BRIEF THOUGHTS CONCERNING LIFE AND DEATH.
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen. ii, 7. This breath made man a living soul. Yet most persons imagine that this breath of life formed, or constituted, the soul. When they read that “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,” they seem always to conclude the statement thus: and it “became a living soul.” This is the result of inexcusable carelessness. It was not the breath of life that became a living soul; for in that case it would be the inanimate dust that caused this breath of life to become a soul; but it was the man, formed of the dust, that became a living soul when this principle of life was given him from God. We cannot argue man’s immortality from the term “living soul,” seeing the previous chapter applies this term to every living being upon the face of the earth. Nor can we argue his immortality from this term, “breath of life,” since this also is applied to all the creatures that perished in the flood. Gen. vii, 21, 22: “And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.” The breath of life is not an angel transferred from Heaven to earth, and doomed to dwell in the body of man. It is simply the principle of life, given by God, which man, by sinning, has forfeited. The other beings which God made to dwell upon the dry land, all have this breath of life. Their life was derived from God as really as was the life of man. Special honor was conferred upon man, in that he was made in the form of God, and in that God speaks of him as his representative to rule over all other beings upon the earth. But he did not, for all that, have unconditional life given to him. He was made of dust, and made alive by the breath of God. But this life was to be taken from him in case he sinned, and he himself was to turn again to dust. Gen. iii, 19. How true this proved is attested by Gen. v, 5: “And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.” The image of God does not signify immortality. Instead of proving that this neither signifies nor implies immortality, it would be quite as proper to ask for85some just ground of asserting that the creation of man in God’s image was his creation with an immortal nature. Let us read the several accounts of man’s creation in Gen. i; ii; v. The first account reads thus: Gen. i, 26, 27: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. ii, 7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Gen. v, 1: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him.” One safe rule of interpretation is, that the language of the Bible should be understood in its most natural and obvious sense. And if we thus treat these texts we shall find them not difficult to understand. God made the man from the dust. He made him alive from his own breath. He made this man in his own image, which is explained in the most natural manner possible by the next clause of the verse: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” And this is also shown in the words of Gen. v, 1: “In the day that God created man, in the likeness,” i. e., in the resemblance of God, “made he him.” And that we should not interpret this in some mystical and unreasonable manner, we have a further statement, in the next verse but one, which shows, beyond all reasonable dispute, the exact sense of these texts. Thus we read in Gen. v, 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.” No one will deny that this implies that Seth was in the form of Adam. Adam was in the image, or likeness, of God. Seth was in the image, or likeness, of Adam. Why should we give one of these statements a mystical and unreasonable sense, and allow the other its natural signification? If we read Luke’s genealogy of the patriarchs, we shall find that he made Adam stand in the same relation to God that Seth does to Adam. Thus he says, “Seth . . . was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke iii, 38. But it is affirmed that the image of God in which Adam was created is immortality. And why is such an affirmation made? Is it not because that those who make it find this the only way to get the gift of immortality into the account of man’s creation? As the fact that man, by his creation, became a “living soul” does not prove his immortality, unless it prove the same respecting all the living things which were created in Genesis i, so it is, also, respecting the breath of life which God gave to man, and which Genesis vii makes the common heritage of all who inhabit the dry ground. Verses 21, 22. Immortality does not pertain to the account of man’s creation, unless it be found in this idea of man’s being formed in God’s image. But how does this prove it? It is answered that immortality is an attribute of God. And man being formed in his image must, therefore, be immortal. But what absurd reasoning is this? Is immortality God’s only attribute? By no means. God is omnipotent, i. e., almighty; he is also omniscient, i. e., all-knowing, or all-wise. Is man, made in the image of God, an almighty being because God, his creator, is thus infinite in power? Is man infinite in wisdom because God, his creator, is thus infinitely wise? The case is too clear to admit of dispute. And yet the mortality of man is as obvious as is his ignorance or his weakness. Shall we say that the immortality of man is proved by the following syllogism? - God only hath immortality. 1 Tim. vi, 16.
- Man was made in the image of God. Gen. i.
- Therefore man is immortal like God.
This can hardly be called good reasoning. But why resort to such an interpretation of the phrase, “image of God”? Why not accept the natural signification of the words and understand this to be in the form or likeness of God? This question calls out a ready reply: “God has no form.” Then we are getting hold of the merits of the question. If God has no form there is good reason for thinking that man cannot have a form like him. But how do you know that God has no form? Does the Bible reveal this doctrine? If so, where? Is it in the following texts? John v, 37: “And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.” Phil. ii, 5, 6: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Col. i, 15: “Who [Christ] is the image of the invisible God.” Heb. i, 3: “Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person.” James iii, 9: “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” These texts do plainly indicate that God the Father has a form, and that Christ the Son is the express image of his Father’s person. And we cannot better state the doctrine of the creation of man in the image of God, than to use the words of James, that man was “made after the similitude of God.”