1:26b - . . . in our image, in our likeness,"
[T - OL ]
Whereas other creatures are created "according to their kinds" humans are created "in the image of God." Humans are like God. But what does this mean?
The literature on the subject of "the image of God" is voluminous, and the debate continues on what it really means, especially between biblical scholars and systematic theologians. Discussion about the image of God is made particularly difficult because it carries such a heavy load of theological (and pastoral-practical) significance but Scriptures seem to assume the term is self-evident and says so little with which we can work towards a definition. As a result, most "Old Testament scholars prefer a functional interpretation where humanity rules over the earth as God's representatives; many theologians prefer a relational interpretation."1
Proposals among systematic theologians have ranged from the human soul; man's rationality; his memory, intellect and love; the original righteousness enjoyed by Adam before the Fall; his immortality; his personality, his vitality and nobility; his bodily form; etc. After a comprehensive survey of them, Karl Barth, decided that one "could indeed discuss which of all these and similar explanations of the term is the most beautiful or the most deep or the most serious. One cannot, however, discuss which of them is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:26."2 This is because it is so easy to say so much that is so loaded with theological implications based on so little of what Scriptures actually say. Barth again, "Is it not astonishing that again and again expositors have ignored the definitive explanations given by the text itself, and instead of reflecting on it pursued all kinds of arbitrarily invented interpretations of the imago Dei?"3
It would be wise, therefore, not to specify too narrowly what 'the image' might mean, especially when preaching to a congregation of common folks. The following point, however, can be made with confidence:
1. The text of Scriptures itself does not define the term for us.
2. Though two different nouns—image and likeness—are used, and there are evidences that there are some differences in their specific nuances, they are used here in parallel by way of emphasis. This is supported by their parallel use in 5:1-3 ("This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them 'man.' When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.")
3. Whereas all the animals were made "according to their kind," only humans are made "in the image of God." If nothing else, it is the image of God that distinguishes humans from animals. This is made incontrovertibly clear in Gen 9. After the flood God added the meat of animals to the diet of humans but they must abstain from the blood. Bringing this commandment to a climax 9:5b-6 prohibits murder—the taking of a fellow human's life—"for in the image of God has God made man." The image of God then speaks of the distinguished place humans occupy in God's scheme of things. This is something to get excited about. Walk around Graceland and you see thousands who "remake" themselves into the image of the King of Pops. Tell any of them that he is so like Elvis and he will keel over in animated joy and pride. We are made in the image of God! What greater honour can anyone hope for? Let's live worthy.
4. Though it is frequently taught in the churches that the image of God has been lost, corrupted or diminished due to the Fall, Scriptures clearly does not support that. The proscription against taking the life of a fellow human in Gen 9:6 would be meaningless if it were so. Similarly, James and Paul used the image of God as the basis for their ethical-moral injunctions. Speaking of the power of the tongue, James warns his readers against using it to "curse men, who have been made in God's likeness" (3:9). In 1 Cor 11 Paul lays down his instruction for women to cover their heads. Men, however, should not "since he is the image and glory of God." Whether we think Paul is sexist or not is not the point here. The point is that both James and Paul require Christians to behave in particular manners simply because they have been made in the image of God. Both passages would be nonsensical if the image of God had been lost, corrupted or diminished in the Fall.
5. "It is often said that the Bible represents God anthropomorphically [i.e., as a human being]. More accurately, a human being is theomorphic, make like God so that God can communicate himself to people. He gave people ears to show that he hears the cry of the afflicted and eyes to show that he sees the plight of the pitiful (Ps.94:9)."4 We are made God-form to commune and fellowship with God. We jeopardize our true humanity when we reject and abandon God.
6. Whatever else being "made in the image of God, in his likeness" might mean, it certainly would imply being like God. It is legitimate, we think, to ask what has God been like in the account so far and if we are not somehow to act similarly. Here we summarize two points that have already been made in anticipation of this point:
a. God spoke and things were. We cannot exercise the power of speech the way God can. We cannot say and it is. But we can exercise the power of speech in ways we often choose rather to ignore. We have the power to speak and mean what we say. We have the power to not put a spin on what we say. We have the power to keep the promises we make. We have the power to speak words that bring light into the darkness of broken lives, words that heal, comfort, encourage. We have the power not to speak evil against our neighbours. We have the power to speak the truth. These things we can speak and there is no power in the world that can prevent what we can speak from bearing their fruits even if they may choose to ignore us at first, or to act against us. Our speech may not be omnipotent like God's but our words have the power to build new worlds and restore old broken ones. Let us.
b. God did what He did well. He evaluated what He did, and they were good. Fallen creatures that we are, perfection will always be beyond us. But can we look at what we have done and say, in simple honesty, "Yes, it is good!"? We may not be able to say of everyday, as God did not say of everyday, that "it was good." But can we come to the end of every work week and, reflecting on what we have done, affirm that what we have done is "very good"? Let us not be the kind of persons who are afraid of evaluating what they have done, afraid of what might be said about them because they know they have only given their shoddy and indifferent efforts?
You may wish to read the following commentaries-expositions:
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2016