2. The last stage in the work of creation has been reached, and the Creator is about to produce His masterpiece. But, as if to emphasize the importance of this event, and to prepare us for something new and exceptional, the form of representation changes. Hitherto the simple fiat of omnipotence has sufl&ced — " God said." Now the Creator — Elohim — is represented as taking counsel with Himself (for no other is mentioned) : " Let us make man in our image, after our likeness " ; and in the next verse, with the employment of the stronger word " created " (hara), the execution of this purpose is narrated : " So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
^ We are told that the language in which that creation is spoken of, i.e. " Let us make man," implies the doctrine of a plurality of persons in the Deity; in other words, the author, whose avowed object it was to teach the unity of God, so far forgot himself as to teach the contrary. We are told again that we are to found on this account the doctrine of the Trinity. There is no reason, only ignorance, in such a view. The Hebrew
GENESIS I. 26, 27 47
when he wanted to speak of anything majestic, spoke in the plural, not in the singular. He spoke of " heavens," not of heaven. In the same way he spoke of Gods, yet meaning only One. Exactly in the same way the courtesy of modern ages has substituted "you" for "thou"; and here the very form of the writer's language required that he should put " us " instead of " me " in speaking of the majesty of God. Further, to look for the Trinity here would be utterly to reverse the whole method of God's revelation. We know from our own lives that God does things gradually, and we conclude that He did the same with His chosen people. He had to teach them first the unity of the Godhead; the nature of that unity was to be taught afterwards. Conceive what would have been the result in an age of polytheism of teaching the Trinity, The doctrine would have inevitably degenerated into tritheism.^
The subject is the creation of man in the image of God. There are two ways of looking at it : (1) in its entirety, as we look at the white light; and (2) in its component parts, as we see the light in a rainbow. Then we have —
I. The Image of God in itself.
1. Image and Likeness are not distinct.
2. The Image is not Dominion.
3. The Image is of the whole Personality.
4. The Image was not wholly lost. II. The Parts of the Image.
1. Keason.
2. Self-consciousness.
3. Kecognition of Eight and Wrong.
4. Communion with God.
5. Capacity for Redemption.
Then will follow two practical conclusions, and the text will be set in its place beside two other texts.
L
The Image of God.
1. No distinction is to be made between the words " image " and "likeness." In patristic and mediaeval theology much ia
^ F, W. Robertson.
48 IN THE IMAGE OF GOD
made of the circumstance that two words are used, the former being taken to mean man's natural endowments, the latter a superadded gift of righteousness. But the words are synonymous. " Likeness " is added to " image " for emphasis. The repetition imparts a rhythmic movement to the language, which may be a faint echo of an old hymn on the glory of man, like Ps. viii.
2. The view that the Divine image consists in dominion over the creatures cannot be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure, and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man, already made in the image of Grod, The truth is that the image marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not the essence, of the Divine image.
^ With respect to man himself we are told on the one side that he is dust, " formed of the dust of the earth." The phrase marks our affinity to the lower animals. It is a humbling thing to see how little different the form of man's skeleton is from that of the lower animals ; more humbling still when we compare their inward physiological constitution with our own. Herein man is united to the beasts. But " God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life " : herein he is united to the Deity. The heathen, recognizing in their own way the spiritual in man, tried to bridge over the chasm between it and the earthly by making God more human. The way of revelation, on the contrary, is to make man more godlike, to tell of the Divine idea yet to be realized in his nature. Nor have we far to go to find some of the traces of this Divine in human nature. (1) We are told that God is just and pure and holy. What is the meaning of these words ? Speak to the deaf man of hearing, or the blind of light, he knows not what you mean. And so to talk of God as good and just and pure implies that there is goodness, justice, purity, within the mind of man. (2) We find in man the sense of the infinite : just as truly as God is boundless is the soul of man boundless ; there is some- thing boundless, infinite, in the sense of justice, in the sense of truth, in the power of self-sacrifice. (3) In man's creative power there is a resemblance to God. He has filled the world with his creations. It is his special privilege to subdue the power of nature to himself. He has forced the lightning to be his messenger, has put a girdle round the earth, has climbed up to the clouds and penetrated down to the depths of the sea. He has turned the forces of Nature against herself ; commanding the