Imago Dei And Mutual Submission

Here is an interesting excerpt from the Blog Targuman:

The fact that “the image of God” is represented by both male and female reminds us that God is neither gender. The Bible does consistently use masculine imagery (and verbs of which God is the subject are always conjugated in the masculine form), but this is more due convention and the confines of language than a theological position. When it is appropriate, God and his traits (e.g., wisdom) are described in feminine forms. Fundamentally, however, God transcends gender. Where he is complete and perfect, we are partial representations that require fulfillment in order to approximate his likeness.

This passage also emphasizes that we are to be partners with others in this life. The first man and woman were not created in isolation, but in a relationship with one another. Notice also that this relationship is not purely sexual. They are called to “be fruitful,” but also to work together in order to oversee the world and its care. Each have individual traits and characteristics which are most effective when in harmony with the other.

There is also no inherent hierarchy in this account. Man and woman are created at the same time and are given the same directive. Some who write on this topic refer to this as the “complementarian” model. Each brings different talents and has a different role to play. These roles, however, are not explicated here. Instead Gen. 1 presents us with a true equality of man and woman; created in the same instant the combination of both uniquely represent the image of God.

If Gen. 1 teaches us anything at all about the relationship between husband and wife, wife and husband, it is that they are equal partners in the divinely appointed task of reflecting God’s image and obeying his commands. Together we are to be fruitful, not just in procreation, but in all our works; we are to govern, not as a despot, but following the divine model of a caring and conciliatory king.

J. Wentzel van Huysteen On The Imago Dei

Here is a good quote from Sze Zeng's Blog:

“...the image of God is not found in humans, but is the human; and for this reason imago dei can be read only as imatatio dei; to be created in the image of God means we should act like God , and so attain holiness by caring for others and for the world...”
(J. Wentzel van Huysteen, Alone in the World?: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology, p.320. Italic added.)

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: AFTER THE FALL OF HUMANITY

Here is an English paper I wrote at Campbell in 2002:

Ben Currin
20th Century Lit.
Dr. Tate

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: AFTER THE FALL OF HUMANITY

Language is a symbolic theme in several literary works. The importance of language, of course, is how to use it to express oneself and what part language plays in self-expression. Language seems to be a fascinating mystery. Where did it come from? How did it come about? Why are there so many languages in the world? These are just a few of the questions that people ask. Language seems to be an issue that even literary circles have grappled with---being that language is needed in order to write. Language as a theme is found in Robert Frost’s, Gerald Manley Hopkins’, T. S. Eliot’s, James Joyce’s, William Butler Yeats’ and several other writers’ works.
In Frost, language is viewed in his placement of words and images of nature. Frost’s poem, “After Apple-Picking” seems to suggest a connection to ‘the fall of humankind’ and the effect of that single event. In the poem, it is clear that the meaning of the poem can be viewed from several different angles. This plays a part in the use of language in this poem which is to show after Adam and Eve’s fall from grace language became more complex so that expression was harder to show.
The Babylon event, another biblical reference, also has a role in the breakdown of language and expression, but it is the fall of Adam and Eve that plays the main role in this breakdown. After the fall mankind has been unable to communicate fully with God and that accounts in one way for the need for Christ to be an intercessor on our behalf. In this way prayer became necessary whereas before it wasn’t needed because humans weren’t blinded before the fall and could see and hear God firsthand. Wittgenstein and Willard Van Ormond Quine conducted philosophical research on language and suggested the same principles in slightly different terms.
Gerald Manley Hopkins seems to have followed in the same vein as Frost in his use of language, but with more experimentation. Hopkins could have been a surrealist to some extent in the way that he plays with language to express himself. Hopkins’ poem, “The Wreck of the Deutschland,” is the best illustration of what poets can do with language when they play around with it. In the poem Hopkins places words in weird places and forms unique phrases to achieve his goal.
T. S. Eliot plays with the theme of language much in the same way as Hopkins does, except Eliot inserts foreign phrases into a few of his poems. William Butler Yeats, also, plays with foreign words and phrases. Eliot’s “The Waste Land” seems to deal with the breakdown of language on the deeper level. Language for Eliot seems to be a reflection of how fragmented life is. This comes across especially in the manner which Eliot wrote the poem in several fragmented parts. This is also illustrated in the spaces where Eliot inserts foreign phrases into the poem.
James Joyce carries on the language tradition of Lewis Carroll in his (Joyce’s) usage of language. Joyce followed the surrealistic path of Carroll and invented new ways to use language. Just like William Shakespeare, Joyce would find ways to invent words where convenient. This all goes back to the problem of expression as it was effected by the fall of humankind. After the fall, humans were unable to express themselves in the clear manner that they wished to express themselves, so humans began to experiment with languages and could make up their own way of expressing themselves when in doubt---which includes inventing new words and languages.
Yeats utilizes the theme of the fall of humanity as well. This is shown in the poem “Adam’s Curse,” which speaks of poetry itself. In “A Dialogue of Self and Soul” Yeats reflects upon the language of a person’s heart versus the language of a person’s soul. In this poem Yeats expresses a Platonic/Socratic duality of existence. This duality is a theme common in several world religions so by necessity Yeats played with this theme. Duality is also found in “Byzantium,” another poem of his that deals with language in it’s form of a symbolic image.
“Vacillation” another poem of his follows the same vein as “A Dialogue of Self and Soul” and contains a section in it that deals with the language of self and the language of the heart. In this poem, Yeats is still looking for an answer to the question of what truthful language is---but doesn’t arrive at a clear answer. This suggests the duality of life, which Yeats expresses in several of his poems. It also suggests the choices that humankind are forced to make daily which runs along on the lines of ‘freedom of the will.’ This also goes hand in hand with the issue of predestination.
William Carlos Williams follows the same tradition of Hopkins in the way that they both play with the placement of words and phrases in their poetry to achieve their goals. William Carlos Williams also displays a surrealistic quality in some of his poems such as “Paterson.” “Paterson” could be a pun on father and son---being that ‘pater’ is Latin for ‘father.’ This may suggest a connection with Jesus---after all Jesus is the Word of God and therefore is the ‘Supreme Language’ of life.
This plays with the some of Heidegger and Nietzsche’s ideas which lead to some of the poets of the 20th Century to play around with the idea of inventing one’s own religion or a new religion. This goes along with the idea of ‘supreme fiction’ or literature relation with religion. It took language to make the bible after all and the bible is also a work of literature.
In conclusion, language then is viewed in different ways by different people and is also necessary for proper communication and expression. Several writers play with the theme and the idea of language and develop their own understanding of language’s place in the world. Several poets such as Shakespeare, Joyce and Carroll have invented their own words and languages in the manner which they see fit. It is clear that language has been effected by the fall of humankind and has presented a language barrier between cultures and a generation gap as well.
It also has made a communication barrier between humans and God which lead to the necessity for Christ to be an intercessor on our behalf to God through our prayers---for the Cross is the bridge which fills this gap. In any case, language is an enigma in existence that is a paradoxical problem of life which can’t be explain until one reaches the great beyond and even then it probably still can’t be fully explained.

Imago Dei And Christian Confessions

Traditionally speaking Baptists have never been a creedal people though the Southern Baptists are becoming more creedal what with their insistence on rule by the ever revised Baptist Faith And Message. (This controversial document has produced such nonsense as forced coercion of the false doctrine of biblical inerrancy on Baptists which is typified by uneducated babbling such as this: Rhoblogy: Eastern errancy. Sorry had to get a dig at the SBC in there).

However, Baptists have always recognized confessions as helpful as needed but not as a rule of faith. Anyways here are some confessions about the Imago Dei from the more creedal denominations of Christianity:

Starting with the Presbyterians and the Westminster Confession---referring back to Fred Anderson---here you go:

When we read the Bible according to Sproul and Wolgemuth, we see a divine purpose for your existence and for mine. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism says,

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

In Westminster-speak, "end" means "purpose." So with this foundational idea in place, let's look at the story of how God created human beings.

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Genesis 1:26 NRSV).

Lutherans' formal statements on the Imago Dei in the Book Of Concord's creedal confessions about humanity focus primarily on humanity's fallen nature such as from the The Epitome Of The Formula Of Concord:

I. Original Sin.
STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.
The Principal Question in This Controversy.

1] Whether original sin is properly and without any distinction man's corrupt nature, substance, and essence, or at any rate the principal and best part of his essence [substance], namely, the rational soul itself in its highest state and powers; or whether, even after the Fall, there is a distinction between man's substance, nature, essence, body, soul, and original sin, so that the nature [itself] is one thing, and original sin, which inheres in the corrupt nature and corrupts the nature, another.

Affirmative Theses.
The Pure Doctrine, Faith, and Confession according to the Aforesaid Standard and Summary Declaration.

2] 1. We believe, teach, and confess that there is a distinction between man's nature, not only as he was originally created by God pure and holy and without sin, but also as we have it [that nature] now after the Fall, namely, between the nature [itself], which even after the Fall is and remains a creature of God, and original sin, and that this distinction is as great as the distinction between a work of God and a work of the devil.

3] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that this distinction should be maintained with the greatest care, because this doctrine, that no distinction is to be made between our corrupt human nature and original sin, conflicts with the chief articles of our Christian faith concerning creation, redemption, sanctification, and the resurrection of our body, and cannot coexist therewith.

4] For God created not only the body and soul of Adam and Eve before the Fall, but also our bodies and souls after the Fall, notwithstanding that they are corrupt, which God also still acknowledges as His work, as it is written Job 10:8: Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about. Deut. 32:18; Is. 45:9ff; 54:5; 64:8; Acts 17:28; Job 10:8; Ps. 100:3; 139:14; Eccl. 12:1.

The Roman Catholic Church's Christian anthropological statements can be found in Part I Paragraph 6 Points 355-384 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church.

Here is a statement from the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition's THE CONSTITUTION OF THE NORTH AMERICAN GENERAL CONFERENCE:

VIII. Personal Choice

224. We believe that humanity's creation in the image of God included ability to choose between right and wrong. Thus individuals were made morally responsible for their choices. But since the fall of Adam, people are unable in their own strength to do the right. This is due to original sin, which is not simply the following of Adam's example, but rather the corruption of the nature of each mortal, and is reproduced naturally in Adam's descendants. Because of it, humans are very far gone from original righteousness, and by nature are continually inclined to evil. They cannot of themselves even call upon God or exercise faith for salvation. But through Jesus Christ the prevenient grace of God makes possible what humans in self effort cannot do. It is bestowed freely upon all, enabling all who will to turn and be saved.

Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Deut. 30:19; Josh. 24:15; 1 Kings 20:40; Ps. 51:5; Isa. 64:6; Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Luke 16:15; John 7:17; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:22; Eph. 2:1-3; 1 Tim. 2:5; Titus 3:5; Heb. 11:6; Rev. 22:17.

Next here are some non-creedal confessions from who else but us Baptists:

First from two of the most important early Baptist confessions---being that they are from the most influential early Baptists, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys---are A Short Confession of Faith, 1610:

4. This only God bath created man good, according to his image and likeness, to a good and happy estate, and in him all men to the same blessed end. The first man was* fallen into sin and wrath and was again by God, through a sweet comfortable promise, restored and affirmed to everlasting life, with all those that were guilty through him so that none of his posterity (by reason of this institution) are guilty, sinful, or born in original sin.

5. Man being created good, and continuing in goodness, had the ability, the spirit of wickedness tempting him, freely to obey, assent, or reject the propounded evil: man being fallen and consisting (sic) in evil, had the ability, the T—himself moving freely to obey, assent or reject the propounded good; for as he through free power to the choice of evil, obeyed and affirmed that evil; so did he through free power to the choice of good, obey and reassent that propounded good. This last power or ability remaineth in all his posterity.

6. God bath before all time foreseen and foreknown all things, both good and evil, whether past, present, or to come. Now, as he is the only perfect goodness, and the very fountain of life itself, so is he the only author, original, and maker of such good things as are good, holy, pure, and of nature like unto him; but not of sin, or damnable uncleanness. He forbiddeth the evil, he forewarneth to obey evil, and threateneth the evil doer: he is the permitter and punisher. But evil men, through free choice of all sin and wickedness, together with the spirit of wickedness which ruleth in them, are the authors, Interlined. originals, and makers of all sin, and so worthy the punishment.

7. The causes and ground, therefore, of man’s destruction and damnation, are the man’s free choice of darkness or sin, and living therein. Destruction, therefore, cometh out of himself, but not from the good Creator. For being perfect goodness and love itself (following the nature of love and perfect goodness) he willeth the health, good, and happiness of his creatures; therefore hath he predestinated that none of them should be condemned, nor ordained, or will the sinner, or means whereby they should be brought to damnation: yea, much more (seeing he hath no delight in any man’s destruction, nor willing that any man perish, but that all men should be saved or blessed) hath he created them all to a happy end in Christ, hath foreseen and ordained in him a medicine of life for all their sins, and hath willed that all people or creatures, through the preaching of the gospel, should have these tidings published and declared unto them; now all they that with penitence and faithful hearts receive and embrace the gracious benefits of God, manifested in Christ, for the reconciliation of the world, they are and continue the elect which God hath ordained before the foundation of the world, to make partakers of his kingdom and glory. But they which despise and co~itemn this proffered grace of God, which love the darkness more than the light, persevere in inipenitence and unbelief, they make themselves unworthy of blessedness, and are rejected, excluded from the end whereto they were created and ordained in Christ, and shall not taste forever of the Supper of the Lord, to which they were invited.

And---Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion, containing a Confession of Faith of certain English people, living at Amsterdam.:

12. That God created man to blessedness, according to His image, in an estate of innocency, free without corruption of sin (Gen. i. 27; ii. 17, 25); He created them male and female (to wite) one man and one woman (Gen. i. 27); He framed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into Him the breath of life, so the man was a living soul (Gen. ii. 7; I Cor. xv.45). But the woman He made of a rib, taken out of the side of the man (Gen. ii. 21, 22). That God blessed them, and commanded them to increase, and multiply, and to fill the earth, and to rule over it and all creatures therein (Gen. i. 28, ix. 1,2; Psal. viii.6)

----
14. That God created man with freedom of will, so that he had ability to choose the good and eschew the evil, or to choose the evil and refuse the good, and that this freedom of will was a natural faculty or power, created by God in the soul of man (Gen. ii. 16, 17; iii. 6,7; Eccles. vii.29)

15. That Adam sinning was not moved or inclined thereto by God, or by any decree of God but that he fell from his innocency and died the death alone, by the temptation of Satan, his free will assenting thereunto freely (Gen. iii. 6)

16. That the same day that Adam sinned, he died the death (Gen. ii. 17), for the reward of sin is death (Rom. vi. 23), and this is that which the Apostle saith, dead in trespasses and sins (Eph. ii. 1), which is loss of innocency, of the peace of conscience and comfortable presence of God. (Gen. iii. 7,ll).

17. That Adam being fallen did not lose any natural power or faculty which God created in his soul, for the work of the devil, which is (sin), cannot abolish God's works or creatures: and therefore being fallen he still retained freedom of will (Gen. iii. 23, 24)

18. That orginal sin is an idle term, and that there is no such thing as men intend by the word (Ezek. xviii. 20), because God threatened death only to Adam (Gen. ii.17) not to his posterity, and because God created the soul (Heb. xii.9)

19. That if original sin might have been passed from Adam to his posterity, Christ's death, which was effectual before Cain and Abel's birth, He being the lamb slain from the beginning of the world, stopped the issue and passage thereof (Rev. xiii. 8).

20. That infants are conceived and born in innocency without sin, and that so dying are undoubtedly saved, and that this is to be understood of all infants under Heaven (Gen. v. 2, i. 27 compared with I. Cor. xv. 49), for where there is no law there is no transgression, sin is not imputed while there is no law. (Rom. iv. 15 and v. 13), but the law was not given to infants, but to them that could understand (Rom. v. 13; Matt. xiii. 9; Neh. viii.3).

21. That all actual sinners bear the image of the first Adam, in his innocency, fall, and restitution in the offer of grace (I Cor. xv. 49), and so pass under these three conditions, or threefold estate.

22. That Adam being fallen God did not hate him, but loved him still, and sought his good (Gen. iii. 8-15), neither doth he hate any man that falleth with Adam, but that He loveth mankind, and from His love sent His only begotten Son into the world, to save that which was lost, and to seek the sheep that went astray (John iii. 16).

23. That God never forsaketh the creature till there be no remedy, neither doth He cast away His innocent creature from all eternity; but casteth away men irrecoverable in sin (Isa. v. 4; Ezek. xviii. 23, 32, and xxxiii. 11; Luke xiii. 6,9).

24. That as there is in all the creatures a natural inclination to their young ones, to do them good, so there is in the Lord toward man; for every spark of goodness in the creature is infinitely good in God (Rom. i. 20; Psaa. xix 4; Rom. x. 18).

25. That as no man begetteth his child to the gallows, nor no potter maketh a pot to break it; so God doth not create or predestinate any man to destruction (Ezek. xxxiii. ; Gen. i. 27; I Cor. xv. 49; Gen. v. 3).

26. That God before the foundation of the world hath determined the way of life and salvation to consist in Christ, and that he hath foreseen who would follow it (Eph. i. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9), and on the contrary hath determined the way of perdition to consist in infidelity, and in impenitency, and that he hath foreseen who would follow after it (Jude 4th verse).

27. That as God created all men according to His image, so hath He redeemed all that fall by actual sin, to the same end; and that God in His redemption hath not swerved from His mercy, which He manifested in His creation (John i. 3,16; 2 Cor. v. 19; I Tim. ii. 5,6; Ezek. xxxiii. 11).

Finally one modern confession and the only worthwhile version of the Baptist Faith And Message is the 1963 edition as it was not corrupted by Fundamentalism like the 2000 edition which perverts this correct statement on the bible:

I. The Scriptures
The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

Ex. 24:4; Deut. 4:1-2; 17:19; Josh. 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isa. 34:16; 40:8; Jer. 15:16; 36; Matt. 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Rom. 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Heb. 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

into this bibliolatrous and false statement:

I. The Scriptures

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us, and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.

Exodus 24:4; Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 17:19; Joshua 8:34; Psalms 19:7-10; 119:11,89,105,140; Isaiah 34:16; 40:8; Jeremiah 15:16; 36:1-32; Matthew 5:17-18; 22:29; Luke 21:33; 24:44-46; John 5:39; 16:13-15; 17:17; Acts 2:16ff.; 17:11; Romans 15:4; 16:25-26; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Hebrews 1:1-2; 4:12; 1 Peter 1:25; 2 Peter 1:19-21.

As you can see---the 1963 Baptist Faith And Message is the only Baptist Faith And Message that is correct on the bible. Anyways, returning from my rabbit trail---here is the 1963 Baptist Faith And Message's statement on the Imago Dei:

III. Man
Man was created by the special act of God, in His own image, and is the crowning work of His creation. In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by His Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence; whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin, and as soon as they are capable of moral action become transgressors and are under condemnation. Only the grace of God can bring man into His holy fellowship and enable man to fulfill the creative purpose of God. The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in His own image, and in that Christ died for man; therefore every man possesses dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.

Gen. 1:26-30; 2:5, 7, 18-22; 3; 9:6; Psalm 1; 8:3-6; 32:1-5; 51:5; Isa. 6:5; Jer. 17:5; Matt. 16:26; Acts 17:26- 31; Rom. 1:19-32; 3:10-18, 23; 5:6, 12, 19; 6:6; 7:14-25; 8:14-18, 29; 1 Cor. 1:21-31; 15:19, 21-22; Eph. 2:1-22; Col. 1:21-22; 3:9-11.

Calvin And Feuerbach On Providence And The Creation Of Man

Recently one of my more conservative Presbyterian Facebook friends Ligon Duncan a member of the conservative Presbyterian denomination---The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) had this:

Ligon Duncan: Elaboration: God has universally revealed himself, in and through nature, especially in his creation of the world & his providence over it.

as a Facebook status message by way of Twitter, which interestingly enough ties into these two quotes that I recently came upon:'

The first quote comes by way of Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity on pgs. 108-109 of the Barnes & Noble edition:

Providence is a privilege of man. It expresses the value of man, in distinction from other natural beings and things; it exempts him from the connection of the universe. Providence is the conviction of man of the infinite value of his existence, – a conviction in which he renounces faith in the reality of external things; it is the idealism of religion. Faith in Providence is therefore identical with faith in personal immortality; save only, that in the latter the infinite value of existence is expressed in relation to time, as infinite duration. He who prefers no special claims, who is indifferent about himself, who identifies himself with the world, who sees himself as a part merged in the whole, – such a one believes in no Providence, i.e., in no special Providence; but only special Providence is Providence in the sense of religion. Faith in Providence is faith in one's own worth, the faith of man in himself; hence the beneficent consequences of this faith, but hence also false humility, religious arrogance, which, it is true, does not rely on itself, but only because it commits the care of itself to the blessed God. God concerns himself about me; he has in view my happiness, my salvation; he wills that I shall be blest; but that is my will also: thus, my interest is God's interest, my own will is God's will, my own aim is God's aim, – God's love for me nothing else than my self-love deified. Thus when I believe in Providence, in what do I believe but in the divine reality and significance of my own being?

But where Providence is believed in, belief in God is made dependent on belief in Providence. He who denies that there is a Providence, denies that there is a God, or – what is the same thing – that God is God; for a God who is not the Providence of man, is a contemptible God, a God who is wanting in the divinest, most adorable attribute. Consequently, the belief in God is nothing, but the belief in human dignity, the belief in the absolute reality and significance of the human nature. But belief in a (religious) Providence is belief in creation out of nothing, and vice verso; the latter, therefore, can have no other significance than that of Providence as just developed, and it has actually no other. Religion sufficiently expresses this by making, man the end of creation. All things exist, not for their own sake, but for the sake of man. He who, like the pious Christian naturalists, pronounces this to be pride, declares Christianity itself to be pride; for to say that the material world exists for the sake of man, implies infinitely less than to say that God – or at least, if we follow Paul, a being who is almost God, scarcely to be distinguished from God – becomes man for the sake of men.

But if man is the end of creation, he is also the true cause of creation, for the end is the principle of action. The distinction between man as the end of creation, and man as its cause, is only that the cause is the latent, inner man, the essential man, whereas the end is the self-evident, empirical, individual man, – that man recognises himself as the end of creation, but not as the cause, because he distinguishes the cause, the essence from himself as another personal being. [In Clemens Alex. (Coh. ad Gentes) there is an interesting passage. It runs in the Latin translation (the bad Augsburg edition, 1778) thus: – “At inos ante mundi constitutionem fuimus, rations futiiroe nostrue productionis, in ipso Deo quodammodo tum prxexistentes. Divini igitur Verbi sive Rationis, nos creaturm rationales sumus, et per eum primi esse dicimur, quoniam in principio erat verbum.” Yet more decidedly, however, has Christian mysticism declared the human nature to be the creative principle, the ground of the world. “Man, who, before time was, existed in eternity, works with God all the works that God wrought a thousand years ago, and now, after a thousand years still works.” “All creatures have sprung forth through man.” – Predigten, vor u. zu Tauleri Zeiten (Ed. c. p. 5, p. 119).] But this other being, this creative principle, is in fact nothing else than his subjective nature separated from the limits of individuality and materiality, i.e., of objectivity, unlimited will, personality posited out of all connection with the world, – which by creation, i.e., the positing of the world, of objectivity, of another, as a dependent, finite, non-essential existence, gives itself the certainty of its exclusive reality. The point in question in the Creation is not the truth and reality of the world, but the truth and reality of personality, of subjectivity in distinction from the world. The point in question is the personality of God; but the personality of God is the personality of man freed from all the conditions and limitations of Nature. Hence the fervent interest in the Creation, the horror of all pantheistic cosmogonies. The Creation, like the idea of a personal God in general, is not a scientific, but a personal matter; not an object of the free intelligence, but of the feelings; for the point on which it hinges is only the Guarantee, the last conceivable proof and demonstration of personality or subjectivity as an essence quite apart, having nothing in common with Nature, a supra- and extra-mundane entity. [Hence is explained why all attempts of speculative theology and of its kindred philosophy to make the transition – from God to the world, or to derive the world from God, have failed and must fail. Namely, because they are fundamentally false, from being made in ignorance of the idea on which the Creation really turns.]

Man distinguishes himself from Nature. This distinction of his is his God: the distinguishing of God from Nature is nothing else than the distinguishing of man from Nature. The antithesis of pantheism and personalism resolves itself into the question: Is the nature of man transcendental or immanent, supra-naturalistic or naturalistic? The speculations and controversies concerning the personality or impersonality of God are therefore fruitless, idle, uncritical, and odious; for the speculatists, especially those who maintain the personality, do not call the thing by the right name; they put the light under a bushel. While they in truth speculate only concerning, themselves, only in the interest of their own instinct of self-preservation; they yet will not allow that they are splitting their brains only about themselves; they speculate under the delusion that they are searching out the mysteries of another being. Pantheism identifies man with Nature, whether with its visible appearance, or its abstract essence. Personalism isolates, separates, him from Nature; converts him from a part into the whole, into an absolute essence by himself. This is the distinction.

The second quote is all of Book 1 Chapter 15 of John Calvin's The Institutes Of Christian Religion:

(Man's nature deformed; yet his soul bears, though almost obliterated, the image of God, 1-4)
1. Man proceeded spotless from God's hand; therefore he may not shift the blame for his sins to the Creator

We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is twofold, - relating, first, to the condition in which we were at first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be immediately after Adam's fall. For it would little avail us to know how we were created if we remained ignorant of the corruption and degradation of our nature in consequence of the fall. At present, however, we confine ourselves to a consideration of our nature in its original integrity. And, certainly, before we descend to the miserable condition into which man has fallen, it is of importance to consider what he was at first. For there is need of caution, lest we attend only to the natural ills of man, and thereby seem to ascribe them to the Author of nature; impiety deeming it a sufficient defence if it can pretend that everything vicious in it proceeded in some sense from God, and not hesitating, when accused, to plead against God, and throw the blame of its guilt upon Him. Those who would be thought to speak more reverently of the Deity catch at an excuse for their depravity from nature, not considering that they also, though more obscurely, bring a charge against God, on whom the dishonour would fall if anything vicious were proved to exist in nature.

Seeing, therefore, that the flesh is continually on the alert for subterfuges, by which it imagines it can remove the blame of its own wickedness from itself to some other quarter, we must diligently guard against this depraved procedure, and accordingly treat of the calamity of the human race in such a way as may cut off every evasion, and vindicate the justice of God against all who would impugn it. We shall afterwards see, in its own place, (Book 2 chap. 1: sec. 3,) how far mankind now are from the purity originally conferred on Adam. And, first, it is to be observed, that when he was formed out of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7; 18:27) a curb was laid on his pride - nothing being more absurd than that those should glory in their excellence who not only dwell in tabernacles of clay (Job 4:19), but are themselves in part dust and ashes. But God having not only deigned to animate a vessel of clay, but to make it the habitation of an immortal spirit, Adam might well glory in the great liberality of his Maker.

2. Diversity of body and soul

Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it, (Eccles. 12:7.) And Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46), and Stephen his to Christ (Acts 7:59), simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper. Those who imagine that the soul is called a spirit because it is a breath or energy divinely infused into bodies, but devoid of essence, err too grossly, as is shown both by the nature of the thing, and the whole tenor of Scripture. It is true, indeed, that men cleaving too much to the earth are dull of apprehension, nay, being alienated from the Father of Lights (James 1:17), are so immersed in darkness as to imagine that they will not survive the grave; still the light is not so completely quenched in darkness that all sense of immortality is lost. Conscience, which, distinguishing, between good and evil, responds to the judgement of God, is an undoubted sign of an immortal spirit. How could motion devoid of essence penetrate to the judgement-seat of God, and under a sense of guilt strike itself with terror? The body cannot be affected by any fear of spiritual punishment. This is competent only to the soul, which must therefore be endued with essence. Then the mere knowledge of a God sufficiently proves that souls which rise higher than the world must be immortal, it being impossible that any evanescent vigour could reach the very fountain of life.

In fine, while the many noble faculties with which the human mind is endued proclaim that something divine is engraven on it, they are so many evidences of an immortal essence. For such sense as the lower animals possess goes not beyond the body, or at least not beyond the objects actually presented to it. But the swiftness with which the human mind glances from heaven to earth, scans the secrets of nature, and, after it has embraced all ages, with intellect and memory digests each in its proper order, and reads the future in the past, clearly demonstrates that there lurks in man a something separated from the body. We have intellect by which we are able to conceive of the invisible God and angels - a thing of which body is altogether incapable. We have ideas of rectitude, justice, and honesty - ideas which the bodily senses cannot reach. The seat of these ideas must therefore be a spirit. Nay, sleep itself, which stupefying the man, seems even to deprive him of life, is no obscure evidence of immortality; not only suggesting thoughts of things which never existed, but foreboding future events. I briefly touch on topics which even profane writers describe with a more splendid eloquence. For pious readers, a simple reference is sufficient.

Were not the soul some kind of essence separated from the body, Scripture would not teach that we dwell in houses of clay (Job 4:19), and at death remove from a tabernacle of flesh; that we put off that which is corruptible, in order that, at the last day, we may finally receive according to the deeds done in the body. These, and similar passages which everywhere occur, not only clearly distinguish the soul from the body, but by giving it the name of man, intimate that it is his principal part. Again, when Paul exhorts believers to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and the spirit (II Cor. 7:1), he shows that there are two parts in which the taint of sin resides. Peter, also, in calling Christ the Shepherd and Bishop of souls (I Peter 2:25), would have spoken absurdly if there were no souls towards which he might discharge such an office. Nor would there be any ground for what he says concerning the eternal salvation of souls (I Peter 1:9), or for his injunction to purify our souls, or for his assertion that fleshly lusts war against the soul (I Peter 2:11p); neither could the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews say, that pastors watch as those who must give an account for our souls (Heb. 13:17p), if souls were devoid of essence. To the same effect Paul calls God to witness upon his soul (II Cor 1:23), which could not be brought to trial before God if incapable of suffering punishment. This is still more clearly expressed by our Saviour, when he bids us fear him who, after he has killed the body, is able also to cast into hell fire (Matt 10:28; Luke 12:5). Again when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes the fathers of our flesh from God, who alone is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9), he could not have asserted the essence of the soul in clearer terms. Moreover, did not the soul, when freed from the fetters of the body, continue to exist, our Saviour would not have represented the soul of Lazarus as enjoying blessedness in Abraham s bosom, while, on the contrary, that of Dives was suffering dreadful torments (Luke 16:22-23). Paul assures us of the same thing when he says, that so long as we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord (II Cor. 5:6,8). Not to dwell on a matter as to which there is little obscurity, I will only add, that Luke mentions among the errors of the Sadducees that they believed neither angel nor spirit (Acts 23:8).

3. God's image and likeness in man

A strong proof of this point may be gathered from its being said, that man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). For though the divine glory is displayed in man's outward appearance, it cannot be doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul. I deny not, indeed, that external shape, in so far as it distinguishes and separates us from the lower animals, brings us nearer to God; nor will I vehemently oppose any who may choose to include under the image of God that

While the mute creation downward bend
Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,
Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes,
Beholds his own hereditary skies.

Only let it be understood, that the image of God which is beheld or made conspicuous by these external marks, is spiritual. For Osiander, (whose writings exhibit a perverse ingenuity in futile devices,) extending the image of God indiscriminately as well to the body as to the soul, confounds heaven with earth. He says, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, placed their image in man, because, even though Adam had stood entire, Christ would still have become man. Thus, according to him, the body which was destined for Christ was a model and type of that corporeal figure which was then formed. But where does he find that Christ is an image of the Spirit? I admit, indeed, that in the person of the Mediator, the glory of the whole Godhead is displayed: but how can the eternal Word, who in order precedes the Spirit, be called his image? In short, the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is destroyed when the former is represented as the image of the latter. Moreover, I should like to know in what respect Christ in the flesh in which he was clothed resembles the Ho]y Spirit, and by what marks, or lineaments, the likeness is expressed. And since the expression, "Let us make man in our own image," (Gen 1:26) is used in the person of the Son also, it follows that he is the image of himself - a thing utterly absurd. Add that, according to the figment of Osiander, Adam was formed after the model or type of the man Christ. Hence Christ, in as much as he was to be clothed with flesh, was the idea according to which Adam was formed, whereas the Scriptures teach very differently, viz., that he was formed in the image of God. There is more plausibility in the imagination of those who interpret that Adam was created in the image of God, because it was conformable to Christ, who is the only image of God; but not even for this is there any solid foundation.
The "image" and "likeness" has given rise to no small discussion; interpreters searching without cause for a difference between the two terms, since "likeness" is merely added by way of exposition. First, we know that repetitions are common in Hebrew, which often gives two words for one thing; And, secondly, there is no ambiguity in the thing itself, man being called the image of God because of his likeness to God. Hence there is an obvious absurdity in those who indulge in philosophical speculation as to these names, placing the "Zelem", that is the image, in the substance of the soul, and the "Demuth", that is the likeness, in its qualities, and so forth. God having determined to create man in his own image, to remove the obscurity which was in this terms adds, by way of explanation, in his likeness, as if he had said, that he would make man, in whom he would, as it were, image himself by means of the marks of resemblance impressed upon him. Accordingly, Moses, shortly after repeating the account, puts down the image of God twice, and makes no mention of the likeness. Osiander frivolously objects that it is not a part of the man, or the soul with its faculties, which is called the image of God, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the dust out of which he was taken. I call the objection frivolous, as all sound readers will judge. For though the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore liable to death, nor when he is called a rational animal is reason or intelligence thereby attributed to the body. Hence, although the soul is not the man, there is no absurdity in holding that he is called the image of God in respect of the soul; though I retain the principle which I lately laid down, that the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals. Accordingly, by this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker. And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine. It is certain that in every part of the world some lineaments of divine glory are beheld and hence we may infer, that when his image is placed in man, there is a kind of tacit antithesis, as it were, setting man apart from the crowd, and exalting him above all the other creatures. But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares, (Matt 22:30,) our highest perfection will consist in being like them. But it is not without good cause that Moses commends the favour of God towards us by giving us this peculiar title, the more especially that he was only comparing man with the visible creation.

4. The true nature of the image of God is to be derived from what Scripture says of its renewal through Christ

But our definition of the image seems not to be complete until it appears more clearly what the faculties are in which man excels, and in which he is to be regarded as a mirror of the divine glory. This, however, cannot be better known than from the remedy provided for the corruption of nature. It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God. Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and, therefore, our deliverance begins with that renovation which we obtain from Christ, who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to true and substantial integrity. For although Paul, contrasting the quickening Spirit which believers receive from Christ, with the living soul which Adam was created, (1 Cor. 15:45,) commends the richer measure of grace bestowed in regeneration, he does not, however, contradict the statement, that the end of regeneration is to form us anew in the image of God. Accordingly, he elsewhere shows that the new man is renewed after the image of him that created him (Col. 3:10p.) To this corresponds another passage, "Put ye on the new man, who after God is created," (Eph. 4: 24.)

We must now see what particulars Paul comprehends under this renovation. In the first place, he mentions knowledge, and in the second, true righteousness and holiness. Hence we infer, that at the beginning the image of God was manifested by light of intellect, rectitude of heart, and the soundness of every part. For though I admit that the forms of expression are elliptical, this principle cannot be overthrown, viz., that the leading feature in the renovation of the divine image must also have held the highest place in its creation. To the same effect Paul elsewhere says, that beholding the glory of Christ with unveiled face, we are transformed into the same image (II Cor 3:18). We now see how Christ is the most perfect image of God, into which we are so renewed as to bear the image of God in knowledge, purity, righteousness, and true holiness.

This being established, the imagination of Osiander, as to bodily form, vanishes of its own accord. As to that passage of St Paul, (1 Cor. 11:7,) in which the man alone to the express exclusion of the woman, is called the image and glory of God, it is evident from the context, that it merely refers to civil order. I presume it has already been sufficiently proved, that the image comprehends everything which has any relation to the spiritual and eternal life. The same thing, in different terms, is declared by St John when he says, that the light which was from the beginning, in the eternal Word of God, was the light of man, (John 1:4.) His object being to extol the singular grace of God in making man excel the other animals, he at the same time shows how he was formed in the image of God, that he may separate him from the common herd, as possessing not ordinary animal existence, but one which combines with it the light of intelligence. Therefore, as the image of God constitutes the entire excellence of human nature, as it shone in Adam before his fall, but was afterwards vitiated and almost destroyed, nothing remaining but a ruin, confused, mutilated, and tainted with impurity, so it is now partly seen in the elect, in so far as they are regenerated by the Spirit. Its full lustre, however, will be displayed in heaven.

But in order to know the particular properties in which it consists, it will be proper to treat of the faculties of the soul. For there is no solidity in Augustine's speculation, that the soul is a mirror of the Trinity, inasmuch as it comprehends within itself, intellect, will, and memory. Nor is there probability in the opinion of those who place likeness to God in the dominion bestowed upon man, as if he only resembled God in this, that he is appointed lord and master of all things. The likeness must be within, in himself. It must be something which is not external to him but is properly the internal good of the soul.

5. Manichaean error of the soul's emanation

But before I proceed further, it is necessary to advert to the dream of the Manichees, which Servetus has attempted in our day to revive. Because it is said that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, (Gen. 2:7,) they thought that the soul was a transmission of the substance of God; as if some portion of the boundless divinity had passed into man. It cannot take long time to show how many gross and foul absurdities this devilish error carries in its train. For if the soul of man is a portion transmitted from the essence of God, the divine nature must not only be liable to passion and change, but also to ignorance, evil desires, infirmity, and all kinds of vice. There is nothing more inconstant than man, contrary movements agitating and distracting his soul. He is ever and anon deluded by want of skill, and overcome by the slightest temptations; while every one feels that the soul itself is a receptacle for all kinds of pollution. All these things must be attributed to the divine nature, if we hold that the soul is of the essence of God, or a secret influx of divinity. Who does not shudder at a thing so monstrous? Paul, indeed, quoting from Aratus, tells us we are his offspring, (Acts 17:28;) not in substance, however, but in quality, in as much as he has adorned us with divine endowments. Meanwhile, to lacerate the essence of the Creator, in order to assign a portion to each individual, is the height of madness. It must, therefore, be held as certain, that souls, notwithstanding of their having the divine image engraven on them, are created just as angels are. Creation, however, is not a transfusion of essence, but a commencement of it out of nothing. Nor, though the spirit is given by God, and when it quits the flesh again returns to him (cf. Eccl 12:7), does it follow that it is a portion withdrawn from his essence. Here, too, Osiander, carried away by his illusions entangled himself in an impious error, by denying that the image of God could be in man without his essential righteousness; as if God were unable, by the mighty power of his Spirit, to render us conformable to himself, unless Christ were substantially transfused into us. Under whatever colour some attempt to gloss these delusions, they can never so blind the eyes of intelligent readers as to prevent them from discerning in them a revival of Manicheism. But from the words of Paul, when treating of the renewal of the image, (II Cor. 3:18,) the inference is obvious, that man was conformable to God, not by an influx of substance, but by the grace and virtue of the Spirit. He says, that by beholding the glory of Christ, we are transformed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord; and certainly the Spirit does not work in us so as to make us of the same substance with God.

(Opinions of the philosophers on the soul criticized in view of the fall of Adam, 6-8)
6. The soul and its faculties

It were vain to seek a definition of the soul from philosophers, not one of whom, with the exception of Plato, distinctly maintained its immortality. Others of the school of Socrates, indeed, lean the same way, but still without teaching distinctly a doctrine of which they were not fully persuaded. Plato, however, advanced still further, and regarded the soul as an image of God. Others so attach its powers and faculties to the present life, that they leave nothing external to the body.

Moreover, having already shown from Scripture that the substance of the soul is incorporeal, we must now add, that though it is not properly enclosed by space, it however occupies the body as a kind of habitation, not only animating all its parts, and rendering the organs fit and useful for their actions, but also holding the first place in regulating the conduct. This it does not merely in regard to the offices of a terrestrial life, but also in regard to the service of God. This, though not clearly seen in our corrupt state, yet the impress of its remains is seen in our very vices. For whence have men such a thirst for glory but from a sense of shame? And whence this sense of shame but from a respect for what is honourable? Of this, the first principle and source is a consciousness that they were born to cultivate righteousness, - a consciousness akin to religion. But as man was undoubtedly created to meditate on the heavenly life, so it is certain that the knowledge of it was engraven on the soul. And, indeed, man would want the principal use of his understanding if he were unable to discern his felicity, the perfection of which consists in being united to God. Hence, the principal action of the soul is to aspire thither, and, accordingly, the more a man studies to approach to God, the more he proves himself to be endued with reason.

Though there is some plausibility in the opinion of those who maintain that man has more than one soul, namely, a sentient and a rational, yet as there is no soundness in their arguments, we must reject it, unless we would torment ourselves with things frivolous and useless. They tell us, (see chap. 5 sec. 4,) there is a great repugnance between organic movements and the rational part of the soul. As if reason also were not at variance with herself, and her counsels sometimes conflicting with each other like hostile armies. But since this disorder results from the depravation of nature, it is erroneous to infer that there are two souls, because the faculties do not accord so harmoniously as they ought.

But I leave it to philosophers to discourse more subtilely of these faculties. For the edification of the pious, a simple definition will be sufficient. I admit, indeed, that what they ingeniously teach on the subject is true, and not only pleasant, but also useful to be known; nor do I forbid any who are inclined to prosecute the study. First, I admit that there are five senses, which Plato (in Theaeteto) prefers calling organs, by which all objects are brought into a common sensorium, as into a kind of receptacle: Next comes the imagination, (phantasia,) which distinguishes between the objects brought into the sensorium: Next, reason, to which the general power of judgement belongs: And, lastly, intellect, which contemplates with fixed and quiet look whatever reason discursively revolves. In like manner, to intellect, fancy, and reason, the three cognitive faculties of the soul, correspond three appetite faculties viz., will, whose office is to choose whatever reason and intellect propound; irascibility, which seizes on what is set before it by reason and fancy; and concupiscence, which lays hold of the objects presented by sense and fancy.

Though these things are true, or at least plausible, still, as I fear they are more fitted to entangle, by their obscurity, than to assist us, I think it best to omit them. If any one chooses to distribute the powers of the mind in a different manner, calling one appetive, which, though devoid of reason, yet obeys reason, if directed from a different quarter, and another intellectual, as being by itself participant of reason, I have no great objection. Nor am I disposed to quarrel with the view, that there are three principles of action, viz., sense, intellect, and appetite.

But let us rather adopt a division adapted to all capacities - a thing which certainly is not to be obtained from philosophers. For they, when they would speak most plainly, divide the soul into appetite and intellect, but make both double. To the latter they sometimes give the name of contemplative, as being contented with mere knowledge and having no active powers (which circumstance makes Cicero designate it by the name of intellect, ingenii,) (De Fin. lib. 5.) At other times they give it the name of practical, because it variously moves the will by the apprehension of good or evil. Under this class is included the art of living well and justly. The former viz., appetite, they divide into will and concupiscence, calling it "boulesis", so whenever the appetite, which they call "horme", obeys the reason. But when appetite, casting off the yoke of reason, runs to intemperance, they call it "pathos". Thus they always presuppose in man a reason by which he is able to guide himself aright.

7. Understanding and will as the truly fundamental faculties

From this method of teaching we are forced somewhat to dissent. For philosophers, being unacquainted with the corruption of nature, which is the punishment of revolt, erroneously confound two states of man which are very different from each other. Let us therefore hold, for the purpose of the present work, that the soul consists of two parts, the intellect and the will, (Book 2 chap. 2 sec. 2, 12,) - the office of the intellect being to distinguish between objects, according as they seem deserving of being approved or disapproved; and the office of the will, to choose and follow what the intellect declares to be good, to reject and shun what it declares to be bad, (Plato, in Phaedro.) We dwell not on the subtlety of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself; but that the moving power is choice, which he also terms the appetite intellect. Not to lose ourselves in superfluous questions, let it be enough to know that the intellect is to us, as it were, the guide and ruler of the soul; that the will always follows its beck, and waits for its decision, in matters of desire. For which reason Aristotle truly taught, that in the appetite there is a pursuit and rejection corresponding in some degree to affirmation and negation in the intellect, (Aristot. Ethic. lib. 6 sec. 2.) Moreover, it will be seen in another place, (Book 2 c. 2 see. 12-26,) how surely the intellect governs the will. Here we only wish to observe, that the soul does not possess any faculty which may not be duly referred to one or other of these members. And in this way we comprehend sense under intellect. Others distinguish thus: They say that sense inclines to pleasure in the same way as the intellect to good; that hence the appetite of sense becomes concupiscence and lust, while the affection of the intellect becomes will. For the term appetite, which they prefer, I use that of will, as being more common.

8. Free choice and Adam's responsibility

Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her "to hegemonikon". To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgement, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason.

In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.

Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place, (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition, - to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man's fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

Resources For Our Genesis Study

Continuing from my previous post---here are some good online resources on Genesis:

On the side of Theistic Evolution:

Here are 2 interesting postings from one of my Presbyterian friends: The Rev's Rumbles: Creation and Blessing: In the Beginning---here is a highlight from this post:

Much to our chagrin, the Bible does not tell us how God did this work, the specific times, or how many watts of power were needed. The only thing we are told is that creation happened by the power of God's spoken word. As J. I. Packer has written, "The act of creation is mystery to us; there is more in it than we can understand. We cannot create by fiat, and we do not know how God could. To say that he created 'out of nothing' is to confess the mystery, not explain it" (Packer, J. I., "Creation: God is the Creator," Concise theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs [Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1995, c1993]).

There are still those who fret about the exact amount of time God used in creation. Were the six "days" of creation a form of poetry and symbolism, or were they literally twenty-four-hour days? I choose to believe the former, but you can read the arguments for yourself, if you want to take the time. But, as R. C. Sproul cautions us, "It is always dangerous to shout where God has whis pered." One way or another, the Bible is crystal-clear as to the "Who" of creation, and ultimately I think that's enough.

And: The Rev's Rumbles: Creation and Blessing: In God’s Image---here is a highlight from this post:

So what does it mean to be made in the image of God? Well, to be created by this design means that we are able to participate in this incredible phenomenon called thinking, reflecting, deciding, learning, feeling, and knowing.

We are also gifted with a moral sense—truly knowing right from wrong. You cannot speak as Reformed theology does of the "fall" of humankind without granting that there was somewhere to fall from. We were created intelligent, moral creatures, and it's from there that we fell.

To me the most significant reflection of the image of God is humankind's capacity for relationship. According to traditional Reformed theology, God is three persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—who enjoy perfect communication, flawless empathy, and unfettered relationship. We mirror that capacity to be in relationship with one another, to magnify the reflection of God's glory through our mutual love for others, especially the relationship of marriage.

We have been made for that which is sacred and holy, in God’s image, to fulfill the purposes of God . . . "for God's glory."

Dr. James McGrath has several postings on Genesis worth going through---here is his latest post on Genesis: Exploring Our Matrix: Review of The Lost World Of Genesis One, Part Ten.

Here are a few posts from Drew Tatusko on evolution vs. creationism: ken ham: religious hack, dr. ken miller breaks down human evolution, 200 years of god denying evilutionism or, darwins birthday and Evolution and Human Suffering among others.

Henry Neufeld's posts on the subject can be found: Here.

Here are some interesting postings on Genesis from my friend Christian Beyer: What if a Woman had Written Genesis? and Faith and Evolution Need Not Be Irreconcilable.

Of general interest is this Blog: An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution.

And here is all that I've posted on Genesis: Genesis and evolution versus creationism.

On the Creationist side:

Here are some postings from a Reformed Fundamentalist who visited my Blog a few times: Rhoblogy: BEAR 3 - Assume you are a better designer,Rhoblogy: BEAR 2 - Assume it happened, Rhoblogy: Bad Evolutionary Arguments Refuted 1, Rhoblogy: What is BEAR? and Rhoblogy: Naturalism as alchemy among others.

Here are a few posts from a conservative Arminian Blog that I like to read: Arminian Today: Celebrating Darwin? and Arminian Today: Initial Reactions to "Expelled" Movie.

Of general interest are these links: http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/, Answers In Genesis, http://www.icr.org/, http://www.drdino.com/ and http://creation.com/.

I'll list more resources as needed along the way in other posts.

FBC Wilmington Church-Wide Genesis Study

This Sunday---we began our church-wide study on Genesis after finishing up our study on Acts. Interestingly enough we began with the second Creation account as the verses that contain the first account were part of the daily devotionals section of our study. You can temporarily be viewed: Here. Anyways, in the back of our study booklet, there are some lyrics that I wrote 3 years ago:

FAITH OF ABRAHAM
(Currin)

You tore the veil, across my heart, opened the door, for You had the key
You made a man out of the boy still within me
And I’ll remember You, all of my days
For I’m thankful, Lord, I’ll forever sing Your praise
And wherever I go, oh, I know that You’ll be next to me
From Babylon to the Sea of Galilee…for all Eternity

You’ve always been here, for You are the Ancient of Days
And though, we can’t always comprehend Your mysterious ways
Nothing gets past You, for You know it all
And I can’t understand how it is You made me fall
For out here, in the dark woods, it can get so lonely, you see
But that’s the way it’s been, in every page of history

But I am glad, You took me by the hand
And gave me the faith of Abraham
Sometimes, in a life, Love calls you by name
It’s the little things, in life that get you, through the shame
Live for the moment, live for the day
Live everyday like Eternity has passed away
Live every moment by God’s command
Live like you have the faith of Abraham

It’s a hard mountain that you must climb to heal your spiritual hurt
But on the other side, Lord, You turn that mountain back into dirt
El Shaddai, God of the Mountains, God of the Seas
God of Our Fathers, God of Eternity
You will not forsake us though we forsake You
You will never leave us though we may leave You like we do

In the Garden, just You and I and no one else
The dark of night has a way, about exposing the True self
And in the moonlight, see the tears stream, across my face
The Cup is Yours, You took my place
Then You filled the empty space inside my heart
You’re always around, when I need to fall apart

Oh, and I’m so glad, You took me by the hand
And gave me the faith of Abraham
Sometimes, in a life, Love calls you by name
It’s the little things, in life that get you, through the shame
Live for the moment, live for the day
Live everyday like Eternity has passed away
Live every moment by God’s command
Live like you have the faith of Abraham

Yeah, I’m so glad, You took me by the hand
And gave me the faith of Abraham
Sometimes, in a life, Love calls you by name
It’s the little things, in life that get you, through the shame
Live for the moment, live for the day
Live everyday like Eternity has passed away
Live every moment by God’s command
Live like you have the faith of Abraham


©2006 T/H Songs, INC. & GB Lyrics, CO

Also the three points of Dr. Queen's sermon today about the second Creation account were:

1. You can't always get what you want.



2. Sexuality shouldn't shame us as it is a gift from God.

3. Everyone needs a blessing---people need people to help them along the way.

In my next post, I'll list some good resources on Genesis for our study.

Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 3

Sorry for the wait, but here's the conclusion to my post series on Genesis and Theistic Evolution. Here are the other two posts on the subject for those catching up:

TheoPoetic Musings: Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 1

TheoPoetic Musings: Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 2

Anyways, here is one interesting interpretation of Genesis that comes from the Jewish Midrash---Genesis Rabbah 8.1 and Rashi:

IV. “The First Human was Created Androgynous”: Two Creations or One Creation?

Shortly before the verse discussed in our earlier study (HY VIII: Bereshit), in which a man leaves his parents to cleave to his wife and to become one flesh, we read of the creation of the first woman from man. After God brings all of the various animals and beasts before Adam as potential companions, without success (although Adam does give each one a suitable name), God casts a deep sleep upon him:

Gen 2:21. “And the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon the man, and he slept, and he took one of his tzela’ot (ribs? limbs? sides?) and closed the flesh beneath it.” Rashi: “One of his tzela’ot.” From his side, as in the verse, “And on the side (tzela’) of the Tabernacle” [Exod 26:20]. This is what we have said: They were created with two faces/sides.
This verse is often thought of in modern times as the height of male chauvinism, establishing the inferiority of woman by the fact that she was fashioned from man. But Rashi—who is very brief here, if not cryptic—clearly states that this is not so: the word צלע, often translated in the Christian tradition as “rib,” in fact means “side” or “half” of the body; a proof-text is invoked from the description of the construction of the Sanctuary in the wilderness. The original human had two sides; one became man, the other woman. Hence, there is no inherent inferiority to woman; man and woman were created as equal in stature.

To understand this motif more clearly, let us examine Rashi’s sources. This is based a midrashic motif that appears in several different places—Genesis Rabbah 8.1; Lev. Rab. 14.1; Midrash Shohar Tov (Tehillim) 139.5; b. Berakhot 61a; b. Eruvin 18a; and, in truncated form in a halakhic discussion, at Ketubot 8a—each with certain variations.

Genesis Rabbah 8.1. “Fore and aft You have created me” [Ps 139:5]… R. Jeremiah b. Eleazar said: When God created the first man, he created him androgynous. Of this it is written, “Male and female he created them… and he called their name Adam” [Gen 5:2]. R. Shmuel b. Nahman said: When God created the first man, He created him diprisophon (i.e., with two faces), and severed him and made him two backs—one back facing this way, and one back the other. They challenged him: But is it not written, “And he took one of his tzela’ot” [Gen 2:21]? He replied: [One] of his two sides (sitrohi), as one says, “And the side (tzela’) of the Sanctuary” [Exod 26:20], and its [Aramaic] translation is, velistar mishkena.
How are we to imagine this first human being? Like Siamese twins, with two heads, four arms and four legs, and two torsos, who simply needed to be separated into two individuals? And were they, perhaps, in sexual embrace (“the beast with the two backs”), whom could reasonably be described as Siamese twins joined at the genitals? According to one midrash, particularly beloved by some of our latter-day prophets of a re-eroticized Judaism, the Roman invaders were scandalized upon breaking into the Holy of Holies to discover that the cherubs that crowned the Holy Ark were representations of a male and female figure in intimate embrace. Or was he/she, as the word androgynous is used today, a single individual, with a dual sexual nature?

It seems significant that, in the versions from the great midrashic collections, such as that quoted above, the sexually androgynous nature of the human being is but one of many dualities mentioned, alongside moral, existential and philosophic dualities, all of them inferred from the verse “fore and aft You have formed me.” (For a fuller discussion of this passage see HY III: Bereshit, or Bereshit (Midrash) in the blog archives for October 2005)

I will begin my discussion by reiterating a point I have often made in the past: midrash is to be read, not as a literal account of events, but as myth, in the positive sense: as an image, a paradigm, used to convey some universal, eternal truth about human beings or the world. To say that something is myth is not to dismiss it as untrue, but to acknowledge that it expresses a depth-insight that cannot be expressed as well in conceptual language. The question then, as Levinas would say, is what issue is being discussed by the rabbis in the guise of this seemingly mythical language?

What, precisely, is the point of the distinction between “androgynous” (or “hermaphrodite”) and diprosaphon or du-partzufi (i.e., Janus faced?) in the Talmudic reading of this midrash? I read the idea of the first human being as androgynous as suggesting that the archetypal human being transcends sexuality, so that each of the two sexes represents only a part of the full range of human capacities. The primal androgynous represents an ideal image of humanity, combining the ideal characteristics of both sexes (bracketing the contemporary issues as to whether these are innate or “cultural constructs,” and certainly whether they are “politically correct”): initiative, abstract intellectual qualities, creativity, physical strength, leadership qualities, “conquering worlds,” of the male; and the more nurturing, intuitive, tender, intimate, home-building qualities, connected to the stuff of life itself, and typically more readily sacrificing self for others, of the female. (These spiritual qualities seem to be symbolized by the Kabbalistic identification of male and female with the qualities of mind known as hokhmah and binah, “Wisdom” and “Understanding/Intuition”; sexual union, known as da’at, “knowledge, is simultaneously a merger or synthesis of the two. See Chapter 1 of Pseudo-Ramban’s Iggeret ha-Kodesh.) Of course, no individual embodies all of these qualities. Their presence in the paradigmatic Adam suggests that neither sex is sufficient unto itself. The fully human is a synthesis of the two, that doesn’t exist in realty, but only in the archetypal world of the Golden Age, of Creation itself.

The du-partzufi image, on the other hand, suggests two fully-formed individuals, man and woman, who were originally joined and then, as part of their creation, severed in two. Here the emphasis is on man/woman as an incomplete creature, who seeks completion through mating with a partner, who is so-to-speak a lost part of himself. Or shall we say, rather, that human life is a constant two-step dance of uniting and parting, autonomy and togetherness, the relationship/community of man and woman being a basic, elemental part of world. (An interesting Jerusalemite strictly-Orthodox female Kabbalah teacher and scholar, Sarah Yehudit Schneider, has written at length about these issues in her Kabbalistic Writings on the Nature of Masculine and Feminine)

I see at least three basic ideas implied by these midrashim:

1. The basic common humanity of man and woman. The differences between the sexes, insofar as based on status or power, are temporary imperfections (even if long-standing in terms of historical time), and not innate. The curse of Eve, as the origin of male supremacy, is a fault in the world as we know it.

2. Sexual attraction as a search for a lost part of oneself. Elsewhere (at the end of b. Kiddushin) Hazal compare a man’s quest for a mate to that of one seeking a lost article. Marriage, and its sexual consummation, is a restoration of the primordial state of oneness. That is why various firms of solipsistic sexual gratification—i.e., those oriented toward self-pleasure alone—are seen as contradicting this verse (see Sanhedrin 58a-b, where the entire Noachide teaching on sexuality is learned from Gen 2:24).

3. Male and female are present in the psyche of each person (as in the Jungian notion of the animus and the anima, a part within the psyche representing the opposite sex within the individual’s own identity). Hence male and female, man and woman, are not exclusively, or even primarily, biological, physical concepts, but spiritual definitions. Each is a component of the “full stature” of humanity. Therefore, a person must seek wholeness not only through personal integration, but through his relationship with a partner.

In the Talmudic discussion, two further elements are introduced: were man and woman created in one act of creation, or in two separate acts? (Some say that the third and fourth of the seven nuptial blessings allude to these two aspects of human creation.) And was the “side” or “rib” from which Eve was created a face or a tail? At first blush, the latter view sounds like an insult to woman. But Emmanuel Levinas, in his Nine Talmudic Readings (Bloomington–Indianapolis: Indiana U. Pr., 1990, pp. 161-177), suggests that the issue here is whether the essence of sexuality has to do with a spiritual difference between man and woman, something about the human essence of each, or whether the difference between them is in fact a strictly biological, functional difference, relating to the “lower” functions of the body—what is referred to in the Talmudic versions as “the tail.” That is, the point is not that woman is “tail-like,” but that she shares in the full, singular humanity of man, and it is only their relatively marginal biological functioning that makes the sexes different.

An Interesting Postscript:

Just over six months ago, I was present at a wedding at which Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat recited the fourth of the seven blessings. He made a small but significant departure change from the usual version of this blessing, printed in all the Siddurim and “benchers.” Rather than the traditional:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם, אשר יצר את האדם בצלמו, בצלם דמות תבניתו, והתקין לו ממנו בנין עדי עד. ברוך אתה ה' יוצר האדם. Blessed are You, O Lord God King of the universe, who has formed man in His image, in the image and likeness of His pattern, and created for him an eternal building. Blessed are You, who forms man.
He read:

ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם, אשר יצר את האדם בצלמו, ובצלם דמות תבניתו התקין לו ממנו בנין עדי עד. ברוך אתה ה' יוצר האדם. Blessed are You, O Lord God King of the universe, who has formed man in His image, and in the image and likeness of his pattern created for him an eternal building. Blessed are You, who forms man.
By moving the conjunctive letter vav, and thus grouping the phrases together differently, the whole syntax of this sentence changes. It is clear in the latter version that woman is not merely an appendage of man created to provide as a “eternal building”—in vulgar terms, a breeding machine, a source of ongoing offspring and thus eternal continuity—but herself made in the Divine image and likeness just as is man. This change is highly significant—far more egalitarian, and portraying the relationship between the sexes in far more complementary terms.

Though I had heard about this alternative reading, I had until then never heard it recited publicly nor seen it in print. I approached Rav Riskin afterwards to ask him about this, and he explained that he had learned this reading from Rav Soloveitchik, and that other students of Rav Soloveitchik (including Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, who was also present at this wedding) also used it. It seems clear that this reading is as ancient and legitimate as the more familiar one. Later, I consulted the article in Encyclopaedia Talmudica (IV.646) on Birkat Hatanim, where I found the sources for this alternative reading given as Semag, Aseh §48, citing R. Saadia Gaon.

(Read more: Here).

See also: "Androgyne
Androgyne derives from two Greek words, but makes its first appearance as a compound word in Rabbinic Judaism (see, e.g., Genesis Rabba 8.1; Leviticus Rabba 14.1), most probably as an alternative to the Greek Pagan-related usage of hermaphrodite." And: Some thoughts on gender and Judaism. Last but not least I defer you to an earlier post of mine for an evolutionary reading of Genesis: TheoPoetic Musings: Fundie Nuts Vs. Harry Emerson Fosdick.

Genesis And Theistic Evolution: Part 1

One of my friends mentioned a Phillip Johnson book that dissects evolution just as most Fundamentalist do---needless to say the book sounds interesting despite Dr. Johnson's crackpot theories:

Johnson has advocated strongly in the public and political spheres for the teaching of intelligent design in favor of evolution, which Johnson characterizes as "atheistic" and "falsified by all of the evidence" and whose "logic is terrible". In portraying the philosophy of science, and by extension its theories such as evolution as atheistic...
---
[edit] Neocreationism
See also: Neocreationism
When asked how best to raise doubts and question evolution with non-believers, Johnson responded:

What I am not doing is bringing the Bible into the university and saying, "We should believe this." Bringing the Bible into question works very well when you are talking to a Bible-believing audience. But it is a disastrous thing to do when you are talking, as I am constantly, to a world of people for whom the fact that something is in the Bible is a reason for not believing it... You see, if they thought they had good evidence for something, and then they saw it in the Bible, they would begin to doubt. That is what has to be kept out of the argument if you are going to do what I to do, which is to focus on the defects in [the evolutionists'] case—the bad logic, the bad science, the bad reasoning, and the bad evidence.[32]

Allegations of limiting academic freedom
In 2006 Nancey Murphy, a religious scholar at Fuller Theological Seminary‎, claimed she faced a campaign to get her fired after she expressed her view that intelligent design was not only poor theology, but "so stupid, I don't want to give them my time." Murphy, who accepts the validity of evolution, said that Johnson called a trustee in an attempt to get her fired. Johnson admits calling the trustee, but denies any responsibility for action taken against her.[39]
[edit] AIDS denialism
Johnson is involved in AIDS denialism, which challenges the scientific consensus that HIV is the cause of AIDS.[40][41][42] He has written five articles about the subject.[43] The scientific community consider the AIDS denialist arguments to rely on cherry-picking of scientific data[44] as denialists selectively ignore evidence of HIV's role in AIDS. Denialism is thought to endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments.[45][46] In the Washington University Law Quarterly, critics Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey criticized Johnson and DI fellow Jonathan Wells for denying the AIDS/HIV connection and promoting denialism without any scientific support.[47] Specifically, they were criticized for signing a petition, which gains publicity rather than deal with the science.[47]

Anyways here are some of my thoughts on the subject:
First, Genesis is not a textbook on history, science and biology, but a spiritual and theological text. Personally, I read Genesis as a "mythic truth"---to me, it's a spiritual narrative, which speaks of God being the beginning of all things as Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew states: אֱלֹהִ֑ים ‏בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א (berashit bera Elohim), which literally means: "in the beginning of God's or the gods' creating." God is still creating---in other words God is still overseeing evolutionary processes. See also: The Myths of Genesis for an interesting explanation of mythic truth. Anyways to me the narrative of Adam and Eve were superimposed onto a framework of the earlier existing Near Eastern creation myths by the scribes of "the Elohist tradition who referred to God as Elohim, which was derived from the name of the Canaanite God El (generally translated as "God" in English)." One such Near Eastern creation myth was the Enuma Elish part of which the Genesis creation accounts depend on:

Relationship with the Hebrew Bible
The dependence of at least part of the creation accounts found in Genesis on a common ancient Near Eastern "creation-by-combat" myth are "not gainsayable."[2] The ancient Mesopotamians believed that the world was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea. The habitable earth was a single giant continent inside this sea, and floated on a second sea, the freshwater apsu, which supplied the water in springs, wells and rivers and was connected with the saltwater sea. The sky was a solid disk above the earth, curved to touch the earth at its rim, with the heavens of the gods above. So far as can be deduced from clues in the bible, the ancient Hebrew geography was identical with that of the Babylonians: a flat circular earth floating above a freshwater sea, surrounded by a saltwater sea, with a solid sky-dome (raqia, the "firmament") above. It is the creation of this world which Enuma Elish and Genesis 1 describe.[3][4] Comparisons between the Bible and other ancient Near Eastern texts are often obscured by English translations, which impose on the Hebrew the Christian doctrines of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and of the Trinity. Thus the opening of Genesis 1 is traditionally rendered: "In the beginning God created both Heaven and Earth...", whereas the Hebrew makes it clear that Genesis 1:1-3 is describing the state of chaos immediately prior to God's creation:[5] In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth, when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said, 'Let there be light!'[6] In both Enuma Elish and Genesis, creation is an act of divine speech—the Enuma Elish describes pre-creation as a time "when above, the heavens had not been named, and below the earth had not been called by name", while in Genesis each act of divine creation is introduced with the formula: "And God said, let there be...". The sequence of creation is identical: light, firmament, dry land, luminaries, and man. In both Enuma Elish and Genesis the primordial world is formless and empty (the tohu wa bohu of Genesis 1:2), the only existing thing the watery abyss which exists prior to creation (Tiamat in the Enuma Elish, tehom, the "deep", a linguistic cognate of tiamat, in Genesis 1:2). In both, the firmament, conceived as a solid inverted bowl, is created in the midst of the primeval waters to separate the heavens from the earth (Genesis 1:6–7, Enuma Elish 4:137–40). Day and night precede the creation of the luminous bodies (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, and 14ff.; Enuma Elish 1:38), whose function is to yield light and regulate time (Gen. 1:14; Enuma Elish 5:12–13). In Enuma Elish, the gods consult before creating man (Enuma Elish 6:4), while Genesis has: "Let us make man in our own image..." (Genesis 1:26) – and in both, the creation of man is followed by divine rest. "Thus, it appears that the so-called Priestly Source account echoes this earlier Mesopotamian story of creation."
------------------------------
Other similarities:
What is Enuma Elish about? It is not primarily a creation story: very little of the content is about creation. Also, much more important than the creation of humans is the creation of the gods: theogony. The vast majority of the content is praising the attributes and deeds of Marduk, and his establishment as the chief god with his temple at Babylon. It is not too difficult to discern the purpose of Enuma Elish:

(1) to establish Marduk’s supremacy as the head of the Babylonian pantheon.

(2) to establish Babylon’s preeminence over all the cities in the country.

Although we have the epic attested only in its Babylonian form, it is obvious that the myth was originally Sumerian: most of the names besides Marduk are Sumerian rather than Semitic names. The Babylonians inherited the gods of the Sumerians, with Enlil (the god of earth) generally as the chief god. In the 18th c. BCE, Hammurabi (1792-1750) not only produced a very influential code of laws, but also effected a religious reform by asserting that Marduk was the chief god. The city of Babylon also rose to prominence during this period (first Babylonian dynasty, 1894-1595).

ENKI AND NINHURSAG: A PARADISE MYTH
(ANET 37-41)

The story takes place in Dilmun, a pure paradise where there is no sickness or death, “the lion kills not, the wolf snatches not the lamb,” etc. Enki (=Ea), the god of the wisdom and the sweet waters that bring life to the land, impregnates the goddess Ninhursag (=Nintu), the “mother of the earth”. She gives birth to the goddess Ninmu. Enki impregnates his daughter Ninmu, giving birth to Ninkurra. Enki impregnates his granddaughter Ninkurra, giving birth to Uttu. Before Enki can lay his hands on his great-granddaughter, Ninhursag advises her to reject Enki unless he brings a gift of fruit. Enki comes with fruit, she happily receives him, but instead of producing a child, she uses his semen to produce 8 different plants. Enki eats these, infuriating Ninhursag. She curses Enki, vowing never again to look upon him with the “eye of life.” Enki apparently begins to deteriorate and the Anunnaki, the Sumerian gods of the underworld mourn, and in the end Ninhursag is brought back to the gods.
Similarities to Genesis 1-3:

-seduction with fruit

-the eating of trees brings a curse consisting of the withholding of life



GILGAMESH AND THE HULUPPU-TREE
(S. N. Kramer, Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree, Chicago, 1938; cf. S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, 1944, 30f.). The second half of this myth is appended to the Gilgamesh epic in Tablet 12.

Heaven and earth are separated, humans are brought into being, Anu and Enlil choose heaven and earth respectively for their realms, Ereshkigal has been given the underworld, and Enki has headed for the watery abyss beneath the earth. A tree planted by the bank of the Euphrates river was blown down by the wind and floated away on the river. Inanna (=Ishtar), the queen of heaven sees the tree and takes it home to her “holy garden” where she transplants it and tends it, hoping that when it is grown she can make a bed and a chair out of it. But when it is grown, she is prevented from using it because a serpent has made its home at the root of the tree, the Zû-bird has made a nest in the top of the tree, and the demon Lilith has made her house in the middle of the tree. Gilgamesh saves the day by killing the serpent with his ax, also frightening off both Lilith and the bird family. Gilgamesh cuts down the tree and gives it to Inanna for her bed and chair. Inanna makes two objects out of the tree—pukku from the roots and mikku from the crown—and gives them to Gilgamesh. One day these gifts fall into the underworld, and Gilgamesh is distressed not to be able to recover them. His companion Enkidu goes to rescue them, but is prevented from returning to the living. His spirit gives Gilgamesh a report on what the afterlife is like.

Similarities to Genesis:

-tree with serpent (combined with demon)

See also: Creation myth for various other Creation myths. The Jews were certainly aware of the other Creation myths of surrounding cultures and they had lots to borrow from---however, there are differences between the Judeo-Christian Creation myth as well. Genesis is also a subversive myth:

Paganism and biblical ‘subversion’

So what is the purpose of this portion of Scripture - the first chapter of Genesis - according to biblical historians? In a nutshell, the opening section of the Bible appears to have been written to provide a picture of physical and social reality that debunks the views held by pagan cultures of the time. In short, Genesis 1 is a piece of subversive theology.

Genesis 1 appears to have been written to debunk the views held by pagan cultures of the time

To anyone familiar with the Old Testament this subversive, anti-pagan intent will come as no surprise. One of the golden threads of the Old Testament is its sustained critique of the pagan religions of Israel’s neighbours - the Egyptians, Canaanites and Babylonians. The first two of the Ten Commandments, for instance, are all about shunning the pagan deities of the ancient world. Moreover, the book of Psalms - the hymnbook of ancient Jews - regularly and explicitly declares that the creation owes its existence not to the pagan gods but to Yahweh, the God of Israel. In Jeremiah 50:2 the Babylonian creator god, Marduk, is explicitly named and denounced.
Given the prominence of this motif in the Old Testament it would be surprising if the Old Testament’s longest statement about creation did not take a swipe at pagan understandings of the universe. We do not have to speculate about this. Through a stroke of very good fortune, scholars are now able to see just how the writer of Genesis went about his task of debunking his ancient rivals.

See also: Genesis: The Origin of Revolution. I shall continue this discussion in a subsequent post.