We are dealing with the same text in this post as in the previous one. In that post, we had looked at what it means for God to have given humans the authority to rule over the rest of creation. In this post we will look at the second issue raised by the text – that of the image of God. We will consider various approaches to this idea and weigh their pros and cons before suggesting the approach I favor.

Hebrew text:

26 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

27 וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים׀ אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמ֔וֹ בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹת֑וֹ זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

Transliteration:

26 way·yō·mer  ’ĕ·lō·hîm, na·‘ă·śeh  ’ā·ḏām bə·ṣal·mê·nū kiḏ·mū·ṯê·nū;  wə·yir·dū ḇiḏ·ḡaṯ hay·yām ū·ḇə·‘ō·wp̄  haš·šā·ma·yim, ū·ḇab·bə·hê·māh ū·ḇə·ḵāl hā·’ā·reṣ,  ū·ḇə·ḵāl hā·re·meś hā·rō·mêś ‘al- hā·’ā·reṣ.

27 way·yiḇ·rā  ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’eṯ-  hā·’ā·ḏām bə·ṣal·mōw,  bə·ṣe·lem ’ĕ·lō·hîm bā·rā  ’ō·ṯōw; zā·ḵār ū·nə·qê·ḇāh bā·rā  ’ō·ṯām.

NIV:

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Study:

The Old Testament does not use the phrase ‘image of God’ very often. Apart from the two verses we are dealing with in this post, we can find the phrase ‘image of God’ only in Genesis 9.6. The equivalent phrase ‘likeness of God’ can be found in Genesis 5.1. But apart from these two verse, there is no direct use of either phrase. Yet, coming as it does as the first thing we read about humans, it is clear that, whatever ‘image of God’ means, it is critical to our understanding of ourselves.

However, the bible never explains the phrase. We are not directly told anywhere how to interpret this phrase. Hence, given that the only place where the phrase appears with more than just the phrase, such as in Genesis 5.1 and Genesis 9.6, we are left with Genesis 1.26-27 to try to understand what the phrase means. Any other approach will inevitably read into the text rather than read out from it. But before we get to that, let us consider some commonly suggested approaches.

Steve Ham suggests that ‘image of God’ refers to our sharing of God’s attributes.¹ Of course, we would be hard pressed to find any scripture that actually makes this assertion. More revealing is how Ham simply brushes aside what Genesis 1.26-27 ‘seems to read as’ in favor of some interesting special pleading. He mentions righteousness and holiness as attributes of God that we share though that is quite confusing given the repeated call in scripture that we should be holy as God is holy. If this is something we already share with God, then it should not be something we are called to do.

Karl Barth argued that the clause ‘male and female he created them’ is an explanation of what the image of God is. According to Barth the differentiation into sexes is “the true creaturely image of God.”² However, this ignores the movement inherent in the text. The mention of male and female does not explain ‘image of God’ but the pronoun ‘them’ in the preceding clause. In the first clause “So God created mankind in his own image” the word ‘mankind’ is the singular ‘adam’. In the next clause “in the image of God he created them” there is a move from the singular ‘adam’ to the plural ‘them’. And the third clause simply explains who ‘them’ refers to. It’s not just all males, as might be concluded from the move from the masculine singular ‘adam’ to the gender neutral plural ‘them’, but also all females who are included in the phrase ‘image of God’.

Thomas Aquinas argued that the ‘image of God’ is our superior intelligence and rationality when compared with other creatures.³ Thomas considered that our ability to rule over other creatures is an indication of our superior intellect. However, nowhere in scripture is there a link made between our intelligence and our ability to rule. In fact, the Old Testament is rife with passages that admonish rulers for lacking wisdom. A case in point is Solomon who did not follow his own wise advice and became a pathetic ruler. More to the point, if the ‘image of God’ consists in our intelligence, then what do we say about a person who suffers brain damage? Does the occasion of the damage strip this person from being the ‘image of God’ to not being it?

John Piper, after discussing various views, suggests that the “imago Dei is that in man which constitutes him as he-whom-God-loves.”⁴ This definition, if one can call it that, is so vague as to be of practically no use! Moreover, this is a strange definition coming from a strict Calvinist who does not believe that God loves everyone enough to save everyone. The definition, therefore, excludes all humans whom God has, according to the Calvinist doctrine, predestined to reprobation.

However, we can see from Genesis 9.6 that, even after the disastrous events of Genesis 3, humans are still said to be the ‘image of God’. This means that, whatever it means, this is not something that we lost when we first disobeyed God. But it must be something that all humans possess.

One thing all the views I have presented fail to recognize is what an image is supposed to do. An image is a representation of an original. So my picture is my image. It gives those who look at it some idea of what I look like and can help them identify me if they happen to see me.

A second thing these views fail to appreciate is where images were and are used. John Walton argues that Genesis 1 is an account of the dedication of a temple culminating in the installation of the image of the deity.⁵ In other words, this creation – heaven and earth – is a cosmic temple and God has placed his image – humans – in this temple. Then humans are to do exactly what images are to do in temples. They provide a focal point for worshippers to direct their worship. And they give the worshippers an idea of what the deity is like. It is important here to observe that in the scheme of Genesis 1, the worshippers are the rest of creation, while humans are the image of God. In other words, humans are to provide the rest of creation with focal points to direct their worship and are to represent God to the rest of creation.

In other words, ‘image of God’ does not refer to some character trait or quality that humans possess. It is, rather, a statement about the vocation of humans. We are created as God’s image. Whether we like it or not, we represent God. The only question is, “How truly do we represent him?”

Prayer:

Our gracious, loving Father. You have created us to reflect your glory into the world and to rain your love on the creature you have lovingly placed under our stewardship. You have made us to be focal points that point beyond ourselves to the greater reality of a loving and gracious Creator, who lies beyond us. We ask you to enable us to be true to that calling. Enable us, by the power of your Spirit, to be trustworthy representations of you. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. Steve Ham. What is the Image of God? (Accessed on 25 April 2019)↩}

^{2. Karl Barth, “The Doctrine of Creation,” Church Dogmatics, III/I, ed. G. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 197.↩}

^{3. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (New York: Benzinger Bros., 1947), I, 15.↩}

^{4. John Piper. The Image of God: An Approach from Biblical and Systematic Theology. (Accessed on 25 April 2019)↩}

^{5. John Walton. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2009)↩}