The Image of God in Man, Part 3

Implications of the Image of God in Man

As Swann says, “while a precise interpretation of the image of God can be elusive, the implications of the divine image are nonetheless extensive.”[1] Therefore, there are four implications to the image of God in man that will be discussed. They are the sanctity of life, care for humans and the environment, created for fellowship with God, and created for eternity.

Sanctity of Human Life

Perhaps one of the greatest and most obvious implications of the image of God in man would have to be the sanctity of human life. “The understanding that humanity is in God’s image has played a liberating role in “Christian tradition” by encouraging Christians to respect and protect the dignity and life of all human beings,” Kidner says.[2] In commenting on Genesis 9:1-7, he says that even though sin has sullied things man still possesses the image of God and is still His ruling representative.[3] Nevertheless, his rule will be marked with fear as violence will fill the earth and the animals that were formally his fellow-creatures will now become his food.[4]

The most prominently thought of form of attack on the sanctity of life is the murder or killing of human life by another human. Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.” Erickson states, “The human is valuable. The sacredness of the human life is an extremely important principle in God’s scheme of things. Even after the fall, murder was prohibited; the reason given was that humans, though sinners, are still made in the image of God (Gen 9:6).”[5]

In a thought-provoking statement on the connection between murder and the image of God Lorberbaum states, “Murder was perceived by the tannaim … as ‘diminishing’ the image of God and, in light of their perception of Image as presence, as impairing a dimension of God Himself.”[6] However, it could also be that by attacking and killing another person, the murderer is seen as taking the place of God.[7] This is because God as the Creator is the only one that has the right to take a human life. Therefore, if a human were to take another human’s life, it is “tantamount to insurrection.”[8] It is as if they are “playing God.” Furthermore, and similarly, McDowell believes that it would appear that murdering another human being may be akin to attacking God in that He is the kin to mankind.[9]

Considering that all people bear the image of God, nothing should be done that would infringe on another’s freedom or “legitimate exercise of dominion” which they have not willingly forfeited.[10] Erickson lists some of those that encroach on others and their freedom to exercise dominion, which are murderers and thieves.[11] He later goes on to include abortion as the destruction of human life.[12]

Care for Humans and Environment

Another implication associated with the image of God in man is the care of humans and the environment. “This image-​of-​God understanding has also served to inspire care for the natural world in which humanity lives.”[13] Genesis 1:28 and Psalm 8:5-8 are pericopes that are adduced to illustrate the connection of the image of God and dominion. Genesis 1:28 states, “God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’”

Kostenberger says, “By placing his image on the man and the woman and by setting them in a particular environment, therefore, God assigns to them the mandate of representative rule.”[14] Considering that man is charged with subduing the earth and procreating, “human beings are ‘like God.’ Just as God rules over a large domain – the whole universe – so humanity is given charge of the entire earth to rule it for God.”[15] Furthermore, it only makes sense that man should care for his environment since he is able to perceive both the spiritual and the physical and belongs to both realms.[16] Likewise, “God values his creation. He cares for the earth and all its creatures. If we are made in his image and called to bear his likeness, surely we should care for the earth and its creatures too.”[17]

Thisleton makes a few noteworthy observations. One is that while dominion over creation constitutes one aspect of the image of God in man it also apparently, to a lesser degree, is representative of participation in God’s kingly qualities.[18] Another is that, man as God’s image bearers, when that image is in the process of being restored allows for man to share God’s love with others.[19] And on a final thought for this implication, Hamilton states, “Several of these passages (e.g., Lev. 25:43; Ezek. 34:4) suggest that dominion is to be exercised with care and responsibility. Nothing destructive or exploitative is permissible.”[20]

Created for Fellowship with God

Scripture clearly shows in many places that humankind was created for fellowship with his Creator. It is conceivable that God may have regularly visited the garden that He created Adam and Eve in and which was their home (Gen. 3:8). Here, while it is in conjunction with a visitation post-fall, and the man and woman are rightly judged, it nonetheless demonstrates that the Lord was present in the garden and in direct contact with the man and his wife. Additionally, there are many pericopes in the New Testament that illustrate the dynamic of fellowship with God (e.g., 1 John 1:3, John 14:23, John 17:20-23, etc.).

In relation to the universality of the image of God in man and the accompanying sensitivity to spiritual things, Erickson says “Although at times these points may be deeply buried and difficult to identify, everyone possesses the potential for fellowship with God and will be incomplete unless it is realized.”[21] Because we are stamped with the image of God into our very nature, it is proof that we are destined or created for fellowship with God.[22] On the importance of being in fellowship with God, Erickson declares:

We experience full humanity only when we are properly related to God. No matter how cultured and genteel, no one is fully human unless a redeemed disciple of God. There is room, then, in our theology for humanism, that is, a Christian and biblical humanism which is concerned to bring others into proper relationship with God. The New Testament makes clear that God will restore the damaged image, and perhaps even build upon and go beyond it (2 Cor. 3:18).[23]

Created for Eternity

A final and wonderfully significant implication of the image of God in man is that mankind has been created for eternity. While there is much to the discussion of the mortality and immortality of man, especially is attempting to ascertain exactly what happens at death with the disembodied soul of the individual, it is sufficient enough for this work to state that man was created to be immortal. Erickson believes that both Adam and Eve had the potentiality of immortality in their pre-fall condition, albeit conditional.[24] He determines that Genesis 3:22 bears this out as God apparently draws a connection between man sustaining or gaining immortality with the eating of the fruit from the tree of life.[25] Dissimilarly, Thiessen thinks that “Physical death bears a relationship to sin because Adam was not subject to physical death until after the fall. Physical death is not something natural in the existence of man. It is a judgement (Rom. 1:32; 5:16) and a curse.”[26] Whether or not man initially had an unconditional immortality and lost it after the fall, or had a conditional immortality that he was no longer able to sustain because the necessary conditions were no longer available to him, it is still evident that man was meant for eternity.

And that eternity was meant to be spent with God. He created people for eternal fellowship with Him. For mankind to ultimately fulfill the eternal destiny that God has in store for them, each person needs to accept the wonderful gift of salvation that was provided through Christ’s atoning sacrifice.

Conclusion

As this work has illustrated, the image of God in man is monumentally important and has a number of implications. Mankind, as the only creation by His hands that bears His own image, they were originally meant to be eternal beings in the fellowship of their Creator. But, through the exercise of free will, they chose to disobey God and partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thus, ushered in sin and evil into the world. More importantly it severely damaged the image of God in man. That image, as has been noted was related to the moral, relational, intellectual, social, and spiritual dimensions. Whether or not Adam and Eve may have also had a resurrection type body or one that is much the same as people nowadays, the fact remains that they in essence moved from a perfect state of being into an imperfect one.

Fortunately, God in His hesed, omniscience, and omnipotence, determined to save man as only He could. He sent His only Son, who perfectly reflected the image of God, to earth as a human for all to see and pattern themselves after. Then Jesus paid the ultimate price for the atonement of everyone’s sins for all time. Because of this the way was made available again for man to once again have the image of God restored and for him to be able to enjoy eternal fellowship with his Creator.

[1]. Swann, 2. [2]. Kilner, 12. [3]. Derek Kidner, Genesis. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 108. [4]. Ibid. [5]. Erickson, 177. [6]. Lorberbaum, 12. [7]. Catherine McDowell, The Image of God in the Garden of Eden: The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5-3:24 in Light of the mis pi pit pi and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. (Winona Lake, IN: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015), 121-122. [8]. Ibid. [9]. McDowell, 123. [10]. Erickson, 177. [11]. Ibid. [12]. Ibid. [13]. Kilner, 19. [14]. Kostenberger, 23. [15]. Ibid., 24. [16]. Harrison, 39. [17]. Ibid., 80. [18]. Thiselton, 125. [19]. Ibid., 123. [20]. Hamilton, 28. [21]. Erickson, 177. [22]. Reno, 65. [23]. Erickson, 177. [24]. Erickson, 198. [25]. Ibid. [26]. Thiessen, 338.