Question 6: Did God, then, create man so wicked and perverse?

Answer: No, on the contrary,
              God created man good and in his image,
              that is, in true righteousness and holiness,
              so that he might rightly know God his Creator,
              heartily love him,
              and live with him in eternal blessedness
              to praise and glorify him.

A profound, far-reaching question! Our nature is wicked and perverse. Is that because of the Creator? The Catechism does not for a moment toy seriously with this thought. On the contrary, it asks this question in such a straightforward manner that any hint of suspicion in that direction is banished.

Good and In His Image (according to Genesis 1:26)⤒🔗

God created man good…What does that mean? Certainly not that he could never become bad and sinful. If one creature could go wrong, it was this man. That has been shown to be the case. Things did not suddenly go wrong with the sun, the plants or the animals, but with man. He dragged the whole creation into his fall. So what did it mean that he was created good? Good is apparently not the same as infallibly good.

The catechism says in the same breath: “good and in his image”. These belong together. Man is good because he is God’s image. Therefore, we first need to know what is meant by that “image” of God.

Man has an advantage over his fellow creatures. Everyone knows that. But what does this advantage consist of? It is not that he walks upright or that he has a will and a mind, but that he is made in God’s image. That makes all the difference and it shows the unique character of man.

No one finds this out by himself. Even the (unbelieving) scientists do not get it. They are groping in the dark and cannot agree on what exactly makes a human being a human. The Creator needs to tell us. Fortunately, he has done so — and very emphatically. Before he made us, he decided after internal deliberation, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). That — exclusively — is what really makes us human.

The words “image” and “likeness” basically say the same thing. But what is it? Did Adam and Eve perhaps look a little bit like God? Not by any means. In fact, the terms ‘image’ and “likeness” do not indicate this. In general, the ancient eastern world did not think of the image of a god as a depiction of his appearance. Such an image did not inform people that their god looked something like this, but that it represented him.¹ A company representative does not have to look exactly like his employer. He may look completely different, as long as he makes transparent to the customers what his boss is aiming at.

The same applies here. Man is God’s image and likeness: not because he more or less looks like God, but because he is called to represent the invisible God in his way of working and so show his image.² Not only at special moments — for instance, when he is praying — but simply while he is working his land and tending his cattle. After all, God does not particularly link the decision to make him “in his image” with prayer or with listening to his Word, but with ruling over the fish, the birds and the land animals (Gen. 1:26,28).³ Man became God’s vice-regent.⁴

Being created “in the image of God” is therefore more than the sum of Adam’s human qualities. It tells us not only what gifts he has received, but no less what he does with those gifts.⁵ We see a beautiful and practical illustration of Adam’s functioning as an image of God in the way he gave names to the animals. He did so on behalf of the Creator. God’s wisdom became transparent in Adam’s deliberations and choices. For “whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name,” Genesis 2:19. No name would be rejected by God, not because Adam knew the animals so well, but mainly because he knew God. He knew him so well, in fact, that he ended up with exactly the names that God thought were fitting. Adam was therefore not first and foremost the super-smart zoologist, but the perfect “image of God”. In his actions something of the invisible God became perceptible.

This makes clear what God’s highest purpose is with our presence on the earth. Not that we neatly manage and have dominion over the earth and be done with it. He wants much, much more. He is looking for people who know him and love him wholeheartedly; who honour him in their whole way of living and working. Voluntarily; yet not without obligation because they are in his service. Their task is anchored in a covenant that holds rich promises. God wants them to honour him intently. That is why there is the real threat of death if they would disregard this covenant.

God is everywhere, on high mountains and in low valleys. All of creation proclaims his omnipotence and wisdom, even without human intervention. The heavens declare the glory of God and the sun runs its course with joy (Ps. 19). According to Psalm 148, the sun, moon, stars, fire, hail, fruit trees, cedars and all animals are called upon to praise God. But no creature can do this so directly, so clearly and purposefully as man whom God placed in a covenant partnership. God is to be made visible and recognizable in the actions of mankind,⁶ even more richly than through a flowering garden or an impressionable sunset.
“God created man good...” Not in the sense of good and infallible, but of good and in his image, i.e., with a great responsibility to serve him.

Good and in His Image (according to Answer 6)←⤒🔗

The catechism introduces its explanation of “good and in God’s image” this way: in true righteousness and holiness. These two aspects belong together and flow into each other. “Righteousness” means the delicate conformity to God’s will. “Holiness” represents the inward and heartfelt disposition to carry out this will of God.⁷ Together they conjure up the image of a person who knows very well what God wants and who, moreover, considers it wonderful to do so. He therefore likes nothing better than to do God’s will, and to praise and glorify God in all of this. That is how the catechism elaborates on this calling.
“Good and in his image” implies that man should:

• rightly know God, his Creator;
• love him from the heart;
• live with him in eternal blessedness; and
• praise and glorify him.

What is striking in this explanation is that the relationship with God receives all the attention. Man is to know him, to love him and to praise him eternally. This is different from Genesis 1:26. There the image of God was connected to man’s rule over birds, fish and animals. To illustrate this, we have seen how Adam focused his attention on the animals and thought up names for them.

In Answer 6 of the Heidelberg Catechism, our work on earth remains out of the picture. Yet this is no more than a difference in emphasis. In Genesis 1:26, of course, God is equally referring to people who love him with all their hearts. After all, he is talking about people as he is about to make them. It is obvious, therefore, that their position as the image of God is immediately specified as having dominion over the earth. Man’s (and woman’s) relationship with God was perfect. This was evidenced by the fact that Adam came up with exactly the names that God considered as right. But just as understandably, this matter — the relationship with God — receives separate attention after the Fall. God’s first demand is then, for example, not that man comes up with perfect names for the animals, but that he shows in all his earthly activities how well he knows and how much he loves him.

The rather challenging question was whether God in fact created man so wicked and perverse. We sense the deep indignation in the catechism’s response to this statement. God was looking for people who truly knew him and who loved him wholeheartedly; who would live with him in eternal glory in order to praise him. This is how good and with how much loving care he made man(kind).

Once More: Good!←⤒🔗

An important question remains. God did not create man “wicked and perverse”. But man did become like this. What does it imply, then, that he was created “good”? What is meant by “good”?

For a correct understanding, the connection is again helpful to us: “good and in his image”. The words “in his image” excludes the possibility that man would be a pre-programmed robot, without freedom of choice, just like, in fact, the sun and the stars. It also excludes that he would be acting unconsciously or as by instinct, similar to the animals. Man could and needed to choose God. Not from a neutral position. He did not have to ascend to someone who would love God. He only had to affirm his inborn love for God. After all, he was made with the heartfelt willingness to do God’s will. One the one hand he was good — through and through. At the same time, he was given a certain freedom of choice. God presented him with a choice by forbidding him to eat from a specific tree.⁸ Things went wrong. No one can explain it or make sense of it.⁹ Not even from the fact that man had the ability to make a choice. That he could choose and even needed to choose was very good. God never regretted in retrospect that he had made man that way.¹⁰

The Image of God After the Fall←⤒🔗

Is a deserter still a soldier? Yes and no. He is, but does not want to be. He may have already taken off his uniform and concealed his weapons. His combat value is zero. To that extent, he is no longer a soldier. But he has not been discharged. Desertion is not the same as a discharge. At his trial, he will be called to account in his position as a soldier.

After his fall into sin, does man still represent the image of God? Yes and no. He refuses to represent God on earth. In this sense he is no longer the image of God.¹¹ However, this is not the end of it. Man has never been dismissed as the image of God. Desertion is not dismissal. God still addresses every human being to this day according to his original design and destiny.¹² No one can escape this. Or can they? A grandson is not condemned because his grandfather deserted. To what extent are we responsible for the disobedience of our first parents?

Question 7: From where, then, did man’s depraved nature come?

Answer: From the fall and disobedience of our first parents,
              Adam and Eve, in Paradise,
              for there our nature became so corrupt
              that we are all conceived and born in sin.

Where did this situation originate, that we are so wicked and inclined to all evil? That question brings us back to paradise, to our first ancestors. They are the perpetrators and therefore the guilty ones. But what about us...?

There Our Nature Was Corrupted←⤒🔗

Let us have a sober reality-check: we hardly feel emotionally connected to our first ancestors Adam and Eve. They lived too long ago to still have an impact on us. Yet by their fall in paradise “our nature” was corrupted with the result that centuries later “we are all conceived and born in sin”. This is what we call original sin.¹³

Our nature has become corrupt. Not just Adam’s nature, but also ours. Can we help it? It stems from the disobedience of Adam and Eve. We were not there when they disobeyed. We hear about it second-hand. Otherwise we would not even know of it. For that reason the catechism does not speak of our disobedience, but of that “of our first parents, Adam and Eve”. That is correct.

Now the Scriptures state that God does not condemn anyone for something that others have done. A son will not be put to death because of the failure of his father. “The soul who sins shall die.”¹⁴ The distance in time between Adam and us is infinitely greater than that between a son and his father. No earthly judge convicts someone for complicity in the crime of a previous generation. No earthly court will convict anyone for a crime committed by Adam.

But how does Scripture portray our relationship to him?

We are not merely “conceived and born” with the typical weaknesses and defects, but “in sin”. And sin means guilt, our own culpability. That is how we enter the world. And this is why we are complicit in Adam’s disobedience.

This is not simply a conclusion of some profound reasoning. The catechism simply bases its argument on Scripture. Its reference to Romans 5:12, 18-19 is very relevant in this regard.

According to verse 12 all men have sinned. Not only during their own lifetime but already in paradise. Everyone sinned right there and then — in whatever way.¹⁵ Therefore we did not bear the guilt of Adam’s transgression through no fault of our own. We had a part in it and are therefore complicit. All men sinned through that one man.¹⁶ This is how God reckons. Therefore — verse 18 — through that one trespass of Adam, “condemnation came upon all men”. But why are those “very many” condemned without exception? Because — verse 19 — they became sinners “‘de-facto”, all at once. “By one man’s disobedience”, through that one decisive act of Adam.¹⁷ Adam represented us. It was not we who appointed him in this position, but God did. He devised the motto of “one for all, all for one”. Therefore, his position was conclusive for all people.¹⁸ Although it is not actually the issue here, we wish to point out that in Romans 5 the “one for all” refers primarily to Christ. Through this one Man many receive acquittal: “righteousness”. For this God uses the same connecting lines as those between Adam and us. Whoever wants nothing to do with Adam as far as his guilt is concerned, such a person also blocks his access to Christ. And conversely, whoever takes God at his word that through one Man many will be made righteous, will also be able to accept from that same God that through one man many will be condemned. God uses, as it were, the same principle both to impute Adam’s guilt to us as well as the sacrifice of Christ.

This was a rather difficult story: unsatisfactory for individualistically minded people. We are more inclined to reach for our heads and say “this is very hard!” than to put our hands on our mouths and say “how terrible! Who would still be lying awake on account of his guilt in Adam? In practical terms, what does the doctrine of original sin mean to us? That is what David shows us in Psalm 51 — a millennium before Paul’s time.

Tainted With Sin Right From My Life’s Beginning←⤒🔗

David allowed for Uriah to be killed in battle so that he could snatch his wife, Bathsheba. Once he repents it dawns more and more on him what he has done against God. “Against you, you only, have I sinned” (Ps. 51:4). He reflects upon himself and wonders if he has always been so wicked. Where did things go wrong? When was he still all right? He goes back to his days as an infant or as a baby, but his sense of guilt only increases: “I was born in iniquity”. He goes back one more step: “in sin did my mother conceive me”. Sin surrounds us in our mothers’ wombs and it is, as it were, our nest (Calvin).

It strikes us how guiltily David speaks about his innate wickedness. He does not blame his mother — or before her, Adam. Nor does he resignedly admit that this is just how he is. On the contrary, David is shocked even more seriously than he already was when he reflects on his origins. Suddenly he discovers the abyss of his depravity behind his recent crime. That one crime made it horribly clear who he was. He did not become a murderer only when he caused Uriah to be killed. By his very nature, he always was one. The gauge sinks down deeper, right to his birth and conception. Thus it indicates the depth of his guilty depravity.
The doctrine of original sin is an eye-opener that measures our criminality all the way down to the bottom.¹⁹

Question 8: But are we so corrupt
                    that we are totally unable to do any good
                   and inclined to all evil?

Answer: Yes, unless we are regenerated
               by the Spirit of God.

Our nature is corrupted, in paradise long before our birth. Inevitably, our nature is still just as corrupted when we are born. Until then, it was not our turn to personally prove who we are. We were not consciously there during that fateful pre-history of “our nature”. But now we are. We are now on earth in person. That is why the questioner cautiously inquires whether we — as people with a will of our own — have any slack at all to at least do “something good”.

How Depraved?←⤒🔗

Are we so corrupt? Yes.
Totally incapable of doing anything good? Yes.
Inclined to every evil? Yes.

Those are harsh statements, without any room for subtle possibilities. It sounds as if it concerns unscrupulous criminals. Are we like that?

No one would suspect Calvin of thinking too optimistically about the goodness of man. Yet he generously acknowledged about random people and even pagans that “some have not only excelled in great deeds, but have also behaved very honourably without interruptions throughout their lives”. To some Gentiles God even gave an “exalted” nature. Therefore, we are not afraid to say “in our everyday conversation”, that someone has a “good” or a “wicked nature”. And this while both fall under the heading of “human wickedness”.²⁰

Calvin is by no means restrained or thrifty here in praising human qualities and virtues. Incidentally we note that Scripture also speaks openly of the “unusual kindness” that pagans showed to Paul and the other castaways at Malta (Acts 28:2). But by no means does Calvin thereby claim — and nor does Scripture — that human wickedness is therefore not all that bad. By way of explanation, he emphatically points out that God often restrains this wickedness in all people, including the pagans. He curbs their evil tendencies, because they are present. If he allowed them to run unchecked, they would rush faster than the “raging beasts” and burst their banks with more ferocity than the most impetuous stream²¹
Otherwise decent people can then turn into sadists just like that.

In a similar vein as Calvin, so the catechism also does not characterize everyone as a criminal. All people are not crooks. Many often behave commendably in society, are often sincere and honest in their actions, and are faithful spouses. It is not as if the catechism — in a mood of dark pessimism — ignores any such realities. But even with all his good qualities, man has turned his back toward God. With that, the verdict has been passed on all that he does or fails to do. He is unable to do any good.²² The decisive factor is not whether we ourselves find anything good, but whether God judges it to be so. And he finds goodness only in what we do out of love for him. We are sadly incapable to accomplish this, and irrevocably so. We will never be able to get away from this reality. Because already in paradise our nature has become corrupt. Man is indeed still capable of doing good things, but he is no longer capable of loving God.

There is no way that we can shake off this “depravity”. We will never get rid of it except in one way only. It is a very drastic way: we need to be born again. But not again as children of Adam because then everything will go wrong once more. We need to get rid of all our wicked tendencies. Therefore, we must be born again by none other than the Holy Spirit.

It is our only comfort that we belong to him who indeed by his Spirit enables us “from now on to live for him”.