Untitled Document

Image of God

Phil Wilson

What does it mean that men and women are made in the image of God and why is this truth significant?

The creation of man in the "image of God" is usually interpreted to be a
theological technical term that describes the nature of man. It is argued in
this paper that it can be more comprehensively understood as a general
descriptive term of man's similarity to God in varying ways throughout the
scriptures. In essence, the term means that man is, or is to be, in some way
similar to God. The significance of this truth is seen in considering man's
relationship with God, other humans, the self, and the rest of creation.

According to Martin (1996:498) "the term [ image ] denotes a material
representation, usually of a deity". The term "image of God" then can be
best seen as a representation of, or a likeness to, God. This can be seen in
the use of the words "likeness" and "image" in Genesis 1:26, which most probably are being used interchangeably (Kidner 1967:50). This is also made clear in a comparison of these verses with a similar usage of the words in Genesis 5:1-3. The word image is the also the same as that used in Exodus 20:4 of "graven images"; that is, material representations of what God was supposed to be like. Thus to be in the image of God is to be in some way a representation of God or to have a similarity to God.

There have been considerable differences in people's understanding of the
term "image of God" through history. Milne (1998:119) refers to traditional
understandings such as the capacity of human knowledge, moral awareness and
immortality. He also mentions ideas such as it involving man's physical
nature, man's trinitarian constitution, human dominion, and finally, the
social nature of man. Enns (1989: 305) adds to these the following elements
which he would see as contributing to the "image": personality, including
self-consciousness, self-determination, and intellect; spiritual being, a
creature capable of communion with God; and moral nature, a sense of
righteousness and holiness. Most other scholars' views would overlap with
these concepts to a large degree.

Possibly the best answer purely from the immediate context of Genesis 1:26-28
is that man was created to have dominion over the rest of creation (Hartley, 2000:48). This is seen by the fact that in the two references to the image of God in Genesis 1:26-27, there is a command to rule over the animal world. Many have also noted that the concept of the image could well have arisen from the practice in the ancient Near East of kings to leave images of themselves in places where they could not be present in person. These images would represent the king's majesty and dominion over the people in those places (Grenz 1994:226). This idea would relate well to man in the image of God being representatives of the dominion of God over the earth.

However, the problem with this idea is that it is too narrow a definition; this is not the sole emphasis of all scriptural references to the image of God. For example, in James 3:9 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 there is no thought concerning our domination of the animal world present in the texts referring to the image of God. Erikson (1983:512) argues also that the dominion of man over creation is to be seen as a consequence of man being made in the image, rather than equated with it.

The view proposed in this paper is that the term is best understood as a
general description of the whole man's similarity to God in varying ways,
rather than a technical term for some very specific aspect of the nature of man. Thus, the words "image of God" would take in all of the above ideas, for in all of these ways man has a likeness to God. Grudem (1999:189) elucidates this view very precisely:

'When we realise that the Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness" simply
informed the original readers that man was like God, and would in many ways
represent God, much of the controversy over the meaning of "image of God" is seen to be a search for too narrow and too specific a meaning. When
Scripture reports that God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness", it would simply have meant to the original readers, "Let us make
man to be like us and to represent us." '

There are many ways in which humans are like God, some of which were stated
earlier; for example, our moral nature, our relational nature, our spiritual nature, and our dominion over the creation. This is not to say that we are exactly like God in every respect (eg our physical makeup), but rather that humans are distinctly different from the rest of creation, and more like God than any other creature on earth.

There are at least two arguments that can be made for this view. Firstly, Genesis 5:3 states that "Adam ..begot a son in his own likeness, after his image". This is virtually the same terminology used of God's creation of man in his image (Gen 1:26), yet it is hard to believe that the verse is indicating anything more than that a son was born who was similar to his father. The word image is used to convey a general likeness to his father, not specific personality traits or physical resemblances.

Secondly, Christ also is referred to as being the image of God (2 Cor 4:4, Col 1:15).
What does it mean that Christ is the image of God? Clearly not that Christ
has a trinitarian nature, that he has a moral nature which animals lack, or
anything else so specific as these examples. It means very simply that He is
the (perfect) representation of God in an all-encompassing general way. Similarly then, when we are told that man was created in the image of God, it means that man was created to be in many ways a creature resembling what God is like.

This truth is significant because of the implications for four relationships that humans have. Firstly, our being made in the image of God has implications for our relationship with God. As Kidner (1967:51) notes, the truth reminds us that our Maker is not wholly other from us; He is a personal God whom we may be in relationship with. Our makeup was based on His nature, and thus this teaches us something of what God's nature is like.

It also reminds us that we were made to be like Him. Although the "image of God" was not completely lost in the fall (as is seen in Genesis 9:6), it is obvious that our sinfulness makes us less like God. In the New Testament, we are reminded several times of our need to be renewed "according to the image of Him who created" (Col. 3:10) in a moral sense. In fact, the goal of our life's journey is to be transformed into His image (2 Cor. 3:18); this goal will be completed at Christ's return (1 Cor. 15:49 , Rom. 8:29). Our transformation into His image presently is a moral transformation; at Christ's coming, it will be completed physically with the partaking of a heavenly body like Christ's. Geisler (1989:23) notes that the image of God includes a moral nature, because this is something that is true in God's own character. We have moral obligations such as holiness, justice, love, truthfulness, and mercy, for these characteristics flow from God's character. Therefore they must be present in ours also.

Secondly, it also has great significance for our relationship with other humans. The fact that we are made in the image of God separates us from the animal world, and leads to all humans being treated with a special intrinsic dignity and value (Erikson 1983: 516). This is the basis of a Christian understanding of human rights, a basis which materialists completely lack. If all humans are the descendants of Adam and therefore all have been made in the image of God, there is no excuse for racism, class discrimination, or any form of human injustice. According to James, the fact that we have been made in the likeness of God forbids us from even being allowed to curse another human (James 3:9). All are equal and to be treated with dignity and justice.

By contrast, the materialist, who believes that humans are just an advanced species of animal, has no basis for why some humans may not have evolved to have become equal to others. The materialist lacks any moral foundation for the forbidding of killing unwanted babies, elderly, or sick people. If humans are just animals, then why should they not be treated like unwanted kittens which may be disposed of, or crippled horses which are put down when no longer useful. The doctrine of creation in the image of God has particularly current relevance to the ethical issues of abortion, human cloning, and euthanasia (Lewis 1996:176).

Thirdly, the doctrine has relevance in our relationship with our selves. As Lewis (1996:174) notes, it gives the basis for a healthy self-image. As we realise that we have been created to be like God, we will be able to rejoice in the abilities that He has given us, and will have some understanding to the question "Who am I, and why am I here?". The doctrine explains our place in this world, and encourages us to live up to the potential that we have been created with.

Finally, the truth is significant because it reminds us of our responsibility of being stewards and rulers over the rest of the creation. In his creation in the image of God, Adam was entrusted with the care of the garden (Gen. 2:15) and given dominion over the animal world (Gen.1:28). Adam (and mankind ever since) was God's appointed caretaker on his behalf for the care and health of the rest of creation. The truth remains that as we are to represent God as rulers over creation on earth, we must be wise and faithful stewards of the physical earth and its creatures.

Our creation in the image of God is a truth that is foundational to many other doctrines of the Bible. Rather than revealing a specific truth about the technical nature of man, it can be best understood as showing us the general truth that we have been made to be similar to God in a number of varying ways. When this truth is understood, it provides a basis for healthy relationships to God, others, ourselves and the rest of creation.

Bibliography

Enns, P. 1989, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody, Chicago
Erikson, M. 1983, Christian Theology, Baker, Grand Rapids
Geisler N.L. 1989, Christian Ethics Options and Issues, Apollos, Leicester
Grenz, S.J. 1994, Theology for the Community of God, Paternoster, Carlisle, UK
Grudem, W. 1999, Bible Doctrine: Essential teachings of the Christian faith, IVP, Leicester
Hartley, J.E. 2000, New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis, Hendrickson Peabody, Massachusetts
Kidner, D. 1967, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary , Tyndale, London
Lewis, G.R and Demarest, B.A (1996) Integrative Theology, Zondervan, Grand Rapids
Martin, W.W. 1996, 'Image' in I.H. Marshall, A.R. Millard, J.I. Packer, D.J. Wiseman (eds) New Bible Dictionary, 3rd Edn, IVP, Leicester
Milne, B. 1998, Know the Truth, 2nd Edn, IVP, Leicester,UK