Man, the Image of God

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He him”

Gen. 1:27

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man.”

Gen. 9:6

Subsections

Human Soul
When Soul is Joined to Body in the Womb

Order of Contents

Creation of
Definition of Image of God
Hylemorphism
Internal Relations of Adam’s Soul in Integrity
Image Remains after Fall, Greatly Marred
Chief End of Man 5
Do Angels bear the Image of God? 3

Articles

Anthology of the Post-Reformation

Heppe, Heinrich – ch. 11, ‘Man’ in Reformed Dogmatics ed. Ernst Bizer, tr. G.T. Thomson (1861; Wipf & Stock, 2007), pp. 220-51

Heppe (1820–1879) was a German reformed theologian.

1500’s

Melanchthon, Philip – 3. ‘On the Powers of Man, Especially of Free Will’ in The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon… tr. Charles L. Hill (1521; Boston: Meador Publishing, 1944), pp. 69-81

Though Melanchthon (1497–1560) was a Lutheran, this work of his was the first ‘systematic theology’ of the Reformation, and, as it was very influential on reformed systematic theologies following shortly thereafter.

Zwingli, Ulrich – ‘Man’ in Commentary on True & False Religion eds. Jackson & Heller (1525; Labyrinth Press, 1981), pp. 75-87

Calvin, John

4. ‘Man’ in Instruction in Faith (1537) tr. Paul T. Fuhrman (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1949), pp. 21-22

2. ‘Of the Knowledge of Man & of Free Will’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion: 1541 French Edition tr. Elsie A. McKee (1541; Eerdmans, 2009), pp. 47-115

15. ‘State in which man was created. The faculties of the Soul—The Image of God—Free Will—Original Righteousness’ in Institutes of the Christian Religion tr. Henry Beveridge (1559; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), vol. 1, bk. 1, pp. 214-30

Vermigli, Peter Martyr – The Common Places… (d. 1562; London: Henrie Denham et al., 1583), pt. 1

‘Of Man’  121
‘Of the Soul’  121
‘Wherein consists the Image of God’  123

Musculus, Wolfgang – ‘Creation of Man’ in Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), folio 11.b

Becon, Thomas – 7. ‘Of Man’ in Prayers & Other Pieces by Thomas Becon (d. 1567; Cambridge: Parker Society, 1844), The Common Places of Holy Scripture, pp. 326-27

Becon (c. 1511-1567) was an Anglican reformer, clergyman and a chaplain to Thomas Cranmer. He was initially significantly influenced by Luther, and then Zwingli.

Viret, Pierre – A Christian Instruction… (London: Veale, 1573), The Sum of the Principal Points of the Christian Faith

9. Of Man, & of the Creation & Fall of Him by Sin 10-11

Beza, Theodore, Anthony Faius & Students – Propositions & Principles of Divinity Propounded & Disputed in the University of Geneva by Certain Students of Divinity there, under Mr. Theodore Beza & Mr. Anthony Faius… (Edinburgh: Waldegrave, 1591)

14. ‘Of Man’, pp. 30-33
15. ‘Of the Faculties of the Soul of Man’, pp. 33-35

Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (d. 1583; Oxford, 1587)

Of the Image of God in Man

1. What the image of God in man is
2. How far forth the image of God was lost, & how far it remains
3. How the Image of God is repaired in us
How the Image of God is in Christ, and how in us

Perkins, William

‘The Creation of Man’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 81

Perkins (d. 1602) was an influential, puritan, Anglican clergyman and Cambridge theologian.

9. Of Man & the Estate of Innocency in A Golden Chain (Cambridge: Legat, 1600)

1600’s

Bucanus, William – Institutions of Christian Religion... (London: Snowdon, 1606)

8. ‘Of Man’, pp. 88-98

What mean you by this word ‘man’?
Why did God make man the last of all his works?
Who is the creator of man?
How manifold did God create man?
Did God create them both after one manner?
Wherefore did not God create the man and the woman at once, as He did the angels?
Why was the woman framed out of the side of man, and not of some other part of the body?
Of how many parts does man consist?
Whence was the body taken?
Was not the body of Adam framed of the four elements?
Why then does Moses make mention only of the earth?
What does this teach us that his body was framed of the clay?
What is the essential form of man?
Whereof is this word ‘soul’ derived?
What then is the soul, a certain wind or blast?
How do you prove that the soul is a spiritual substance?
After what manner was the soul created?
What manner of breathing was that?
Whereof then was the soul created?
Are you not then of the opinion that the soul inspired by God is a particle of God’s essence?
Why did He breathe the breath of life rather into the face of man than into any other part?
And why did He rather breathe into his nose than into his ears, or into his mouth or into his eyes?
What did He breathe into him?
Be there only one or more souls in one and the same man?
What is the soul of man?
When is the soul infused and comes to the body?
Which is the proper seat of the soul of man in the body?
Is the whole soul in the whole body, and in every part of the body is the whole soul?
But how many parts or faculties of the soul be there?
What is the understanding?
And what is the will?
Were all the souls of men created of God at once, as the angels were?
Whether was the soul of Eve made of Adam’s or not? and whether are the souls derived one of another by propagation, or else are new ones evermore created of God?
But hereupon it will follow that God rested not from all his works, Gen. 2:2
By what means then is original sin conveyed to the children?
How do you prove the immortality of the soul?
How do souls differ from angels?
For what end was man made?
What use make you of this common place concerning man?
What special use make you of the soul’s immortality?
What is contrary to the doctrine of the creation of man?

9. ‘Of God’s Image in Man’, pp. 99-103

What is an image?
What difference is there between an image and a similitude?
Was man made after the image of God?
Is man only the image of God, or made after his image?
Why is man called the image of God?
Why after his image?
Was whole Adam, in soul as well as body, made after the image of God?
What was the image of God in man, and how many parts is it?
Why is man called the image of God in respect of the substance of his soul?
Why in respect of the gifts?
Why is man said to be made after the image of God in respect of his dignity and lordship?
Did Adam lose by his sin all those parts or degrees of the image of God?
How does the image of God shine in man’s body?
Why and to what end did God create man after his own image?
What things are against this doctrine?

Thysius, Anthony – 13. ‘About Man Created in the Image of God’ in Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text & English Translation Buy (1625; Brill, 2016), vol. 1, pp. 314-38

Leigh, Edward – ch. 8. ‘Of Man’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 3, pp. 288-95

Turretin, Francis – Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1

5^th Topic, 10. ‘In what consisted the image of God in which man was created?’, pp. 464-70

9^th Topic, 8. ‘Whether Adam by his fall lost the image of God. We affirm.’, pp. 611-13

van Mastricht, Peter – ch. 9, ‘Man & the Image of God’ in Theoretical Practical Theology (2nd ed. 1698; RHB), vol. 3, pt. 1, bk. 3, pp. 247-308

1700’s

à Brakel, Wilhelmus – ch. 10, ‘Concerning Man, Particularly the Soul’ in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, vols. 1 ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout Buy (1700; RHB, 1992/1999), pp. 307-31

a Brakel (1635-1711) was a contemporary of Voet and Witsius and a major representative of the Dutch Further Reformation.

1800’s

Bavinck, Herman

‘The Greatness & Miserableness of Man’ from Our Reasonable Faith (1956), pp. 22-23

‘The Origin, Essence & Purpose of Man’ no date or source info

Berkhof, Louis – ‘The Origin & Constitution of Man, as Created in the Image of God’ HTML (1949), three sections in Systematic Theology, 18, 20, & 18 paragraphs respectively

Kennedy, John – ch. 1, Man, as Created, in Relation to God, p. 1 ff., 37 pp. in Man’s Relations to God

Vos, Geerhardus – ch. 1, ‘The Nature of Man’ in Reformed Dogmatics tr: Richard Gaffin 1 vol. ed. Buy (1896; Lexham Press, 2020), vol. 2, pp. 219-39

Historical Theology

On the 1600’s to 1700’s

Goudriaan, Aza – ch. 4, ‘The Human Being: His Soul & Body, Special Status & Conscience’ in Reformed Orthodoxy & Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht & Anthonius Driessen Buy (Brill, 2006)

On the 1800’s

Venema, Cornelius – ‘Human Nature: the Image of God, in the Thought of Herman Bavinck’ in The Outlook, vol. 62, no.1 (Jan/Feb, 2012)

Latin Articles

1600’s

Voet, Gisbert – Syllabus of Theological Problems (Utrecht, 1643), pt. 1, section 1, tract 3 Abbr.

Of Man in General
Of the Body
Of the Spirit
Of the Union of the Soul to the Body

(1) Of the Image of God Absolutely
(2) Of the Image of God in the Subject

(i) in Christ
(ii) in the Angels
(iii) in Man

(3) In Which Things the Image of God Consists

(i) Nature
(ii) Rectitude, or Supernatural Gifts
(iii) Dominion
(iv) Immortality

[Sic] (5) A Consideration of the Image of God in Man according to the Various States

(i) Image of God in Man Considered as far as the State of Innocence
(ii) First Man Considered Apart from Righteousness
(iii) Of the Powers of Man Apart from Righteousness
(iv) Of the Powers of Man Considered with Righteousness
(v) Whether the Image may have been in the Intellect?
(vi) Of the Dominion of Adam
(vii) Of Gifts
Appendix:

Of the Condition of the Progeny to be Born as far as the State of Innocence

Of the Image of God in Man After the Fall in the State of Destitution & Restitution Considered

Of the Image of God in Inferior Creatures

Creation of Man

Article

1500’s

Ursinus, Zachary – The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587)

Of the Creation of Man
The Questions of Man’s Creation are Especially Two

1. What, man was created of God
2. For what man was created

Perkins, William – ‘The Creation of Man’ in An Exposition of the Symbol, or Apostles’ Creed… (Cambridge, 1595), p. 81

Perkins (d. 1602) was an influential, puritan, Anglican clergyman and Cambridge theologian.

Definition of the Image of God

Quote

1600’s

Francis Turretin

Institutes, vol. 1, p. 466

“The image consists antecedently in nature (as to the spirituality and immortality of the soul); formally in rectitude or original righteousness; consequently in the dominion and immortality of the whole man (which was the brightness of that shining image and the rays striking out in all directions which illumined the whole man).”

Article

1500’s

Ursinus, Zachary – 1. What the image of God in man is in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), Of the Image of God in Man

On Hylemorphism

See also ‘On a Hylemorphist View of the Soul’ at ‘On the Human Soul’.

1600’s

Owen, John – pp. 228 (bot) – 229 in ch. 18, ‘The Nature of the Person of Christ…’ in Christologia in Works (NY: Robert Carter, 1850), vol. 1

On Aquinas

Feser, Edward – ‘Hylemorphic Dualism’ in ch. 4, ‘Psychology’ in Aquinas: a Beginner’s Guide (OneWorld, 2010), pp. 138-47

On the Internal Relations of the Soul in Adam in Original Righteousness

Order of Quotes

Musculus
Turretin

1500’s

Wolfgang Musculus

Common Places of the Christian Religion (1560; London, 1563), The Tenth Precept, fol. 103.a – 104.a

“2. How many sorts of concupiscences there be

Before the sin of our first parents, the concupiscence in our nature was simple, natural, orderly (and necessary, like as other affections were, so that it was subject unto no malice: such as that which is in us yet, as when we be hungry we be desire meat; when we thirst, drink; when we be a cold, we desire warmth; when we be too hot, we desire to be cooled; when we be in prison, we desire liberty; when we be sick, we desire health etc. and this we do by the only course of nature, without any matter of sin. But after that our first parents had drunk of the poison of the Serpent, this strength of concupiscence is depraved in our hearts, and thereby it came that (passing the limits of nature and necessity) it extends itself unto those things which it is not lawful to desire: for that it is not lawful to take things away which pertain to others.

Therefore the affections of concupiscence are of two sorts, natural and corrupt. The natural be set in us by God, and so much not unlawful, but that they be also necessary. Wherefore they do very unadvisedly teach us which do refer the crying of infants when they be hungry and desire meat unto the forbidden concupiscence and do ascribe them unto original sin. The corrupt affections of concupiscence be they when the limits of necessity are exceeded and men follow pleasures, curiosity, glory, ambition and other vices, and that contrary unto the law of charity and the purity of holiness.

This corruption of our concupiscence is gotten of the old serpent, not grafted in our flesh of God. Wherefore we must beware that we do not ascribe our whole concupiscence neither to God, neither to Satan. The strength of desiring is given us from God, the strength of evil desiring from Satan: like as we do take it of God that we do live, and that we live evil we take it of Satan, the beginner of our malice. By this distinction we do foresee that we do not deny the work of God in us for the work of Satan, nor attribute the work of Satan unto God.”

1600’s

Francis Turretin

The Reformed View

Institutes (P&R)

vol. 1, 5th Topic, ‘Creation’, Q. 11, ‘Was Original Righteousness Natural or Supernatural? The Former we Affirm, the Latter we Deny Against the Romanists.’, p. 473

“XV. So far is the inferior part of the soul [the carnal desires] from contending of itself with the superior [that which is rational and spiritual] that on the contrary (according to the Philosopher [Aristotle]), it was born to obey (peitharchein pephyke) and is naturally subordinated to it (Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 10.9.4 [Loeb, 628-29]).

The propensions of both can be diverse, but not contrary in themselves (rather only accidentally on account of sin). Man could be carried naturally towards both sensible and spiritual good, but in their own order and without a rebellion between the flesh and the spirit. Thus the soul would always hold dominion and the flesh obey and subject all its own motions and inclinations to it. The sensible good is contained in the intelligible good and the object of the sensitive appetite stands related to the object of the natural (as the means to the end).

Therefore, as long as man regarded the sensible good as the means, there was no vice in him. But when departing from God, he began to be drawn to the object of the sensitive appetite as his ultimate end and highest good (which was effected by sin). At length the disorder (ataxia) arose which disturbed the order constituted by God.

Therefore, we must accurately distinguish here the appetite (which was natural and ordinate) from that which was preternatural and inordinate [as in Romanism]. The latter is repugnant to reason, but not equally the former.”

vol. 2, 11th Topic, Q. 21, ‘The 10th Commandment… Are the Incipient Motions Sins? We Affirm’

p. 134

“I. God has planted two principles in the mind of man: the avoidance of evil and the desire of good; the irascible (to thymikon) and concupiscible appetite (to epithymetikon). Viewed in the genus of being and physically, these are neither good nor bad, but mean and indifferent, drawing all their moral goodness and evil from the quality of the objects about which they are exercised.”

p. 137

“XIV. The motions of concupiscence… If Adam had never sinned, he would never have felt such motions (which cannot be free from vitiosity).”

The Common View of Romanism, p. 471

“V. The Romanists hold original righteousness to be a supernatural gift, super-added to the native gifts and powers of the entire man. [Robert] Bellarmine explains the reason why they determine this to be so.

There was in man naturally a contest between the flesh and the spirit, the reason and the appetite [lower desirous part], from which flowed a certain disease and languor of nature, arising from the condition of the material. Therefore God added original righteousness as a ‘golden bridle,’ to repress that conflict and to cover like a precious garment their nakedness, and as a remedy to heal that weakness (‘De gratia primi hominis,’ 5, 6 in Opera [1858], 4:23-29)

This is the more common opinion among them, although the Jansenists and others exclaim loudly against it. Whence arose this expression of the [Medieval] Scholastics: ‘Naturals remained untouched, but the supernaturals only were lost.'”

Article

Peter van Mastricht

section XVI in A Treatise on Regeneration… (New Haven, 1770), p. 27

The Image of God in Man Remains After the Fall, though Greatly Marred

Quote

1600’s

Peter van Mastricht

Theoretical Pracgtical Theology (RHB), Bk. 3, ch. 9, section 39

“The image of God which we have spoken about neither completely perished through sin, nor completely survived from sin. Therefore it remains in some measure (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:7, where without doubt the topic is not the past state, but the current one). It remains, I say, to the extent that it consists: (1) in the very nature of man, of the body and soul. (2) In the natural faculties of the soul, in the intellect and will. (3) In certain gifts of the intellect and will, insofar as among the worst is still seen some use of reason, and also some propensity to good, even moral good (Rom. 1:19; 2:15; 1 Cor. 5:1).

Furthermore, (4) in at least some remnants of original dominion (Gen. 7:2). God willed all these bits of his own image to survive in us from the fall, first so that they may be witnesses of his own most undeserved goodness toward us…”

Articles

1500’s

Beza, Theodore – pp. 23-24 & 47-49 in A Book of Christian Questions & Answers… (London, 1574)

Ursinus, Zachary – 2. How far forth the image of God was lost, and how far it remains in The Sum of Christian Religion: Delivered… in his Lectures upon the Catechism… tr. Henrie Parrie (Oxford, 1587), Of the Image of God in Man

2000’s

Wolfe, Stephen – ‘Correcting Theologians: a Response to Brian Mattson’ (2023)

Wolfe wrote the book, The Case for Christian Nationalism (2022), which was self-consciously grounded by him in the theology of reformed orthodoxy. Wolfe here responds to a neo-Calvinist critic, and very helpfully clarifies and elaborates on reformed orthodox anthropology regarding the image of God, and what remains after the Fall, especially in light of natural law, quoting many classic reformed theologians on these topics. Very helpful treatment.

On the Chief End of Man

Reformed Books Online

Free, Biblical, Reformed, Historic Books & Articles Online

Man, the Image of God