Continuing from the previous blog post on the image of God in man, which discussed selem and demut, this post will explore humans in the image of God.
Humans in the Image of God
The image of God in man can be a very nebulous concept for many people to attempt to conceptualize. It is not something physical or concrete for the senses to interact with. Regardless, it is important to try to grasp the understanding of what it is. Demonstrating the importance, Groothuis states, “Humans stand in a unique relationship to both God and the rest of creation. They represent God as God’s image bearers and so resemble God as moral and personal beings, but on a finite scale (Genesis 1:26).”[1]
In an interesting exploration of how the early Christians understood the concept of man being made in the likeness and image of God, Harrison says that they attached it to the philosophical ideas in Greek because they were reading the Bible in Greek.[2] She goes on to explain the connection between how the Greek philosophical concepts appeared to elucidate the dynamic relationship between the model (God) and the image (human):
Platonists thought that the visible and tangible things in the world were images of transcendent, invisible models. They believed that the image derived its beauty and structure from its model. Moreover, its very being was directly connected to the model, though image and model seem to belong to different levels of reality altogether. Yet the model was in contact with the image and made it what it was. Early Christians borrowed these Platonic concepts and adapted them to their own faith. They believed that because we as human beings are made in God’s image, God himself has been our model from the time we were first created. This is a great gift and a great privilege. It means that God has given us something of his beauty and excellence. He is the direct source of our authentic human identity, since the image of God is what defines us as distinctively human. Greek philosophers thought the aim of human existence was to follow God, or become like God, and Christians agreed, though they understood these goals in their own way. It was possible to imagine such a lofty goal because, if we are God’s image, the very core of our being is directly connected to him, and he always remains connected with us, creatively renewing his own image in us.[3]
Clearly, first-century believers had a conceptualization of the connection between God as the model and the human as the bearer of God’s image.
What is the Image of God in Man?
Many commentators appear to agree that the image has not been lost, though it has been damaged or tainted. Thiselton says, “the vast majority of theologians argue that the image of God in humankind was not wholly destroyed when human beings became alienated and estranged from God.”[4] Since mankind still has the image of God it is necessary to consider what it may be. According to Swann be believes that the “צלם אלהים [image of God] is a characteristic/condition of humankind, or it is a commissioning/commandment for humankind.”[5] While that is one broad generalized way of explaining the image of God, in attempting to formulate a definition of the image of God the three most commonly advanced views for it will be discussed. They are the substantive view, the relational view, and the functional view.[6] They will be looked at in that order.
With regard to the substantive view Erickson says that the more common ones see the image of God in man as being more psychological or spiritual.[7] “Here the favorite candidate has been reason. There has been a long history of regarding reason as the unique feature which distinguishes humans from the other creatures. Indeed, humans are classified biologically as Homo Sapiens, ‘the thinking being.’”[8] While there are varying substantive views, they all agree that the image of God is located within man and that it is “a quality or capacity resident in their nature.”[9] Another view, which was held by Barth and Brunner, is that of the functional view.[10] Those who hold this view “think of the image of God as the experiencing of a relationship. We are said to be in the image or to display the image when we stand in a particular relationship. In fact, that relationship is the image.”[11] The final view to consider is the functional view. Apparently, this view has a long history and is currently making a comeback.[12] Briefly stated, it equates the image with something that man does, specifically in regard to dominion over the creation.[13]
After having briefly delineated the three views of the image of God in man, there are some conclusions that can be drawn. (1) “The image of God is universal within the human race.” (2) “The image of God has not been lost as a result of sin or specifically the fall.” (3) “There is no indication that the image is present in one person to a greater degree than another.” (4) The image is not correlated with any variable.” (5) “In light of the foregoing considerations, the image should be thought of as primarily substantive and structural.” (6) “The image refers to the elements in the makeup of human beings which enable the fulfillment of their destiny.”[14]
In attempting to determine what the image of God in man consisted of, Thiessen believes that it was not a corporeal likeness.[15] On this he says “man did not have a physical likeness to God since God is incorporeal.”[16] However, he does state that it was a mental, moral, and social likeness.[17] On the mental likeness he says, “Man’s endowment with great intellectual faculties is implied in the command to cultivate the garden and keep it (Gen. 2:15), the command to exercise dominion over the earth and all the creatures of the earth (Gen. 1:26, 28), and in the statement that he gave names to all of the animals on the earth (Gen. 2:19f.).”[18] With regard to the moral likeness, he says that it is safe to infer that man was originally created as both righteous and holy. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for God to say in Genesis 1:31 that everything was “very good.” This statement by God was also in reference to the creation of man. Therefore, it would logically mean that man was created in a perfect condition in every way. Because God, as holy and perfect, would only have created man in a holy and perfect condition. Additionally, Scripture elsewhere says that God cannot be in the presence of sin. And finally, Thiessen states, “It is evident that man was made with a social nature, even as God had a social nature. Human love and social interests spring directly from this element in man’s nature.”[19] Additionally, Kostenberger says that the image of God in man has often been connected with the possession of will, intelligence, or emotions.[20] It is also possible to understand that the image of God in man is, as Walvoord advances, that humans share, albeit to a finite and limited degree God’s communicable attributes, such as “life, personality, truth, love, holiness, and justice,” which allow for mankind to have spiritual fellowship with Him.[21]
While there are various understandings and determinations as to what exactly the image of God in man is, the most obvious aspects seem to be moral, relational, intellectual, social, and spiritual. Considering that the image of God in man is still there, albeit impaired due to the fall, it is essential to see how it may begin to be repaired and the model after which to follow.
Intended to Be Like Christ
When considering the topic of the image of God in man, and now understanding that the image in man has been tarnished from its pre-fall condition, it makes one wonder what the pre-fall condition of man was like. What did the image of God in man look like before the Fall? Thiselton says “The term “image of God,” then, shows humankind as God had intended and called humans to be. It signifies the potential of human beings for the future. Its measure is Jesus Christ, the person who actually bears God’s image, as Hebrews declares: “the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being” (Heb. 1:3).”[22] Both Kilner and Thiselton agree that Christ is the perfect, or exact image of God.[23] Because Christ is God, He was sent from the Father, and is the Second Person of the Trinity, thus He perfectly constitutes and exhibits exactly what the Father intends for all people in His image to be and do.[24] Kilner summarizes the connection between the image of God in man in relation to Christ as the perfect image of God and how He is our standard:
The basic idea here is that God has a likeness-image, and God has created people with that in view. It is a standard for what God intends for humanity to ultimately be. It is the goal toward which humanity is to develop. As the New Testament clarifies, sin prevents people from developing as God intends – in fact, it damages people so badly that they are much farther from God’s standard after their ‘fall’ into sin than before it. However, Christ, as both the standard and the source of renewal, breaks the power of sin and liberates people to resume their God-intended development to become fully conformed to Christ – to God’s image who is Christ.[25]
And Romans 8:29 states, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” In keeping with this, Erickson rightfully says that everyone should pattern themselves after Jesus, because he is the perfect and complete revelation of the image of God whose humanity was never defiled or tarnished (Heb. 14:15).[26] And as the perfect example for all humans to follow, some of the character and behavior of Jesus should be looked at. (1) “Jesus had perfect fellowship with the Father. While on earth he communed with and frequently spoke with the Father.” (2) “Jesus obeyed the Father’s will perfectly.” “Indeed, throughout his ministry his own will was subordinate.” (3) “Jesus always displayed a strong love for humans.”[27]
2 Corinthians 4:4 states, “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” So, Christ is the perfect representation of the image of God and it is right for all to pattern themselves after Jesus.
Now that the image of God has been discussed and it is evident that Jesus Christ, who being the Second Person of the Godhead, is the perfect and exact representation of the image of God whom mankind should pattern themselves after so as to reach their full potential and begin to correct the damage done, the implications of the image of God in man will be looked at next.
In the next and final post on the image of God in man, the implications of the image of God in man, such as the sanctity of human life, care of humans and the environment, fellowship with God, and created for eternity, will be delineated.
[1]. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 389. [2]. Nonna Verna Harrison, God's Many-Splendored Image: Theological Anthropology for Christian Formation. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 26. [3]. Harrison, 26-27. [4]. Anthony C. Thiselton, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 123. [5]. John Thomas Swann, The Imago Dei: A Priestly Calling for Humankind. (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2017), 3. [6]. Millard J. Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 172-174. [7]. Ibid., 173. [8]. Ibid. [9]. Erickson, 173. [10]. Ibid. [11]. Ibid. [12]. Ibid. [13]. Ibid. [14]. Erickson, 175-176. [15]. Thiessen, 154. [16]. Ibid. [17]. Thiessen, 155. [18]. Ibid. [19]. Thiessen, 157. [20]. Andreas J. Kostenberger and David W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 23. [21]. Walvoord, 29. [22]. Thiselton, 123. [23]. Thiselton, 122; Kilner, 53. [24]. Kilner, 53. [25]. Ibid., 77-78. [26]. Erickson, 177. [27]. Erickson, 176.
Comments