THE IMAGE OF GOD
(Genesis 1:26-27, 5:3, 9:6)
1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image [tselem], according to
Our likeness [demuth]; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He
created him; male and female He created them.
5:3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.
9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the
image of God He made man.
Perhaps one of Scripture’s most hotly debated topics throughout all of church
history has been the identity of the image of God. Andrew Louth has called this
doctrine “the foundation of patristic anthropology (Louth, 27).” In other words,
the early church fathers based all of their anthropological beliefs on their
interpretation of the image of God. In the same way, what an individual
Christian today believes will have a tremendous impact on the whole of his
anthropological beliefs.
One can imagine with all of this debate, a great many views would emerge over
the centuries. This is indeed the case. This paper catalogues and evaluates
eight of the most popular views throughout the ages.
THE VIEWS:
I. When man was created in God’s image, he was created with a
similar physical appearance. This view seems to be more popular among liberals
than conservatives.
A. Supporting Arguments
1. The etymological meaning of tselem
is rooted in physical appearance. Tselem appears seventeen times in the
Old Testament. Of these, ten represent some form of physical similarity. For
instance, Seth was fathered after Adam’s image. Image, in this case, likely
indicates physical similarity. (Wenham, 29-30).
2. The Old Testament records several
instances of God appearing to individuals or small groups in human form.
Theology terms these appearances theophanies (Matthews, 168).
3. The prophets pictured God in human
form seated on a throne (Matthews, 168).
4. Humbert held this view, and Von
Rad and Gunkel at least allowed this as part of the meaning (Wenham, 30).
B. Refuting Arguments
1. The Old Testament insists than God
is an incorporeal and invisible Spirit (Wenham, 30). Though he took upon himself
the likeness of man in theophanic appearances, this does not mean that God had a
natural physical form.
2. Theophanies were purposeful,
unpredictable, temporary, and varied in physical form (Borland, 33-34). God did
not give himself a standard physical appearance. For example, God appeared on
more than one occasion to Abraham, and Abraham failed to immediately recognize
God during each appearance.
3. The use of likeness with image
decreases this likelihood (Hamilton, 135-136).
4. John 4:24, and many other New
Testament passages teach that God is a Spirit.
II. The image of God is the unique ability of man to have a
relationship with God.
A. Supporting Arguments
1. The phrase “in our image” modifies
not the noun “man,” but the verb “let us make.” This allows for a special type
of creation in 1:26, which places man in a unique relationship with God that can
be said of no other creature (Wenham citing Westermann, 31).
2. This view is supported by such
noted theologians as Barth and Westermann.
B. Refuting Arguments
1. This view is unnecessary, since
many of its aspects are included in other views, particularly the spiritual
faculties view and the God’s representative view (Wenham, 31).
2. The relationship between God and
man results from the image; it does not consist of it (Matthews, 166).
3. Matthews insists that Barth’s
exegesis is shaky at best (166).
III. The image of God refers to His triune nature. Thus, man is a
triune being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.
A. Supporting Arguments
1. God speaks of Himself in plural
form in Gen. 1:26.
2. In both Testaments there are two
different words translated as “soul” and “spirit.”
3. Hebrews 4:12 seems to suggests a
triune nature for man.
4. This view was supported by most
ancient teachers, who were influenced heavily by Augustine (Luther, 30). Early
church fathers such as Prudentis and Patamius supported the view (Louth, 27).
B. Refuting Arguments
1. There are many interpretations of
“Us.” Luther, who believes that “Us” reveals the Trinity cites several
interpretations, namely, that God was speaking to the angels, the earth, and his
other creatures. Luther attacks these arguments fiercely (Luther, 29).
2. The Trinity is not fully revealed
until, the New Testament. Therefore, Moses had something else in mind when he
wrote of God’s divine counsel.
3. These attempts have not augmented
our understanding of the text.
4. The words translated soul and
spirit in both Testaments seem to be synonyms, and are used and translated
interchangeably.
5. Scripture seems to view man as
more of a psychosomatic unity, than a being of distinct parts, or, at the very
least, a dichotomy.
6. Calvin accuses Augustine of
“fabricating a Trinity in man” in a place where one did not exist (Calvin).
IV. The image (tselem) is to be distinguished from likeness (demuth).
This view states that the image refers to natural qualities in man that serve to
make him like God. Among these qualities are: reason and personality (Wenham
29). Likeness, on the other hand, refers to qualities of a more ethical nature
that are granted to the redeemed (Wenham 29). Those that hold to this view
generally view the likeness as having been lost subsequent to the fall and
regained when one is redeemed (Hoekema citing Iranaeus, 33-34). Calvin, though
he does not share this view, refers to these qualities as “gratuitous gifts
(Calvin).”
A. Supporting Arguments
1. This view was held by early church
fathers such as Iranaeus (Wenham, 29), Origen, and Diadochus (Louth, 27).
2. Homiletically, it is quite
effective (Wenham, 30). A distinction such as this would provide a convenient
preaching pattern. On the one hand you have the image that every man possesses,
as a testament to God’s creating man. On the other hand, you have the likeness,
which man lacks and needs, and, which is conferred on him at salvation.
3. Man’s sinful nature can be clearly
seen in passages such as Gen. 5:1-3. Man is reported to have been created in
God’s likeness, but his son was birthed in man’s sinful likeness.
B. Refuting Arguments
1. This distinction does not appear
to be supported by the text (Wenham, 30). Other occurrences of “likeness” are do
not refer to ethical qualities. For instance, Dan. 10:16 refers to a being
(presumably an angel) “having the likeness of the sons of men.” Certainly this
verse does not refer to an angel with the imperfect spiritual aspects of man.
2. The words are seen as synonymous
by commentators such as Aalders, Matthews (166-167), and Wenham (30). Hamilton
states that likeness is used to strengthen image (136-137).
3. Likeness is included in order to
clarify the meaning of image (Wenham, 30). It prevents image from being
interpreted in a physical sense (Hamilton, 135-136).
4. In Gen. 10:27, the word likeness
is not included.
5. The verbs are sometimes translated
by the same Greek word, (Matthews, 166-167). However, sometimes they are
translated by different Greek words (Matthews, 166).
V. This view teaches that a man is God’s representative on the
earth due to being made in the image of God.
A. Supporting Arguments
1. Oriental kings were often viewed
as God’s representatives on earth, and the task of rulership given him is by
nature kingly (Wenham, 30).
2. In Psalm 8, man it is revealed
that man was created “a little lower than the angels,” and “…crowned…with glory
and honor.” In addition, man is spoken of as having dominion over the works of
God’s hands, including animals.
3. The ancients viewed a king’s or a
deity’s image as representative of that king or deity, and afforded it the
respect they would give that individual (Wenham, 31).
B. Refuting Arguments
1. Westermann asserts that
individuals could represent their king or deity, but never is a group seen to
offer the same representation (cited by Wenham, 31). However, Wenham would
assert that Westermann’s arguments are not valid since they represent flawed
understanding of Biblical symbolism.
VI. The image is connected to the phrase “let them have
dominion.” Man is stated to be God’s vice-regent, or vassal ruler on the earth.
This view is primarily an expansion of the God’s representative view.
A. Supporting Views
1. This view offers insight into the
admonition given to Noah concerning the taking of a murderer’s life. When a
vassal of God’s is attacked, something sacred is attacked, and the ultimate
penalty is required (Wenham, 32).
2. Hart asserts that ruling over the
creation is God’s basic purpose for creating man (cited by Waltke, 66)
3. Though Bush allows for secondary
components, namely the spiritual faculties, he states emphatically that the
image of God is primarily concerned with man’s dominion and authority. This is
seen in both man’s preeminence over woman, and mankind’s preeminence over
creation (41-42).
B. Refuting Views
1. The New Testament teaches that
God’s main purpose for creating man was not to rule over creation, but to bring
him glory. Dominion was certainly part of this glory, but not its full extent.
2. Dominion is not a part of the
image, but simply one of its consequences (Skinner, 161).
VII. The image of God consists of what one might call the near
perfection of the mind and body. Luther called it “the most excellent and
precious gift (30).” He reported that it consisted of an uncorrupt intellect, a
perfect memory, and upright will, a good conscience, no fear of death, and great
physical strength (30). Proponents of this view often insist that its fullest
extent is unknowable by modern man because the image was wither lost or greatly
damaged by the Fall, and that the image would begin to be restored by means of
the Gospel, and be completed at Christ’s coming (Luther, 32).
A. Supporting Arguments
1. Variations of this view were held
by the reformers Calvin and Luther.
2. There are New Testament passages
that speak of being “renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who
created him (Col. 3:1),” and being “conformed to the image of His Son (Rom.
8:29).”
3. That mankind is not as advanced as
Adam intellectually and physically is a reasonable conjecture.
B. Refuting Arguments
1. A retardation of mental and
physical abilities was not named within Adam’s curse in Gen. 3:17.
2. Man is still referred to as being
made in God’s image after the Flood (Gen. 9:6). However, Calvin’s view allows
for a portion of image to remain within man post-Fall. In addition, it is not
necessary for man to be presently in the image of God for the command in Gen.
9:6 to be applicable.
3. Environmental causes due to the
effects of the flood could have contributed to mankind’s mental and physical
retardation.
VIII. The image of God in man refers to his mental, moral and spiritual
faculties.
A. Supporting arguments
1. The mental and spiritual faculties
possessed by man distinguish him from other creatures (Waltke, 65).
2. Origen, John Cassian and Ambrose
supported this view (Louth, 27).
3. Sahdona emphasized the ethical
aspect of the image (cited by Louth, 27).
4. Bush, who does not support this
view, still allows for the image to include man’s moral attributes in a
secondary sense. He justifies this by directing his readers to Col. 3:10 in
which Paul exhorts believers to “put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge
according to the image of Him who created him,” (Bush, 41-42).
B. Refuting Arguments
1. It is difficult to specifically
identify these qualities. There are too few references to this image in the Old
Testament to offer positive identification. Consequently, identification becomes
subjective, rather than objective (Wenham, 30).
2. The attempt to define the image
has been abandoned by most of current scholarship. Its definition, they
conjecture, was so well known at the time of the writing that defining it was
simply unnecessary.
3. If the image consists of man’s
mental and spiritual faculties, then any being that possessed these faculties,
including Satan, the possessor of mental and spiritual faculties that far
surpass our own, would be an image-bearer (Luther, 30). Some, however, would
allow angels, though perhaps not Satan, the right to be called image-bearers
(Wenham citing Mettinger, 30).
4. Some, like Luther (30) and Calvin
believe the image was either lost or severely damaged after the Fall. If this is
the case, then the image cannot be that which distinguishes man from animal,
because he is still distinct. Skinner remarks that it was impossible for the
image to have been lost after the fall because this account was part of the
priestly collection, who knew nothing of the fall (161). Much has been written
refuting the JEDP hypothesis, so this paper will not address the topic. Suffice
it to say that the author does not consider Skinner’s argument valid.
CONCLUSION:
The Author’s position very similar to the eighth view.
One of the major complaints is about the spiritual faculties view is that it
cannot concretely identify what the faculties included in the image are (Wenham,
30). However, as was stated earlier, the image was probably quite evident to the
Hebrews, and therefore, was not defined in the text. Also, Luther’s conjecture
that no one can know what the image of God truly is because it no longer exists
within him is quite pertinent (Luther, 30). If we take Luther’s suggestion to
heart, then the fact that we cannot identify the specific elements of the image
will not discourage us. In addition, the author will allow for the image to
include some physical elements, but only in the sense that man is viewed as a
psychosomatic unity. Mankind’s dominion over the earth is tied very closely to
his being made in God’s image, but the author views it as more of a consequence
than a component. In addition, man’s capacity for relationships may be included
in the image, but is not a necessary component.
It is evident that many of the preceding views overlap.
Most theologians and commentators saw the value inherent in the different views,
and adapted them, much like the author attempted to do in his conclusion.
This paper by no means covered every view that exists,
but it is hoped, that through the author’s presentation of what he considers to
be the most mainstream of the views, the reader will gain an appreciation for
the diverse history of this issue’s interpretation, and will realize the
importance of “rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).
WORKS CITED
Davis, John C. and John C. Whitcomb. (1989). Israel from Conquest to Exile. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Dods, Marcus. (1880). Israel’s Iron Age. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Goslinga, C.J. (1986). Joshua, Judges, Ruth. (Ray Togtman, trans.) Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Gray, John (Ed.) (1967). Joshua, Judges and Ruth. The Century Bible (new edition). Greenwood, SC: Attic Press.
Martin, James D. (1975). The Book of Judges. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambringe: Cambridge University Press.
Merrill, Eugene H. (1987, 1996). Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Old Time Gospel Hour, The. WTLU, Lynchburg, VA. 15 Apr. 2001
Pfeiffer, Charles F. (1961, 1973, 1979). Baker’s Bible Atlas. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Wood, Leon J. (1975). The Distressing Days of the Judges. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.
Scripture taken from the New American Standard Bible. Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
"The
Image of God" Copyright © 2001 Joseph Short. All rights reserved.
Revised: October 15, 2002.
Placed on site October 15, 2002