In our previous post, we started our look at creation, a very good creation. We focused on God’s special work of creating humans. In this post we look at the most critical portion of creation, humans being created in the image of God, in God’s likeness. Wow, that sounds impressive. We are image-bearers of God Himself! But what does this mean? What does it mean to be created in the image and likeness of God? These are questions theologians—even ones more advanced than us—have wrestled with over for centuries. As with many things, the Bible does not define this precisely for us, but it doesn’t leave us in the dark either. We must grapple with the text to gain an understanding.
There are two Hebrew words used in Genesis: image” (tselem), which has the idea of a resemblance or an image, the sense of a replica. The other is “likeness” (demut), similarity in appearance, character, or nature. Both carry the idea of something similar to but not identical to that which is represented. Man is said to be created in God’s image after, or according to, His likeness. There is probably, in the Hebrew text, no difference between the two. It is not as though these represent two aspects of man’s nature—image and likeness. It is simply a kind of parallelism, natural to Hebrew writings, used to describe the resemblance or relation of man to God.
There have been three main views of what the image of God is or means. The first is known as the substantive view: the image consists of certain characteristics within the very nature of humans, either physical or psychological/spiritual traits. The idea is the image relates to something man is, something in his nature. It is a way humans are like God but unique from the characteristics we see in animals, for animals are not said to be, even in a limited sense, an image of God.
One error coming from this view—though not very often—is that there is some physical attribute in man which is part of his image-bearing nature. This view is rejected by almost all, for God is spirit and not physical. There is no physical attribute or characteristic humans could have that would be an image of a non-physical God.
Another issue with the substantive view is that there is no agreement among its proponents on what, in the nature of man, are the characteristics that constitute the image of God. The list of suggested traits is long. Among the possibilities are our reason and will, the ability to think logically and make choices. Some have suggested our emotions or our ability to love, along with many other ideas. The human soul has also been suggested as a quality that is part of the image of God in man. It may be the collective whole of these attributes rather than a particular one.
The second view is the relational view: the experiencing of a relationship between the human and God, or between two or more humans. In this view, it is man’s unique relationships with others, including God, which reflect what God is like. This is seen especially in the marriage relationship, where the two become one. While not the same, it does give a picture of the unity in the relationship the members of the Trinity have with one another. To be clear, the ability to have relationships would be one of the traits under the substantive view. It is actually the relationship itself that is in mind here. The issue then is: if one is not in a relationship, are they then not the image of God?
The final view is the functional view: something a human does, a function he carries out. The image is not a part of the nature of humans, nor does it have to do with a relationship with God or with others, but rather consists in something one does.
Some claim the Hebrew words translated as “image” and “likeness” had an obvious meaning for the original readers. These Hebrew words informed the original readers man was like God and would, in many ways, represent God. According to this view, these phrases simply would have meant, “Let us make man to be like us so he can represent us.”
In the ancient world, “being made in the image of a god” was a picture reserved for only two things: idols and kings. Idols were placed within a temple, the place where the gods and humans were connected. The idol then functioned as a reflection and embodiment of the god. It was not thought of as the deity itself. Rather, the idol was meant to be an image of the divine. It is true that over time the distinction between the idol and the god it represented would blur to the point the idol was seen as a god. Despite this, the intention was for the idol to be the mediating representation of the god’s power and presence to the worshiper.
The “image of God” was also a title reserved for kings and rulers. Kings or rulers were representatives of the gods. Kings were to rule and reign on their behalf. They were seen as standing in the place of the gods on earth to people. To question them or disobey them was to rebel against god. Therefore, it became a short step for people to consider kings as divine.
So, if the kings and idols were the image-bearers of the gods, reflecting their image and ruling on their behalf, what does it mean when Genesis says all humans are made in the image of God? Some have understood this to mean we all stand in the position of kings and priests representing God to the world, being the priestly mediator between God and His creation and kings ruling in His place.
So which view is correct? As the Bible does not explicitly state the answer to this question, the key is in the text itself. In both cases, following the statements about the image-bearing nature of man, humans are given the job of subduing and having dominion over the earth. Even the passage from Psalm 8 emphasizes the dominion of man over God’s world. This seems to me to be a clear connection between image and function. But the sense one gets from the passages about being an image of God seems to go beyond something we do, a function we perform. As with the relational view, if one is not doing this function are they still an image of God?
If we look at what the Bible says about Christ as the image of God, it may give us some clues on how to decide. Look at passages such as Col 1:15; 1 Cor 15:49; 1 Cor 4:4. Col 3:10. The picture is not on of what Christ did but who he was.
I think the correct position is to take a hybrid of the substantive and functional views. The relational view misses the mark by seeing the image in the actual relationship rather than the ability to have close, personal, and complex relationships with God and others, especially in marriage. Our being the image is part of our function of representing God in subduing and taking dominion of this planet. I do see the possibility that the function is a result of being an image-bearer. It should be included so as not to lose its significance for humans. If we take the substantive view, we will see qualities in humans that do express the likeness of God. This is a matter of being godly, not godlike. We will never be a god, nor were we meant to be a god or even a junior god—whatever that would be.
It may not be possible or desirable to try and create an exhaustive list of the qualities allowing us to be an image of God. We can list some that show the possibility of our reflecting the image of God. They would be qualities such as holiness, being conscious of right and wrong, our ability to reason at a high level, to think logically, and to hold complex sets of emotion are but a few of the characteristics we were created with pointing to our being created in His image, being in the likeness of God.
The quality of being able to have relationships should be added to the list of traits listed above. Not as in the relational view, where it is the relationship itself, but the ability to have the relationship that should be included with the others attributes in the substantive view. Being able to pray to God, worship God, and have a relationship with Him is part of being in the likeness of God.
We see being made in the image of God and in the likeness of God is a complex and multifaceted feature that is a wonderful, powerful, and unique property. There is no other being in all creation having as part of its nature the image of God; not birds, fish, animals, or even angels were created in the image of God and to be in the likeness of God. We are truly a special creation of God. With that specialness comes great responsibility. We were created to be like God, to relate to Him and others as God relates to others, and to represent Him in all we do. So valuable is this quality that, unlike the angels—some of whom also sinned against God—God sent His Son to redeem us from our sin. God has done this for no other being!
While we will cover the Fall of Man in subsequent articles, it should be noted there is no indication this image of God is lost through sin. We are still the image of God, even subsequent to the Fall and even as sinful people. After the flood, humans are commanded to institute capital punishment for a person who would take a human life. Why such a harsh and permanent punishment? “For God made man in His own image” (Gen 9:6). So valuable is human life, because of the stamp of the likeness of God, that to unjustly take an image-bearer’s life would cost one his very life.
While clearly stating the sanctity of human life, this passage also says man is still the image of God even in his fallen state. So, there isn’t any indication in the biblical text that this image and likeness of God is something that was lost through the human Fall into our sinful condition.
There are many things we should learn from these opening chapters of the Bible, even from a cursory look at them. The very fact of God’s special creation of man and bestowing on him His own image calls for an acceptance of the value, worth, and sanctity of all humans. Therefore, there are things we can never do to our fellow image-bearers. We should never neglect an aging human. We must never starve them or seek to eliminate them because of their lack of productivity in society or the expense of their continued care. We cannot devalue a person because of physical or mental limitations. Every image-bearer is of worth and value to God and to us. We cannot dismember or kill a child, whether unborn or one who is too young to defend himself. We cannot devalue a person based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, or skin tone. Pregnancy is not a disease or a physical condition a woman can opt out of. It is the bringing forth of another image-bearer of God. Finally, we cannot worship and glorify the majesty of God while we do such things to His image-bearers.
We have covered a great deal in these last two posts in the “Who Am I?” series, so let’s briefly summarize some of the key points we have seen so far.
- God created man in a unique way and for a unique purpose.
- We were created as image-bearers of God.
- While we have sinned and lost so much, even losing the fullness of the image of God in our lives, we have not lost our total place as image-bearers of God.
- Image-bearers are both males and females.
- Humans, as image-bearers, are to represent God.
- In having dominion over His creation to declare His glory.
- By subduing creation for His glory.
- To multiply and fill the earth He has created for His glory.
- We are made in the likeness of God to have a relationship with God and with others.
- As image-bearers, we must express those godly qualities of love, holiness, wise thinking, moral living, and all the other attributes.
- We should rejoice in the diversity of Humans. Different colors, looks, cultures, personalities and so much more.
Just a quick look at nature tells us God loves variety. Just look at the different shades of green in trees, the colors in birds and flowers. If you are bored at a meeting, look at the different shapes of noses in the room. - As image-bearers we have an intrinsic value a worth from the moment of conception.
Until the next time we see you here at CultivatingFaith.org, God Bless! #CultivatingFaithOrg