The Image of God in
Scripture
I. Introduction
Most
believers are aware of phrases such as “image of God”, “likeness of God”, and the idea that
God created mankind “in or after his own image” are infrequent in Scripture.One
finds only four references in the OT:
KJV Gen 1:26 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.
KJV Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the
image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
KJV Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the
generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God
made he him;
KJV Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Several
NT verses mirror
these verses, and include several references to Christ as BEING the image of
God (as opposed to possessing it) -II Cor. 4:4 and Col. 1:15.We'll talk about
what that means in a bit.
Preliminary
Certainties from these Genesis texts:
a) Both men and women are
included in (what we’ll call for now) “image bearing”
b) The image is that which makes
mankind distinct from the rest of the Genesis creation (i.e., plants and
animals); The text does NOT teach us, however, that the image makes us
distinct from angelic beings (which were already in existence at the time of
creation – Job 38:4-7).
KJV Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the
foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid
the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone
thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy?
In fact, it can be argued that at least the
highest class of angelic beings, the Myhlo) ynb , also possess the same image
(whatever that may be) or something very similar – cf. Gen 1:26 “us”
c) There is something about the
image that makes mankind “like” God in some way
d) There is nothng in the text to
suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially.You’re
either created in God’s image or you aren’t.One cannot speak of being “partly”
created in God’s image.
ARTICLES
OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE, then, in accurately determining what the Scriptures mean
when they say mankind is created in God’s image, are:
1. This “image” must make mankind distinguishably
and certifiably unique in relation to any created thing that makes the
physical universe its home.
2. Every member of the human race
must possess this “image” equally and to the same extent.
3. This image must be something
shared with the God’s own being and nature
|
II. What the Image of God is NOT:
Critiquing the Traditional View
A. The
Traditional Understanding:
Intelligence, rationality, emotions, the ability
to know God/ commune with Him, the possession of a “soul”, a free will, a conscience/sense
of morality, the ability to communicate
What’s
the problem with the traditional view?3 Things
EITHER
1.None of these categorizations are distinguishably and
certifiably unique to humankind.
2.They cannot be said to be present equally among
all human beings.
3.They cannot be said to be present actually among
all human beings.
In
other words, all fail the essential articles above drawn from the texts in
Genesis.
B.What
do I mean by "not present equally or actually"?
Simply
put, some of these faculties are
not uniformly distributed to humanity, and are possessed only potentially by
some humans.
For
instance, what about the fetus (or better yet, the fertilized human
egg, or the zygote) – it doesn’t possess these things yet – does that mean
the fetus only gets the image at birth (in which case it still would lack them)
or at some point later when intelligence becomes measurable?
What about those born severely retarded (or those who are born in a vegetative
or near vegetative state)?
What about those born with some other defect that nullifies our categories?
In regard to free will, conscience/sense of
morality, and the ability to communicate, none can be said to be held in
actuality to humanity, in reference (again) to infants, the fetus, the
fertilized human egg, the zygote, the severely retarded.
In
regard to intelligence, if the
image of God referes to intellectual capabilities, do smarter people have more
of the image?More emotional people? (the so-called “EQ”?)
If one
loses the ability to reason or remember (Alzheimers) has the image been lost?
C.What
do I mean by "not distinguishably and certifiably unique to
humankind"?
1.In reference to the
intellect, emotions, and communicative ability
a.Intelligence
What about non-human intelligence
and emotions?If the image is what
makes mankind unique to everything else in creation, then what about . . .
Animal intelligence – if humanity does not have a corner on intelligence
and the ability to have and demonstrate feelings, the definition falls.It
would be difficult to define intelligence or the acquisition of intelligence,
or the ability to be taught in such a way that one could exclude every
member of the animal world while including the human infant.
Illustr. - animal cognition tests /
results
This category also speaks to free will if one means the ability to exercise
self control, resist compulsion, or a freedom to act contrary to some
congenital behavioral instinct.All one would need would be to produce instances
of just one animal refraining one time from instinctual activity, or refusing
to do something it had been trained to do, or being trained to do something
totally contrary to its instinct.The field of animal intelligence deals with
such issues, and has produced such results.
Artificial intelligence – if we achieve this, have we re-created the image of
God?Will it henceforth be known as the image of man?Emotions are probably not
an issue here (even DATA needs an emotion chip!)
illustr.-IBM's
Deep Blue and its "reasoning"
Extraterrestrial intelligence (of even the “animal level”) – man would surely no
longer be unique, and perhaps even inferior.Whose image did ET get?
b.Communicative
ability
What about animal communication?Communication does not have to be verbal (cf. The
deaf/ signing or “body language”)
Illustr. - insect world; building a
beehive takes coordinated communication
There
are a good number of examples, perhaps even personal ones, where higher
order animals can and have communicated with humans.
Illustr.-Koko
the gorilla and others
and just because most animals cannot
communicate with humans, why should
we define communicative ability as the ability to communicate across species?Is
there some reason that communicative ability must not or should not be defined
in terms of communication within species?There are a plethora of
examples of this capability in the animal world.
2. In reference to the possession of a
soul .
a)The word is nephesh, and
Scripture is very clear that animals possess this as well (it refers to
animation or “conscious life”).I've boldfaced the word below that corresponds
to nephesh:
RSV Gen 1:20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms
of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the
firmament of the heavens."
RSV
Gen 1:21 So God
created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves,
with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird
according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
b)If one retreats from the “soul” idea by saying that
the difference is man has a “spirit”, the Scriptures (esp. the OT) is clear
here that the spirit of mankind often refers to man’s intellectual, emotional,
volitional, or immaterial makeup (the latter being synonomous with “soul”
above):
The spirit as intellect:
KJV Exo 28:3 And thou shalt speak unto all [that
are] wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that
they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me
in the priest's office.
KJV Job 32:8 But [there is] a spirit in
man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
The spirit as emotional faculties:
KJV 1Ki 21:5 But Jezebel his wife came to him,
and said unto him, Why is thy spirit so sad, that thou eatest no bread?
KJV Job 21:4 As for me, [is] my complaint to
man? and if [it were so], why should not my spirit be troubled?
KJV Psa 34:18 The Lord [is] nigh unto them that
are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
The spirit as volitional capacity:
KJV Exo 35:21 And they came, every one whose
heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, [and]
they brought the Lord's offering to the work of the tabernacle of the
congregation, and for all his service, and for the holy garments.
KJV Deu 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon would not
let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made
his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as [appeareth]
this day.
The spirit as synonomous / interchangeable
with nephesh :
KJV 1Sa 1:15 And Hannah answered and said, No,
my lord, I [am] a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine
nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord.
KJV Job 7:11 Therefore I will not refrain my
mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the
bitterness of my soul.
[OK Heiser, so what is the image of God? ]
III. What the Image of God IS :the Image in
light of Hebrew Grammar and Context
We've seen the
three things that a first look gives us as to the meaning of the image (the
three necessary statements we can make about the image).We've also seen how the
traditional view fails those basic exegestical requirements as well as logic.Now
we'll look at the text more closely to discern what the image really is.In
doing this we'll make primary use of the grammar of the passage, and secondary
appeal to the ancient near eastern context of the text (by this I mean that the
second is brought in as secondary validation - not that the second is used to
produce the first).
A.The
Grammar and Wording of Genesis 1:26-27
1.The Prepositions
Part of the debate over what the image of God is
concenrs the interpretation of the prepositions in the phrase "Let us make
man in our image, after our likeness."In the Hebrew text,
both of these words are actually single letters attached as prefixes to the
nouns they govern. The two
prepositions at issue in the debate are thus b "b" and k "k". We noted before in Part I of the
sermon that the phrases concerning the image are God are seldom used in the OT
(or in the Bible for that matter).Below is an exhaustive list of the phrases of
Genesis 1:26-27 (and similar possibilites) and their use elsewhere in the
OT.Included are the prepositions used in each reference:
Phrases
in Gen. 1:26-27
"in (b "b") our image"
"in (b "b") his own
image"
"in (b "b") the image"
"after
(k "k") our likeness"
|
KJV
Gen 1:26 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.
|
the
phrases above used elsewhere:
"in (b "b") the image of
God" - Gen. 9:6
|
Gen
9:6-Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the
image of God made he man.
|
"in (b "b") our image"
"after
(k "k") our likeness"
"in (b "b") his own
image"
|
Not
used outside Gen. 1:26-27
|
similar
phrases elsewhere:
"after
the likeness" - not used
"in
(b "b")the likeness
of God" - Gen 5:1
"in (b "b")his own
likeness" - Gen 5:3
"after(k "k") his image" - Gen. 5:3
|
Gen
5:1 - This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created
man, in the likeness of God made he him
Gen
5:3 - And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his
own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
|
Observations:You'll notice that the prepositions are used interchangeably
in the text ( b /
"b" is used with both "image" and "likeness" and
so is k
/"k").Two conclusions may be drawn from this:(1)the biblical
author cannot be seen as trying to make some distinction between the terms via
his use of prepositions; (2)the terms "image" and
"likeness" are interchangeable.Hence we must find a grammatical
use for each prepositions that is also interchangeable.
As in English, prepositions in Hebrew are used
to denote different ideas.Let's take the two prepositions before us and their
primary dictionary definitions to illustrate:
b ("in" - as English Bible
versions have in Gen. 1:26-27).But does "in" mean the same thing
every time we use it? :
"put the dishes in the sink" (location)
"written in pencil" (means /
instrumentality)
"we're alike in some respects" (limitation)
"I want membership in the club" (inclusion)
"he broke the statue in pieces" (result)
"here's what you say in reply" (purpose)
In the same manner, b has many different uses, and how one
translates the preposition depends on the context in which it is used.bcan be used in all of the above ways,
but none of these possibilities fit in Genesis 1:26-27.
There is a special use ofbthat many Hebrew scholars believe is
the point of the author in Genesis 1:26-27 - the meaning of "functioning
in the capacity of."Usually, English translates this idea with one word -
"as".For example, this would be the meaning of "as" in the
following sentences:"I served AS chairman of the department"; "I
worked AS an editor."
In Hebrew, the above sentences could have the
prepositionb where the English "as"
occurs:
"I servedb/b-chairman of the department";
"I worked b/b-editor."
Hence we should understand the phrases
with battached
to the word "image" in Gen. 1:26-27 as mankind being created "to
function in the capacity of the image" of God.
Likewise k("k") typically
means "agreement in kind or manner", and so it is often translated
"like, as."The leading Hebrew grammarians agree that "k"
refers to identifying a correspondenceof the noun to which it is
attached to another noun (to be "like" something or someone).But
since God is invisible, and since the image is possessed equally by men and
women, the point ofk("k")
cannot be "corresponding in appearance."Rather, the point being made
is CORRESPONDENCE IN FUNCTION.Hence when k/ "k" is prefixed to
"image" in Gen. 5:3, the point being made is NOT that Seth looked
exactly like his father Adam (what if he'd had a girl?), but that Seth had been
given by God to take Adam's place as God's representative to carry out his
commands (which we'll note later), Abel having been murdered, and Cain having
been banished.
All of this points to viewing the image in a FUNCTIONAL sense
(i.e., we are created to "image" God) as opposed to a QUALITATIVE
sense (as thought the image is some quality or ability given to us; i.e.
the image is some possessed attribute).
"Let us create humankind AS our image - to
be our IMAGER"
But if we are to "image" God, what
does THAT mean?To determine this we need to look at the meaning of the two
interchangeable terms "image" and "likeness"
Once this is defined, you'll see that this view
of the image avoids all the logical problems associated with the traditional
view, for every human being images God - every human being, regardless of
developmental stage or physical disability, shares this status.
2.The Vocabulary (we'll just do the main
word, mlc
- tselem)
mlc (tselem) - In many instances in the Hebrew Bible,
this word is used to signify the physical images of gods/idols (i.e., a statue):
2Ki 11:18 And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal,
and brake it down; his altars and his images brake they in pieces thoroughly,
and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the priest appointed
officers over the house of the Lord.
Eze 7:20 As for the beauty of his ornament, he set it in majesty: but
they made the images of their abominations [and] of their detestable things
therein: therefore have I set it far from them.
But the word often means more than just a
material image, and even in the examples above it can be argued that more is
alluded to than just a concrete object.For example, see the two verses below:
Psa 39:6 Surely every man walketh in a vain
display (Mlcb):
surely they are disquieted in vain: he heapeth up [riches], and knoweth not who
shall gather them.
Psa 73:18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery
places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they [brought]
into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. 20 As
a dream when [one] awaketh; [so], O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt
despise their image (i.e., their existence, not a picture of them or their
physical apearance).
These verses show that the basic meaning ofMlc is "reflection" or
"representation" rather than a concrete object."Reflection"
or "representation" accounts for these two verses, whereas the other
meaning does not.
I believe that "image" in our texts
should likewise be understood in this manner - that is, the "image"
in those texts refers to a representation of something, that something being
God.In other words,
when Scripture speaks of mankind being created in the image of God, what is
meant is that mankind has been created to represent God on earth.This is
different than the incarnation, which was God veiling himself in flesh - but
explains why Jesus is referred to AS the veryimage of God in passages like:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them
which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is
the image of God, should shine unto them.
Christ served as the ultimate image
or reflection of what God is and does, and it was God's original intention at
the very beginning of makind's existence that this created thing, above
anything else on the planet, should be his representative - God's stand-in or
understudy as it were.
3.The Syntax (the phrases /
commands linked to the creation of mankind as God's image)
To this point I have argued that the
prepositions and the meanings of the nouns to which those prepositions are
attached point to the idea that the image of God is a FUNCTION, not a thing put
into a human.The syntax (structure and relationship of the clauses) also points
in this direction:
let us make mankind as our image . . . after our
likeness
and let them rule over . . .
so God created as his own image . . .
i.e., God deliberately created mankind to rule
the earth, and to
accomplish this purpose, he created man as his own image - He made man his
co-regent / representative ruler
One important parallel passage supports the idea
we've been driving at - that when God created mankind in his image, what is
meant is that he was making a being sufficient to the task of ruling over and
stewarding his creation.
Psalm 8:4-64 What is man, that thou art mindful
of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a
little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and
honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands;
thou hast put all [things] under his feet:
When mankind was created he was
"crowned" - made a ruler, according to God's deliberate purposes.
B.The Resulting
Definition / Explanation
God's intent was to put someone in charge, and
so he created mankind in his image to fulfill this purpose.We then
"image" God by "running His world" - a job that
necessitates discovering what "makes the world tick" - and
encompasses social organization (remember, God would shortly thereafter ordain
government - that humankind could - and must - exercise authority over other
humans - in addition now to the animal world).
This job encompasses not only agricultural
pursuits (as with Adam and Eve), but gives meaning to academic pursuits,
application of knowledge in the form of technology, pursuing right
relationships with all mankind, and caring for the resources God has
given.Ultimately, we know that it was God's intention that every human being
has a specific role in accomplishing this end (because the image is
inextricably tied to being human, which is inevitably generational).In other
words, God has specific tasks and responsibilities that need to be done on
earth that humanity - and no one else - is destined to fulfill.But only God
knows the purpose He intends for each life, and how that purpose will be
accomplished.
This goal was pre-Fall, and we know from Genesis
9:6 (killing God in effigy) that the high, unique, position of mankind
is still intact after the fall.The fall did not result in the overturning or
dismissal of God's plan.It's just that now we have sin to contend with as an
obstacle and the self-centeredness that it brings.Humankind must be redeemed to
truly fulfill its position as God's vice-regent.God can use the talents and
efforts of any person - for humanity's status is not linked to redemption - it
was bestowed prior to God's redemptive work in history.But Christians, more
than anyone else, ought to feel compelled to represent God in every area of
life (particularly as it realtes to WORK) and in every situation.
IV.Conclusion:
The
image of God then, refers to our unique status as human beings, rulers in God's
stead, according to His own will.We are created AS his image - to function as
he would were he administering His own affairs directly.Our abilities -
unequally given to us in the Providence of God are not THE image, but only a
means to carrying out His expressed and often secret end.
A.ONLY
humans are God's imagers / representatives -
nothing
else and no one else occupies an equal status.To be human is to have this
divinely-ordained status.
-
animals do not share this status (it isn't necessary to deny animal
intelligence)
-
machines will not share this image if artificial intelligence eve gets to the
point where the human brain can be mimicked.
-
non-human life (extraterrestrial) does not share this status.Earth belongs to
mankind under God, and no one else, regardless of future claims.
B.EVERY
humanbeing IS an imager / God's representative -
-
regardless of the stage in the womb (the contents are human - genetically there
can be no other conclusion)
-
regardless of physical disability
C.WORK
has inherent value - it is the means by which we rule the earth and discover,
utilize, and steward the creation.