Gordon H. Clark on the Image of God (Broader/Narrower View)

The following quotations are taken from Gordon H. Clark’s “The Biblical Doctrine of Man” :

“The important point is that God and Adam talked to each other and Adam understood. Animals do not understand, are not subject to moral commands, cannot sin, and hold no religious services. In describing the image of God as it was before the fall, it is almost impossible to exclude a reference to man’s later condition. Since man is himself the image, as the following paragraph will explain, the image must in some way or other be a permanent characteristic of personality. Original righteousness reveals a capacity of man’s nature for restoration after sin. Had Adam never been either moral or intelligent before the fall, no one could assert the possibility of his later becoming so. But since he was so before the fall, the impossibility of a restoration is ruled out.”

 

“The image of God is not something man has, somewhere inside of him, or somewhere on the surface, as if God had first created man and then stamped him with a signet ring. No, the image is not something man has, man is the image. First Corinthians 11:7 pointedly says: “He [man] is the image and glory of God.”

 

“…. Scripture defines the image as knowledge and righteousness, is Colossians 3:10. The definition is derived by noting that the new man is such because God has renewed him after the image in which he was originally created. Ephesians 4:24 mentions righteousness, but Colossians has knowledge only. Its previous context speaks of “the old man with his deeds.” Then comes a contrast with the “new man”. In what consists the renewal that makes the old man the new man? The verse says, he is renewed “to knowledge”. He is renewed to knowledge according to the image of the Creator. That is to say, the image of God, in which image man was created, is knowledge. Of course, this does not mean that Adam was omniscient; yet he had some knowledge, and this is not said of the animals. Since this knowledge comes by the act of breathing into Adam the spirit of life, the knowledge must be considered, not as the result of observation, since Adam not yet observed anything at all, but as the apriori or the innate equipment for learning.”

 

“The image must be reason because God is truth, and fellowship with him – a most important purpose in creation – requires thinking and understanding. Without reason man would doubtless glorify God as do the stars, stones, and animals; but he could not enjoy him forever. Even if in God’s providence animals survive death and adorn the heavenly realm, they cannot have what the Scripture calls eternal life because eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, and knowledge is an exercise of the mind or reason. Without reason there can be no morality or righteousness: These too require thought. Lacking these, animals are neither righteous nor sinful. The identification of the image with reason explains or is supported by a puzzling remark in John 1:9: “It was the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” How can Christ, in whom is the life that is the light of men, be the light of every man, when Scripture teaches that some are lost in eternal darkness? The puzzle arises from interpreting light in exclusively redemptive terms. The first chapter of John is not soteriological only. Obviously, there are references to salvation in verses 7, 8, 12 and 13. It is not surprising that some Christians understood verse nine also in a soteriological sense. But it is not true that all men are saved; hence if Christ lightens every man, this enlightening cannot be soteriological. This is not the only non-soteriological verse in the chapter. The opening verses treat of creation and the relation of the Logos to God. If the enlightening is not soteriological, it could be epistemological. Then since responsibility depends on knowledge, the responsibility of the unregenerate is adequately founded…... that creative light gives every man an innate knowledge sufficient to make all men responsible for their evil actions. This interpretation ties in with the idea of creation in verse three. Thus, the Logos or rationality of God, who created all things without a single exception, can be seen as having created man with the light of logic as his distinctive human characteristics.”

 

“Now it seems to me that even the skimpy material in Genesis is sufficient to refute empiricism with its blank mind. First, since God is a God of knowledge, eternally omniscient, how could a being, declared to be his image and likeness, be a blank mind? Even apart from the explicit statements in the New Testament, Genesis says that God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Since at that time they had no sensory experience of other people, must they not have had some innate intelligence to understand this command? Of course, an empiricist might insist that they had learned the meaning from observing animals. But this assumes that a fair length of time intervened between the creation of Adam and God’s imposition of the obligation. One can better suppose that God gave instructions to Adam more immediately. This is rather obviously true of Genesis 2:16, 17. The command not to eat of a given tree, since it constituted Adam’s probation, surely was given only moments after the creation. Of course, such a command was not apriori knowledge, but the intellectual equipment to understand it was.”

 

“ ….. Morality is a subdivision of rationality. Conscience, whether perfect or defiled, is not a separate element in man's constitution. It is simply the human activity of thinking about moral norms...… Moral judgements are a species of judgement and are thus subsumed under general intellectual activity. One result of the fall, then, is the occurrence of incorrect evaluations by means of erroneous thinking. Adam thought, incorrectly, that it would be better to join Eve in her sin than to obey God and be separated from her. So, without being deceived he ate the forbidden fruit [1 Timothy 2:14]. The external act followed upon the thought: "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts." Commonly immorality is considered to consist in overt actions; the Bible shows its origin in thinking.”

 

“…. Man could not be a sinner at all, even now, if he were not still God’s image. Sinning presupposes rationality and voluntary decision. Animals cannot sin. Sin therefore requires God’s image because man is responsible for his sins. If there were no responsibility, there could be nothing properly called sin. Sin is an offense against God, and God calls us to account. If we were not answerable to God, repentance would be useless, indeed impossible nonsense. Reprobation and Hell would also be impossible; for God has made responsibility a function of knowledge. The same idea can be put another way. Whatever the fall did to man, it did not reduce him to the status of an irrational animal. Man is still man after the fall. He is still a person. He is still rational. To be sure, he acts irrationally. Yet his life is not one of instinct as is the case with animals. Sin does not eradicate the image; but it certainly causes a malfunctioning.”