:6 in the image of God made he man
John 14:9 he that hath seen me hath seen the Father
2 Cor. 4:4 Christ, who is the image of God
James 3:9 men which are made after the similitude of God
Heb. 1:3 the express image of his person
Philip. 3:21 our vile body … fashioned like unto his glorious body
God has a face, feet, fingers, mouth, back, flesh and bones, hands, striking family resemblance between God and His Son.
Gen. 32:30 I have seen God face to face
Ex. 24:10 they saw the God of Israel, there was under his feet
Ex. 31:18 (Deut. 9:10) written with the finger of God
Ex. 33:23 thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen
Num. 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth
Luke 24:39 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have
Acts 7:56 the Son of man standing on the right hand of God
GB,
It does not matter how many verses you quote, “God is not a man…”
Here is the first of a ten part series on this topic.
youtube.com/watch?v=afy-ieaEuCc
GB,
Can you summarize the first of a 10 part series for me.
I am not going to spoon feed you. If you are not interested enough in this topic to delve into it on YOUR OWN, then any effort of mine would be a waste of time for both of us.
GB,
You posted the links to videos and will not give a synopsis of the content? While I am interested in this topic I am not all that particularly interested in Mormon philosophy on the matter. This post did not address Mormons, it is simply a mental exercise as I slowly work by way through the Shorter Catechism by reading various commentaries and systematic theologies on the questions and doctrines addressed in the catechism.
You can correct me if I am wrong but the Mormons don’t have a catechism or even a systematic theology to base a catechism on, so while I always welcome your comments I know enough about the Mormon philosophy of God to know I an not inserted in watching a 10 minute first in a 6 part series y-tube video. If I had that much time we could be discussing Question 11.
Who said that the video content was exclusively LDS? The author of the videos spends most of his time quoting NON-LDS scholars.
If the work of NON-LDS scholars on this topic are not of interest to you (because they disagree with you), then don’t watch the videos.
If you are afraid of a scholarly approach to this topic because it presents the opposing point of view, then don’t watch the videos.
GB,
This has more to do with time than fear believe me. If this is so interesting them post a synopsis.
Why do you think that I have more time than you?
Feel free to use whatever excuse you want.
GB,
You claimed that these videos are from NON-LDS scholars, so I should be surprised when I find a review of “Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses,” by the noted Mormon David L. Paulsen?
All you needed to do was come out a say that the video was about Paulsen’s article, how much time would that have taken?
GB,
I don’t understand why you would think I need to deny resurrection. Remember we are not the same species as God, this is another example of how an anthropomorphic view of God creates problems.
GB,
Yes it is obvious that a spirit is “un-embodied” and “God is Spirit”.
GB,
You may want to look at some modern translations of Heb 1:3, this passage in no way says Jesus looks exactly like God the Father in a physical sence.
GB,
You cannot compare our being to God’s we are not the same ontologically, you are also confusing the incarnate Christ with the essence of God.
GB,
The “right hand” is the traditional place of honor or power, that is obvious. In Acts 7:55, 56 we have Christ, seen by the power of the Holy Spirit, that is obvious. Christ is standing not sitting as He is described in every other passage with reference to the right hand of God, that is obvious. Only in this passage is Christ described as standing in such a way as to great Stephen the first martyr of His Church, that is obvious. In this passage we see Christ called the “son of man” confirming his messianic role, that is obvious. Christ is with the Father functioning as our mediator, that is obvious.
That God is not a man is also obvious, so your insistence that he do things like a man would seem mislaid.
Here is another first in a series on this topic.
Warning: The first 2 minutes are just scenery.
youtube.com/watch?v=-Xnd_pDGBrg
GB,
You have not even told me what was said in the last video you tried to post.
GB,
I do not understand your issue? You pointed to a brief quote of a commentary that claims the belief in the Spiritual nature of God comes from the Enlightenment. I dispute this, and if I had access to Kieffer’s commentary I imagine that there is more of an explaination about this comment than you provide. I find it hard to beleive that she is positing that the beleif in the incopreal nature of God is an Enlightenment construct. But with the information that I have I pointed to Tatian and John Calvin, both pre-Enlightenment theologians, to show proof of the belief in an incorporeal God prior to the Enlightenment.
Tatian is just one of many writers who prior to the enlightenment points to the spiritual nature of God. While I may disagree with his views on marriage and I have not thought much on the salvation of Adam, Tatian’s use of John 4:24 is in line with Origen, Novatian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and other of that era and showing a belief in an incorporeal God well prior to the Enlightenment .