Clark wrote a small book entitled, The Biblical Doctrine of Man (Trinity Foundation, 1984). In it is a powerful argument that suites the Corporate Body view quite well. Of course, Clark was a Westminster Confession man all the way, but you take what you can get.

First off, Clark defines “image of God” (pp.5-ff). “Image cannot be man’s body” (6). “Man himself is the image” (8). He then goes on to note that man is a “unity” (9). He used the example of NaCl (salt) being a combination of sodium and chloride. However, he disagreed with this understanding being the definition of man. Man is the soul. He is not a combination of soul and body. He is a soul that lives in a body (10). It is quite clear that Clark sees the problems the traditional view has, and he tries to smooth this out through logic. He was not happy with “paradox.” And, neither am I.

Now, Clark notes that Gen. 2.7 does appear to suggest that man is a combination of soul and body. But, in other usages, “soul” clearly refers to the “person.” The whole person. Paul was “in or out of the body” (2 Cor. !12). The point Clark made is that “he”, Paul, cannot be the “body” he was “out of.” The body and the soul did not define Paul. Paul was the soul in a bodily form.

When we take this idea to I Cor. 15 we see that Paul uses “of the dust” and “earthy” for the “image” of Adam in which “we bear.” This “image” cannot be in reference to his physical body, though we certainly “share” in that. But, this misses Paul’s point, for the “image” of the heavenly man is not “bodily” either. The image of the earthy man has to do with his “nature”. We share in the image of Adam in his corruption. Paul is drawing straight out of Genesis 5.3, where Adam’s son, Seth, is in Adam’s “image.” By implication, all Adam’s children are in his image. Paul proves this: “since we bear the image of the first man.” This image cannot be talking about his physical body: it is talking about his nature. The terms “earthy” and “of the dust” refers to his origins that are in contrast to the heavenly man, who origins are divine. We have inherited Adam’s corrupt nature – our souls were corrupted. Paul’s listeners were “being transformed into His likeness” from the “likeness” of Adam. From image to image.

Now, the text in Gen. 2.7 in the Hebrew, does not necessarily teach that Man is a combination as Clark suggested, but clearly rejects as the final definition of Man. Clark offered no exegesis of Gen. 2.7, but I will.

וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה. Here we find, “and He formed, the LORD God, the man, dust from the ground. And He breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and the man became a living nephesh.” A lamed of indirect object is attached to “nephesh” here which may have significance in terms of definition. Ha-adam (“the man”) became something. Now, here we would find it difficult to have “the man” as defined before he was even “formed”! Hence, “the man” here is the rhetorical phenomenon of naming the thing before the thing is. We have to refer to what is being made before it is made. “Walt Disney world was built in Orlando”. Well, it didn’t exist before it was built! Yet, we know what was going to be built, so we call it by name. The indirect object lamed can be used in terms of alteration or the purpose of forming something that was not. What we have is, if we can imagine, a clay model on the ground, made from the “dust of the ground.” And, that’s it. This is not “the man.” This is what will “become” the man. This is not the image of God, either. It’s dirt.

What shapes it, or alters this clay model is the breath of God. This is blown “into” (beth) the clay model. This alters, or changes the clay model – it animates it. It is the breath of God “in” the man that is the “living nephesh.” Not a combination. There is no grammatical necessity here for saying dogmatically that this text “proves” that man is a combination of body and soul, and Clark’s definition can fit in perfectly here: Man is the soul. The soul is the Person, the Essence, the Substance, Man. Man lives in a body of clay, but this body of clay is not the Man, nor is it his “image.”

For Paul, then, by pointing out that Adam was “of the dust of the ground” shows that he was a “creature”. If “image of God” cannot be in reference to the body, then how can “image of Adam” be in reference to his body? Is Paul saying that we have a physical image of Adam, but will have a spiritual image in Christ? Or, does “image” mean the same thing: nature. Does Paul mean that we have a physical corrupt body (image of Adam) but that will be put off and we will get a physically – non corrupt spiritual body (image of Christ). This would tie “image” to “body”! We would have to conclude that Adam “made in the image of God” must mean that somehow, Adam’s body looks like God’s body! God forbid! God is spirit. He has no body.

Further, some manuscripts have “so let us bear the image of the man from heaven.” How can we do that now, if, in fact, “image” is related to “bodies”? Paul’s noting that Adam was earthy is to point out his origin, his realm of existence, his nature. It’s “natural”. Earth bound. Dust bound. Dirt holds him down. He cannot escape it. He cannot reach to the heavens in it. He must be transformed into a new image. The “image of Christ.” His SOUL must be changed, not his BODY! His BODY is not the PROBLEM! Jesus was in a body, and he had no problems with sin and corruption. He was one with the Father in his physical body. He was demonstrating that this can be done while here on earth. What needed to be changed was the IMAGE.

We can go further, but I think I have written enough here to point out some issues for discussion.