Man's creation was unique: he is the only living creature that was not created according
to its kind. Every other living species was created male and female with seed according to its kind. Adam, however, was created without a mate and thereby was dependent upon the grace of God. Being in the likeness of God separates man from all other life upon the earth.
Being created in God's image is a blessing that confounds our understanding. If you ask ten Christians to explain what it means, I suspect you would have ten different answers. Nevertheless, God created Man male and female. Man was created in the image of God
(Elohim, plural Hebrew Name), saying, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
...and let them have dominion ...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:26,27).
Man's beginning was plural yet singular. It was never to be repeated again until the coming of Christ. Jesus came, born of a virgin in the power of God, fully man and fully God united in one body. Indeed, the first Adam was also taken out of a virgin earth, male and female in one body, the woman yet being by promise.
We know the creation of man is in the image of God, and better men than I have wrestled with this concept, attempting to put it into plain and simple terms that can be easily grasped. The God concept is quite understandable, that God is One in essence three in person, or Father Son and Holy Spirit; yet translating this to Man in the image of God is a mind boggling challenge.
Some have compared it to time: past, present and future. Others say it's like a man that is father, son and husband. Still others say it compares to a man as body, soul and spirit. But none of these are exactly self evident.
In my view, the Bible itself defines the image if we let it. The most comprehensive description, it seems, is in Genesis 1:27, So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. He's singular yet plural! but even this speaks of only two persons! So where do we go from here? Back to the Bible!
IMAGE OF GOD: GENESIS ONE
We see in Genesis 1 that the ground is the substance from which living species were created, for God brought forth grass and herbs and trees and living creatures yielding seed according to their kind, meaning that each species had the capability to regenerate itself. Again, man was not initially created after his kind; by verse 1:26 he was created one body in the image of God. Then verse 1:27 reveals the promise of regeneration by male and female. So man was created with a dual nature, so to speak. And was this not the nature of Christ? fully God and fully man in one body? plural persons/one body?
(26) And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male
and female created he them.
(28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
There are a number of translation difficulties in these verses. The first is the seemingly
inconsequential connecting word "and" that begins verse 1:26. Literal translations of the
Bible and KJV begin the verse with "and," while NASB and others use "then." Not a big
deal, right? Wrong. The word "then" means an immediate following after while the word
"and" joins ideas but does not necessarily determine sequence. Here's the deal: if Gen. 1 is a series of events that follow one after the other, "then" is appropriate; but if it is a mixture of
sequential and non-sequential events, "and" is the appropriate choice.
First off, let's establish that verse 1:26 is NOT sequential; it's a conversation within the
Godhead and therefore could not possibly have occurred after all other species were created. The Bible tells us that all the decisions of the Godhead had been made from the foundation of the world. Also, the generations of living things in Gen. 2 reveal that man definitely was not created last, making the word "then" a doubly poor choice.
Verse 1:28 presents several difficulties, one being the word "replenish." The definition is:
to fill something that had previously been emptied. Most translators have seen fit to use "fill" rather than "replenish." While it's true the Hebrew may be translated both ways, let me point out that the Jewish translation JPL Bible uses replenish.
[ Author's Note: Perhaps a note is required here for those whose Bibles differ with
the wording of the King James Version (KJV) used here. I make it a point to compare
KJV wording with that of the NKJV in order that I can be aware of the least little
translation discrepancy. Generally the NKJV refrains from changing words except to
eliminate the Old English. But in this case they have chosen to use fill rather than
replenish.. So my concern is that those who pooh pooh the value of the KJV Bible will
have the excuse that I am hopelessly biased in these interpretations. And people are
free to make such judgments, but let me say this in my own defense. As a literalist I
want to be sure that I’m reading words that accurately translate the original Hebrew
and Greek meanings, for they contain the infallible word of God. One thing I will say
about the 1611 KJV translators, they had no axe to grind except to accurately trans-
late the original manuscripts into the English of their day. For them the old English
was natural and understandable. Today old English is awkward and difficult to read
aloud. Later translators wanted to make the Bible read in the vernacular that people
speak, and I don’t argue with that objective as long as it doesn’t change the meaning
of words. But the temptation to insert words that are “better suited” to an assumed
New Testament doctrine has been irresistible, judging by the latest versions.
It's been my experience that the KJV more accurately translates the original
manuscripts, but not so with the NKJV, unfortunately. Not only that, but the KJV
cross references, at least in some editions, seem much more complete and accurate than
other versions. But even expositors that translate by the KJV seem blind to many of
these cross references, judging by their notes. Of course, if one does not believe the Bible
is the word of God, then the literal translation of manuscripts makes no difference... in
which case why worry? be happy! follow after your favorite translator! ]
I believe the evidence for replenish is more than sufficient. I know most translators are not literalists, and it appears to me that they are predisposed to think that verses 26-28 must apply to the events of Gen. 2 and therefore are biased against using replenish. Before we get to that, however, let's deal with the repetition of dominion in verse 1:28 versus 1:26. I hope it is not tedious to point out these little nuances, but the majority of commentaries get so wrapped up in lengthy allegories that these distinctions simply get ignored. But I find this repetition stuff enlightening and relevant to sound interpretation!
(26)And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
(28)And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The dominion statements of these verses are almost identical. First off, God has no need to repeat Himself; when He speaks a word, it does not return to Him void. Once spoken is enough. I've learned to pay close attention when a command appears to be repeated, for it's usually a tipoff to look elsewhere for the meaning. Secondly, there was no need in 1:26 to include anything about filling or replenishing the earth because dominion was "given to them" to rule over everything that God created. To say "be fruitful and multiply" is redundant, for that is assumed by dominion over multiplying kinds.
It's redundant for Adam, but uniquely appropriate for Noah, for God destroyed the first filling in the great flood. The earth had to be replenished of man and beast alike:
(1) And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth. 2)And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon
every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon
the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
(Gen 9:1-2)
Comparing verse 1:28 with 9:1-2, there are several points to be made. There's an exact match of the replenish phrase, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." As for dominion, it's effectively the same: the fish[es] of the sea, the fowl of the air, and over every living thing [upon all] that moveth upon the earth.
Then there is the subdue reference of 1:28. When Noah replenished the earth with the creatures he preserved in the ark, they were made to fear man (animals in fear are in panic mode and a threat to man). At the same time, living creatures were to be a food source for Noah, so he had need to subdue them, whereas Adam did not.
Yet the most compelling evidence supporting the Noah connection is the generations of Adam given in Gen. 5, which extends only as far as Noah and his three sons. This explains the reason for repetition of dominions in Genesis 1: the first was spoken for Adam's generations and the second for Noah's, in order that the Seed of promise should have a line of inheritance extending to Abraham.
Genesis 2 reveals unequivocally that Adam's food was limited to fruit of the garden; the trees were the only source of food for Adam and his wife. Herbs and living creatures were never mentioned for food until the judgment against Adam. Living creatures were brought to Adam for names, and by the definition of "brought" we can conclude they were brought in from outside the garden and returned there afterwards, since there was no food for them within the garden. The beasts only became a factor for Adam after he was removed from the garden and no longer had access to the fruit trees. Even at that, he was not given the beasts for food.
There is more evidence yet for the Noah interpretation, from Gen. 1:22, for in God's blessing of sea creatures He commanded they should "fill" the waters; and because sea creatures were not affected by the flood of Noah's time the waters did not need to be "replenished" like the land; they only needed one filling. And verse 1:27 follows logically from 1:26; without question both are compatible with what is reported in Gen. 2!
But verse 1:28 is a definite break from previous verses. And the commands of 29 and 30 follow logically and are perfectly compatible with verse 28, for God thereby provided food sources for Noah and the beasts until the coming of the promised Seed.
(28)And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(29)And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the
face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you
it shall be for meat.
(30)And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that
creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat:
and it was so. (Gen 1:28-30)
Most noteworthy here is that when God creates creatures He also provides food for them, and
the source of this food is the key to proper interpretation of these verses. Again, close attention
to grammar is critical. You will note that the trees of these verses were upon the face of all the earth, that is, they were NOT within the confines of the garden, they were spread across the face of the earth. Therefore, verses 28-30 represent a different food source for a different generation, for in the flood God would destroy Adam's generations but preserve the line of faith for Noah's generations.
IMAGE OF GOD: GENESIS TWO
Genesis 2 reveals that the generations of creation began when the LORD God caused a mist to water the face of the earth. Before the mist there was only God, no rain, no plants, no creatures, no garden and no man to tend it. As John declared, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word called up the mist and formed Man from the ground::
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day
that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5)And every plant of the field before it
was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused
it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6)But there went up a
mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7)And the LORD God formed
man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul. 8)And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there
he put the man whom he had formed. 9)And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow
every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of
the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:4-9)
First we note that man was not created in the sixth day, for there was nothing but a barren landscape and a mist when God created man. It reminds me of the lunar landscape that was viewed by the first man on the moon. So man became the first living creature on the face of the earth. He was the first son of God and he was formed from the dust of the ground of a barren earth in a figure of the virgin birth of Jesus.
And the LORD God planted a garden. Does this mean that God planted seed to create the
garden? Yes, as a matter of fact, for the dictionary definition of plant is to sow seed. And
why not? The only way around this is to flat out deny literal interpretation.
Note that it does NOT say, as in Gen. 1 verses, that the LORD spoke the garden into existence, like Let there be a garden and it was so. Yet I think this is the way most people understand it. I confess that I did at one time.
However, the words say that the LORD God planted. Accepting the words as written, the first work that Man observed was the LORD sowing seed for His garden. Then he watched the miracle of seed sprouting up to life out of the ground. Now, we know it takes water and warmth to germinate seeds and that they don't grow overnight, so what did Man eat while waiting for the garden to grow?
This stumped me at first, but then I was reminded that God fed millions of Jews for forty years in the wilderness with overnight settlings of dew that became manna. By reverse extrapolation of God's singular ways and patterns, we may presuppose that the LORD God provided manna from heaven while the garden was sprouting up. Since the LORD created man, it was a small thing for Him to provide food as well.
Jesus called Himself the Bread from heaven, the source of all life! He was there in the beginning to give life on earth by the word of His mouth. Created seed was the source of regeneration. In other words, until that first seed that the LORD God created falls into the ground and dies, there was no plant nor herb of the field, for the LORD had not caused water to come up from the earth.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways,
and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from
heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud,
that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth
out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please,
and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. (Isa 55:9-11)
Jesus said that no man has seen the Father (Joh 6:46), which surely must include Adam. So if no man has seen the Father, we can safely conclude that the Father was not the LORD God of the garden account. Also, Jesus said no man comes to the Father except by Him, meaning that Adam had to be made a son of God by the Son.
By this we know that pre-incarnate Jesus Christ was Adam's Creator, exactly as the opening verses of John's Gospel stipulate, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (Joh 1:1-3).
Returning now to Adam’s life in the garden, there was only one law that he and his wife
had to obey to have eternal life in a perfect environment!
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it
and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, From any tree of the garden
you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not
eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die. (Gen 2:15-17)
Both the tree of forbidden fruit and the tree of life were unique among the trees, for they were separately identified and located in the midst of the garden, as revealed a few verses before this, And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen 2:9). These two trees were just there with no apparent origin but the Word, and their fruit was spiritual food..
Several points here. Being a literalist, it seems to me that in the day that you eat from it implies that the LORD expected Adam to eat of that tree and die. And the fact that the tree of life was in the garden supports this; otherwise there would be no need of it, since all of Adam’s needs were provided by the food trees. In other words, Adam and his wife could have stayed forever in the garden by simple obedience, even could have eaten freely of the tree of life. So the only purpose of the tree of life appears to be eternal life. However, we know also that all life comes by Jesus Christ, which means the tree therefore is eternal life in Christ.
Redemption from sin and death was in the Plan of God from the beginning! Beyond a shadow of a doubt the LORD God knew that Adam would eat of that tree and be redeemed because it is written that Jesus Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev 13:8). And it is written also, the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (Joh 6:63). This also is an eternal truth and I shall use all Jesus’ words accordingly herein.
The tree of knowledge was there for man's test of obedience, i.e., for a temptation of his free will. It makes sense that the garden should include the sources of death and life both. To obey the LORD's command was to enjoy fellowship with Him forever, to disobey meant spiritual death and separation from God. Again, man could have spent eternity in the garden by obedi- ence. And because of sin Christ shall come again to restore the garden like it was at creation:
Not for your sakes do I this, saith the LORD God, be it known unto you: be ashamed
and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel. Thus saith the LORD God;
In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause
you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded. And the desolate land shall
be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by. And they shall say,
"This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and
desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited." (Eze 36:32-35)
Eternal life with Christ is precisely what Jesus told His disciples to pray for, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (Mat 6:10). Knowing that no man has seen the Father except the Son, it's logical to conclude that the LORD (Jehovah) Jesus Christ created Man and created all things.
(18)It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for
him. (19)And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
(20)....but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (21)And the LORD
God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs,
and closed up the flesh instead thereof; (22)And the rib, which the LORD God had
taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (23)And Adam said,
This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man. (Gen 2:18-23)
Verse 24's therefore doesn't seem to follow from verse 23. It is, in fact, the conclusion to the entire creation passage that began in verse 4, These are the generations... (Gen 2:4). So we see that generations are involved, and therefore that man must separate and cleave as part of God's divine Plan for passing their kind through future generations.
This is the master pattern for regeneration of man in God's image. Man was created by Christ and woman was taken out of man, also by Him, so all things are of God who is faithful to fulfill all His promises, praise His holy name. With the bone and flesh of the woman also came the line of promise that leads to the Seed of Promise.