Man: God’s Visible Replica and Vice-Regent

By Robert Gonzales, Jr.

Robert Gonzales Jr. is the academic dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary (www.rbseminary.org) in Easley, South Carolina, where he also serves as a pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. He has an M.A. in theology and a Ph.D. in Old Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University.

What is man? If we addressed this question to the world at large, we might get one of two answers. Some would tell us that man is an animal. He may be the most sophisticated animal on the earth. But in the last analysis, man is just an animal.[1] Others would portray man as something akin to a little god. Man, they would say, has endless potential and the ability to create his own destiny.[2] The Bible, however, has a more balanced answer.

On the one hand, man shares much in common with the rest of creation and, in particular, with the animal kingdom. Man was created within the six-day creation week like the rest of creation (1:26-28). He was formed from the dust of the ground to be a “living being,” as were the animals (2:7). Man, like the animals, was given the “green herb” as food (1:29). Moreover, mankind reproduces (1:28) like the animals (1:22; 8:17). These facts underscore man’s continuity with the rest of creation (cf., Gen. 1:22, 30; 2:19).

On the other hand, the Bible portrays man as much more than a mere animal. In several ways the Genesis creation account underscores man’s uniqueness vis-à-vis the rest of creation. First of all, mankind is God’s final work of creation (1:26-28). We might say that creation comes to its crescendo in the creation of mankind. Second, God manifests a special interest in man’s creation. God brings the rest of creation into existence with the simple expression, “Let there be” (1:3, 6, 14, 20, 24).[3] However, God employs a different expression that underscores personal interest when He decides to create man: “Let us make” (v. 26).[4] Third, Moses devotes a supplementary account of man’s creation in chapter 2. Obviously, this indicates a greater concern for mankind than for the animals. Fourth, God personally animates man’s body by a special act of in-breathing (וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים, 2:7). Finally, and most importantly, only man is created as “the image of God.” Genesis 1:26-27 reads:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.[5]

The phrase “image of God” summarizes what it means to be human. It provides us with the true identity of man. What does it mean to be created as “the image of God”? We will attempt to answer that question, first, by surveying various answers given by theologians and, second, by examining the biblical teaching on the subject.

A Survey of Common Views

Throughout the history of the Christian church, theologians have offered various suggestions as to what constitutes “the image of God.” These views can be categorized under three headings:

1. The constitutive view

According to this view, God’s image refers to a unique quality or qualities within man. It refers to something in man’s constitution that corresponds to God and that distinguishes man from animals. Theologians have differed as to exactly what that “something” is.

The early church fathers tended to make a distinction between the terms “image” and “likeness.” They believed God’s “image” refers to man’s reason and free will, which was given at creation. “Reason” and “free will” are inherent to humanity and are retained after the fall. On the other hand, “likeness” refers to man’s original innocence that would have developed into righteousness. God’s “likeness,” they argued, was not inherent to humanity. It was a supernatural quality that could have developed after his creation. Because of man’s fall into sin, however, he completely lost God’s “likeness.” Only in Christ can that “likeness” be restored.[6]

The medieval theologians generally continued the distinction between “image” and “likeness.” However, some, like Thomas Aquinas,[7] began to identify man’s reason as the real essence of what it means to be created in God’s image.[8] Like the early church fathers, they argued that man’s rational capacity is inherent to our humanity, and it was retained unimpaired after the fall. Since many medieval theologians believed that the “image of God” was not lost or seriously impaired after the fall, they tended to accord unregenerate man the ability to think correctly about such realities as God, creation, and redemption.[9]

The reformers, like Luther and Calvin, rejected any significant distinction between “image” and “likeness.” Furthermore, they tended to emphasize spiritual or moral qualities as the primary aspect of God’s image. Luther identified the “image of God” primarily as mans’ original righteousness, which was given at creation but was lost at the fall.[10]

Calvin identified the “image of God” both as natural endowments (mind, will, emotions), and also moral qualities (conscience). Calvin believed that these were given at creation and that they are inherent to humanity. He did not believe that they were entirely lost at the fall, but he does speak of them as seriously impaired.[11] On the positive side, in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, both Luther and Calvin affirmed the total depravity of sinful man. They denied that man’s mind and will remained unimpaired after the fall. However, their views of what constitutes the “image of God” are still restricted primarily to man’s constitutive nature.[12]

So much for the “constitutive” view. This brings us to the two remaining views of God’s image—the relational and the functional views. Unlike the “constitutive view,” which defines God’s image in terms of who or what man is, these views define God’s image in terms of what man does. Thus, the terms “image” and “likeness” are treated more like verbs than nouns. These views have found more advocates among modern theologians.

2. The relational view

According to the relational view, God’s image refers to man’s unique capacity to have a relationship with God and other human beings. This view is especially popular among existential theologians like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. According to Barth and Brunner, man is the image of God when he relates socially both to God and to his fellow human beings. To support this idea, they appeal to Gen. 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Commenting on this text, Barth writes,

Is it not astonishing that again and again expositors have ignored the definitive explanation given by the text itself, and instead of reflecting on it pursued all kinds of arbitrarily invented interpretations of the imago Dei?—the more so when we remember that there is a detailed repetition of the biblical explanation in 5.1: “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them.” Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence in confrontation, i.e., in this confrontation, in the juxtaposition and conjunction of man and man [i.e., of two human beings] which is that of male and female, and then to go on and to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the divine existence of the Creator consists?.... The relationship between the summoning I in God’s being and the summoned divine Thou is reflected both in the relationship of God to the man whom He has created, and also in the relationship between the I and Thou, between male and female, in human existence itself.[13]

Thus, to be created in God’s image is to be created as a social being. God never created man to be alone, but to relate to other personal beings. Appeal is also made to the first and second greatest commandments: Love for God and love for our neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40; Mark 12:28-31). To the extent that you and I truly love God and truly love our neighbor, to that extent we are images of God.[14]

3. The functional view

According to the functional view, God’s image refers to man’s unique role and function in the world. Once again, this view sees the image of God not so much as what man is, but as what man does. In this case, however, the action is not relating to other personal beings. Rather, man’s role as God’s image consists primarily in his ruling over the creation as God’s vice-regent. Appeal is made to Gen. 1:28, where man is commanded to “subdue” and have “dominion” over the earth. Recent advocates of the functional view note that ancient Near Eastern literature frequently depicts kings or rulers as “the image” of a particular deity.[15] From this they argue that “ruling” is the primary idea conveyed by the term “image.”[16]

Toward a Biblical Doctrine of God’s Image

Many theologians are too restrictive in their view of God’s image. A more comprehensive view incorporates all the biblical data related to man as the image of God. As I see it, God’s image refers to man in the totality of his being, relations, and functions as the visible replica and representative of God on earth. To support that definition, let’s look at the meaning of the terms, “image” and “likeness.” Then we will analyze how these terms are applied to man. Finally, we will suggest three ways in which man is and continues to be the image of God.

1. The terms “image” and “likeness” in Scripture

The term “image” translates the Hebrew word צֶלֶם (ṣelem) in the OT and the Greek word εἰκών (eikōn) in the NT. In the OT, צֶלֶם is used of idols (Num. 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1 Sam. 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan. 3:1-3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18), and a two-dimensional painted or carved image upon a wall (Ezek. 23:14). In the NT, εἰκών is used for the engraving of a human face upon a coin (Matt. 22:20), idols (Rom. 1:23), or a visible representation of the beast, i.e., anti-Christ (Rev. 13:14, 15; 14:9, 19; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). To summarize the biblical data, the term “image” refers to a two or three-dimensional visible replica of an original that is predominantly concrete and physical in nature rather than abstract and immaterial.[17] The word “likeness” translates the Hebrew word דְּמוּתּ (dəmût̄) in the OT and the Greek word ὁμοίωσις (homoiōsis) in the NT. In the OT, דְּמוּת refers to the physical and psychological resemblance of a father and his son (Gen. 5:3). It is used to refer to building plans (2 Kings 16:10). Finally, it is used for the abstract idea of resemblance (Psa. 58:4; Ezek. 1:5, 10, 28). In the NT, ὁμοίωσις occurs only once, and it is only used of man in God’s likeness (Js. 3:9). However, a number of derivatives are used to convey the idea of correspondence.[18] If the word “image” stresses the idea of visible representation, then the term “likeness” seems to stress the idea of corresponding resemblance.[19] In light of the biblical usage of these terms, we can define an “image” or “likeness” as a visible replica that represents and bears a resemblance to some original (archetype).

2. The terms “image” and “likeness” applied to mankind

I want to make five observations regarding the way Scripture applies these concepts to man. First, when applied to man the terms “image” and “likeness” refer to one single reality and not to two distinct realities. When the two terms are used together, they reflect Hebrew parallelism and are therefore basically synonymous. This can be seen by comparing Gen. 1:26 with Gen. 5:3,[20]

1:26a: וְיִרְדּוּ(as our likeness) כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ (in our image)וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ

5:3a: (as his image) כְּצַלְמוֹ (in his likeness) וַיְחִי אָדָם שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ

When one of the terms is used alone to define man, it serves to convey the entire concept of man’s unique identity as God’s replica and resemblance (Gen. 5:1; 9:6; Js. 3:9). Thus, the early church fathers’ attempt to assign each term to a different aspect of man must be rejected.

Second, the Bible portrays mankind as a living image of God in contrast with lifeless images. This is perhaps the most striking difference between man and all other “images” described in Scripture. Genesis 2:7 tells us that God “breathed into [Adam’s] nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.” In contrast, consider the description of idols in Psa. 115:3-7:

Our God is in the heavens; he does all that he pleases. Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat.

The deadness of a metal, wood, or stone statue is contrary to the inherent liveliness of God. For that reason, God chose to create a living image that reflects His quality of life, and He forbade the production of dead idols to represent him.

Third, the terms “image” and “likeness” do not refer to some external pattern to which man correspond but to what man actually is. This point is debated. The debate centers on the two prepositions that precede “image” and “likeness.” Note again Gen. 1:26: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The English word “in” translates the Hebrew preposition beth (בְּ). The English phrase “according to” translates the Hebrew preposition kaph (כְּ). If we compare Gen. 1:26 with Gen. 5:3, we find that both of these prepositions are used interchangeably. The English prepositions seem to imply that the image of God is something different from and external to man himself. In other words, the text seems to say that God created man in a way that corresponded to his image—as if God’s image is something distinct from man.[21]

These prepositions, however, share another meaning in common—that of identity.[22] Thus, in Exod. 6:3, using the preposition beth, God tells Moses that He had revealed Himself to the patriarchs “as El Shaddai [בְּאֵל שַׁדָּי].” God did not reveal himself to them as something that merely corresponded to God Almighty. Rather He revealed Himself to them in the capacity of El Shaddai.[23] In Neh. 7:2, Nehemiah uses the preposition kaph to tell us that his brother Hanani “was a faithful man [כְּאִישׁ].” Hanani is not just like a faithful man. He is a faithful man.[24] Thus, we may say that God created man to be the image of God. The image of God is not something outside of man or inside of man. The image of God is man.[25]

Fourth, the “image of God” cannot be limited merely to one aspect of man but refers to the whole man in terms of what he is and what he does. Some have noted that the Genesis account does not provide us with formal and detailed definition of what it means to be created as the image of God.[26] This is true. Man is simply identified as the visible replica of God. There is no limitation placed on what that means, except for the fact that man is not identical to God. Therefore, to say that God created man to be His image is to say that God intends man to resemble and represent God on earth in all of the ways man is capable of doing so. Of course, that raises the question, “In what ways may man resemble his Creator?” To answer that question, we will need to consider the whole teaching of Scripture. Wayne Grudem has underscored this point well when he writes:

As we read the rest of Scripture, we realize that full understanding of man’s likeness to God would require a full understanding of who God is in his being and in his actions and a full understanding of who man is and what he does. The more we know about God and man the more similarities we will recognize, and the more fully we will understand what Scripture means when it says that man is in the image of God. The expression refers to every way in which man is like God.[27]

Accordingly, we must reject the Enlightenment’s approach that separates anthropology from theology.[28] Instead, we affirm with Calvin, when he asserts, “Man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating [God] to scrutinize himself.”[29] So there must be a theological focus to our anthropology. Man in his totality is the living visible replica of the one true God.[30]

Fifth, the terms “image” and “likeness” are intrinsic to man’s nature as human and, therefore, still apply to fallen man (Gen. 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Js. 3:9). When God determined to create man in His own image there was no conditionality in God’s intent or in the realization of that intent. Genesis 1:26 does not say, “Let us consider the possibility of making man in our image.” Nor does Gen. 1:27 say, “So God created man so that he might become His image,” as if “imaging” God were simply the goal of human existence. Rather, these verses teach us that man was immediately God’s image by design and that his identity as God’s image is intrinsic to his very nature as a human being. Accordingly, if man were to cease to be God’s image, he would cease to be completely human.[31] More importantly, the Scriptures continue to identify man as God’s image after the fall. In Gen. 9:6, capital punishment for murder is instituted on the basis that even fallen men are still the image of God. In the NT, both Paul and James regulate Christian conduct on the basis of man’s continuing identity as the image and likeness of God (1 Cor. 11:7; Js. 3:9). Consequently, however we define the image of God, we cannot speak of it as “lost” or “destroyed” after the fall. Even fallen man continues to be a visible replica of God.[32]

3. Three primary ways in which we may view man as God’s image.

My goal in this essay is not to “reinvent the wheel.” Rather, I would like to incorporate the valid insights of other theologians. The problem with many formulations of man as God’s image is not so much what they say; it is what they leave out. I would like to portray a fuller picture of what it means to be God’s image.

First, mankind is like God with respect to his constitution.[33] There are many ways in which man’s spiritual and physical constitution resembles God. For example, man, like God, is a living being in contrast with dead idols (Gen. 2:7; Psa. 115:3-8). Moreover, man, like God, is a personal being. As personal beings, both God and man have self-awareness, the awareness of others, and the ability to communicate (Gen. 2:15-24; 3:1-13; 4:6-15; passim). Every time we use “personal pronouns,” we bear witness to our awareness of self and others, as well as our ability to communicate. Furthermore, man has intellectual, emotional, and volitional capacity like God.[34] Like God, man can think, feel, and choose. Man also has aesthetic capacity. Like God, man can discern and appreciate beauty when he sees it.[35] Finally, man has moral capacity or what Meredith Kline aptly calls, “The sense of deity in imperative mode.”[36] Like God, man has the constitutional ability to distinguish good from evil.[37]

This raises the question of man’s physical body. If man is the image of God in the totality of his being, then in what way (if any) is his physical body related to God? Since the Scripture represents God as a bodiless spirit (Deut. 4:12; John 4:24), theologians have refrained from including man’s body as part of the image. J. Gresham Machen, for example, writes, “The ‘image of God’ cannot well refer to man’s body, because God is a spirit; it must therefore refer to man’s soul.”[38] However, there are two good reasons for viewing man’s physical body as an inherent part of being the image of God. First, man’s body is what makes His resemblance to God both concrete and visible. Man is the “image of God” precisely because he is a three-dimensional, concrete replica. For that reason, angels are not “images” of God. Second, the physical capacities and actions of man’s body are analogous to God’s capacities and actions. The Scripture speaks of God as having eyes, ears, a mouth, a face, hands and arms, a mind, and a heart because God has the capacity to see, to hear, to speak, to sing, to feel, to think, and to act. These so-called “anthropomorphisms” of Scripture do not reflect, as some suggest, “the necessary limitations of language and human thought.”[39] Instead, they reflect the divinely intended purpose of man’s body. God purposely created man’s body to reflect His likeness.[40] In summary, we should view man in the totality of his being, body and soul, as a visible replica God.

This raises another important question: What part of man’s constitution has been negatively affected by the fall? Some modern theologians argue that every man is born neutral and is unaffected by the fall. Thus, what mankind really needs is education. If we educate men and teach them how to behave properly, using Jesus as the example, we can “save” the human race. Other theologians have tried to isolate certain parts of man that have been affected by the fall and other parts that have not been affected by the fall. For example, some believe that the will has been affected by the fall, but not the mind. Others believe that the mind is affected by the fall, but not the will. Not surprisingly, those who hold to partial depravity have also tended to preach a gospel that assigns to man some part in salvation.[41]

But a comprehensive study of Scripture reveals that the fall has affected man’s entire constitution. As God through the prophet Isaiah declares, “The whole head [כָּל־רֹאשׁ] is sick, and the whole heart [וְכָל־לֵבָ] faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it [אֵין־בּוֹ מְתֹם], but bruises and sores and raw wounds” (Isa. 1:5-6). Although man is still in one sense a “living being,” the Scripture describes him spiritually as “dead in trespasses and sins [νεκροὺς τοῖς παραπτώμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις]” (Eph. 2:1ff.). Man still has the ability to communicate, but now his words are often perverse and destructive (Js. 3:2-10). Man still has a mind, will, and emotions, but according to Scripture, even these have been affected by sin (Rom. 8:7-8; 1 Cor. 2:13; Eph. 4:17-19; Js. 1:20). Although man still has aesthetic and moral capacity, he often fails to appreciate what is beautiful and what is good (1 Cor. 14:40; Philip. 4:8). And though man has a body that still reflects truth about God, yet that body is now subject to deformity (Lev. 21:18; Matt. 23:15), disease (Job 7:5; Acts 12:23), decay (2 Cor. 4:16), death (Rom. 6:23; Heb. 9:27), and dissolution (Gen. 3:19; Isa. 14:11).

This is what theologians mean by “total depravity.” Every aspect of man’s constitution—both spiritual and physical—has been affected by sin. Apart from God’s gracious intervention, man has no power to save himself (Jer. 13:23; John 6:44, 65). His only deliverance is a gospel of sovereign grace that produces a radical change of heart and results in a resurrection of the body.[42] The gospel is not merely the transformation of one part of man; it is the transformation of the whole man. It is the complete restoration of man’s entire constitution—body and soul—to an accurate resemblance and representation of God.

Second, mankind is like God with respect to his relations. As noted above, God created man in a relationship as male and female: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him [בָּרָא אֹתוֹ]; male and female he created them [זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם]” (Gen. 1:27). The male-female relationship to the imago Dei is again highlighted in Gen. 5:1-2: “This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man [בְּיוֹם בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם], he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them [זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם], and he blessed them and named them Man [וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמָם אָדָם] when they were created.” These passages do seem to relate man’s male-female relationship to God’s image. Not only do the “man” (אִישׁ) and the “woman” (אִשָּׁה) reflect God as individuals. Man and woman as two individuals united in a relational bond represent God.

Let’s consider some specific ways in which man as male and female reflects or resembles God. To begin with, man and woman in relational bond reflect God’s plurality in unity. Notice again the wording of the first part of Gen. 1:26: “Then God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Both the verb (“let us make”) and also the pronoun (“our”) are in the plural. Some early church fathers interpreted this as a reference to the Trinity.[43] Most modern scholars have rejected that interpretation as reading the NT into the OT. Some suggest the verse reflects an early polytheism.[44] Others see it as a reference to God and the angels.[45] Others interpret it as a plural of majesty.[46] Still others see it as referring merely to God’s self-deliberation.[47] But I believe that the early church fathers were closer to the truth. The verse clearly seems to reflect a plurality in the Godhead.[48] Though we should not interpret it as an explicit revelation of the Trinity, we may see it as an anticipatory revelation of the Trinity (see also Gen. 3:22; Isa. 6:5).[49] The bottom line is that God is not a solitary being. He has never been entirely alone. There exists within the unity of the Godhead a relationship of persons. And if, as James Jordan notes, “[God] is both a Person and a Society, both One and Three,”[50] then it should not surprise us if that social aspect of the Creator is reflected in the visible replica He creates. Moreover, a husband and wife in marital union reflect God’s relationship with His people. The Old Testament portrays Israel as Jehovah’s wife (Isa. 54:5; Jer. 31:32; Ezek. 16:32; Hos. 1-3). The NT portrays the church as Christ’s bride (Eph. 5:22ff.; Rev. 21:1-3). Thus, the covenantal relationship of marriage is intended to be a visible replica God’s special covenantal relationship with his people. That is one of the primary reasons why God hates marital infidelity and divorce. Finally, husband and wife as parents reflect God’s relationship with created humanity. God’s ability to create men in his own image is reflected in the man and woman’s ability to procreate children after their own likeness (Gen. 1:28; 5:3). Note this connection in Genesis 5:1-3:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image [וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ כְּצַלְמוֹ], and named him Seth.

Not surprisingly, humanity as a whole is called “the offspring of God” (Acts 17:28, 29).[51] Thus, God’s relationship is reflected in the family, which is the foundational unit of human society from which the state develops.[52]

In light of these considerations, there clearly seems to be a relational aspect to the image of God.[53] Man as husband and wife, man as parent and child, man as individual and society are a reflection of God. But to what extent has the fall affected this aspect of God’s image? Do man and woman as marriage partners and as parents accurately resemble God’s relationship within the Godhead and His relationship to His people? Sad to say, the prevalence of strife, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, and child abuse underscore the fact that mankind is terribly misrepresenting the Godhead in his relations. And relational problems do not just plague the institution of the family. Both society and the church have experienced a breakdown in neighborly and brotherly love. Where there is violence, fraud, treachery, gossip, betrayal, and other social evils, mankind is misrepresenting the inter-Trinitarian love and harmony of the Godhead. Accordingly, men and women do not merely need a change of heart. They also need mended relationships. Sanctification needs to affect the way a husband dwells with his wife and the way a wife relates to her husband (Eph. 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Parents need to learn to bring up their children in the fear and nurture of the Lord (Eph. 6:4; Col. 3:21). Children need to learn how to honor their parents (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20). The fellowship and love of the brethren should resemble the inter-Trinitarian communion between the persons of the Godhead (John 13:35; 1 John 3:10). And there should be no such thing as a Christian hermit! “Let your light so shine before men,” Jesus said, “that they may see your good works and glorify your father in heaven” (Matt. 5:13). We should not preach a “social gospel,” but we should preach a gospel that has social ramifications!

Third, mankind is like God with respect to his function and roles in the world. As a symbol of their authority, ancient Near Eastern kings would sometimes erect a personal statue in the geographical spheres of their jurisdiction (Dan. 3:1ff.).[54] Even the king himself was viewed as the image and vice-regent of the territorial deity. The following examples range from the Sixteenth through the Thirteenth Centuries b.c. Pharaoh Ahmose I (1550-1525 b.c.), for instance, is depicted as “a prince like Re, the child of Oeb, his heir, the image of Re, whom he created, the avenger (or the representative), for whom he has set himself on earth.”[55] The Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut (1479-1457 b.c.) is styled, “The superb image of Amon; the image of Amon on earth; the image of Amon-Re to eternity, his living monument on earth.”[56] Several texts refer to Amenhotep II (1427-1400 b.c.) as an “image” of the gods.[57] Later, Amon-Re is represented as saying to Amenophis III (1390-1352 b.c.): “You are by beloved son, who came forth from my members, my image, whom I have put on earth, I have given to you to rule the earth in peace.”[58] The earliest known parallel in Mesopotamia is found in the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic, which depicts the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta (1244-1208 b.c.) as “the eternal image of Enlil.”[59] In light of these ancient Near Eastern parallels, Hans Wolff writes,

Man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies.[60]

Therefore, man not only resembles God constitutively and relationally but also functionally, in the capacity of a vice-regent with dominion over the creation.[61] A careful look at the wording of Gen. 1:26 lends further support to this view. Some English versions may give the impression that God’s creating man as His image and God’s assigning man the task of ruling are separate, unrelated things: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image…. And let them have dominion … over all the earth” (ESV; see also KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT, CSB). But the Hebrew construction suggests a consequential relationship.[62] The verse is better translated, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule” (NET). Thus, ruling is a function of God’s image, which is further underscored in verse 28. One should also consider the teaching of Psa. 8:3-8:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

Obviously, David sees an intimate connection between man’s identity and his God-given function as ruler over creation. Therefore, in light of the biblical data, we should not exclude the function of ruling from a definition of God’s image.[63] Indeed, man’s functional role as God’s vice-regent is likely the primary facet of man’s identity highlighted in the Genesis creation account. In this important respect the Biblical view of creation and mankind differs from the other cosmogonies of the ancient Near East. According to the creation accounts of Egypt and Mesopotamia, the creation of man is an afterthought. Humans are normally viewed as the slaves or “the cattle” of the gods.[64] The Scriptures, however, present all mankind as God’s royal son and co-regent over creation. No wonder the Psalmist is moved to grateful praise: “Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Psa. 8:9).

How does man accomplish this function of dominion? What does it entail? It does not just mean that man is the boss over animals. According to Gen. 1:28, it involves “filling” the earth by means of procreation, and it entails “subduing” the earth by means of vocation. The word translated “subdue” signifies to bring under one’s control and into one’s service. This is what Adam did by tending the Garden of Eden. This is what Abel did by shepherding sheep. This includes mining, metallurgy, medicine, art, music, literature, science, and other technological advancements. By these pursuits men bring the resources of creation under their control and into their service. This has sometimes been called man’s “cultural mandate.”

According to Gen. 2:5-25, God assigns mankind two distinct roles for carrying out this mandate. Although the man and the woman possess equal worth and dignity as the image of God, yet God created them distinct in order to function in distinct roles. The man is to function in the role of a leader, and the woman is to function in the role of a helper. There are several features of the Genesis creation account that support this distinction of roles between the man and the woman. First, God created the man and the woman in a different manner and for a different though complementary purpose. God took the man from the ground in order to cultivate the ground (vv. 5-17). On the other hand, God took the woman from the man in order to help the man (vv. 20-23). The woman is to be man’s “helper comparable [corresponding] to him” (v. 20). Second, the man and woman were not created simultaneously. God created the man first and gave him instructions concerning the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then God created the woman and brought her to the man. This historical order of man’s creation preceding the woman’s creation forms the basis of Paul’s teaching in 1 Tim. 2:11-13: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Thus, according to Paul, the man’s role in relation to the woman is to be a leader-teacher, and the woman’s role in relation to man is to be a follower-learner. Third, the man not only names the animals, demonstrating his authority over them, but he also names the woman, demonstrating his authority over her.[65] And he gives her two names, each reflecting her distinctive role. He names her “woman” because she was taken from “man”[66] in order to serve him (v. 23).[67] Then, after the fall, he names her “Eve” (חַוָּה), which means “giver of life,”[68] because she would be the mother of all living (3:20). This certainly seems to underscore her role as a mother and probably also highlights her role as the channel through whom a Deliverer from the curse would arise.[69] So on the one hand, men and women are of equal value and worth since they are both created as the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:2). On the other hand, men and woman as the image of God have distinct roles through which they each resemble a complementary role of God himself. Man is to resemble God primarily in the capacity of a head. Woman is to resemble God primarily in the capacity of a helper. The Hebrew term translated “helper” (עֵזֶר) in Gen. 2:18, 20, refers to someone who assists another in a particular need. Interestingly, the term is used most often of God in the OT (e.g., Psa. 10:14; 30:10; 54:4). Thus, the role of a “helper” is not a demeaning or inferior kind of role. It is a God-magnifying role. But just how does woman as a subordinate to man resemble God and bring Him glory? Philippians 2:5-8 provides an answer:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It is true that this passage calls all Christians, men and women, to mutual deference (2:1-5). Nevertheless, it is the woman’s special role and privilege to highlight the disposition of Christ in this particular facet of the Godhead. If this is true, then feminism is not the mark of social improvement, but rather another indication of human depravity. And so-called “evangelical” feminism has no place in the Christian church (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

It would be wrong, however, if we only viewed the creation mandate as a cultural mandate. The mandate that God gave to mankind was also religious or cultic in nature. Mankind was to serve as God’s royal priesthood, advancing the divine kingdom beyond the boundaries of Eden and transforming the entire earth into a cosmic sanctuary for his holy Suzerain-Creator. In fact, it can be argued that the Great Commission that God gave to Christ (Isa. 42:1-4), the Second Adam, and which Christ fulfills with His church (Matt. 28:18-20), the Second Eve, is an extension of the original mandate that God bestowed upon the First Adam and First Eve.[70]

To summarize, God created mankind to be his visible replica and representative in the totality of his being, relations, and function upon the earth. That is what it means to be the image of God.

Concluding Applications

What practical lessons can we draw from a biblical understanding of man’s God-given identity as God’s visible replica and vice-regent? Allow me to highlight six vital implications:[71]

First, the biblical doctrine of man as God’s image establishes the true dignity of the human race (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1-2; 9:6). Man is not a product that randomly (by chance) evolved from primates, as evolution teaches. If that were true, then man would have no dignity or meaning in life. Ultimately it would not matter if we treated people like trash. It would not matter if the rich took advantage of the poor, or the strong oppressed the weak. After all, evolution teaches “the survival of the fittest.” But the Bible teaches that man is a special creation of God, and as such, he has dignity and meaning in life. He was created for God’s glory, to be God’s vice-regent, and to have dominion over the earth.

Second, the biblical doctrine of man as God’s image also establishes the true dignity of every individual human being (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1-2; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; Js. 3:9). Whether male or female, young or old, black or white, slave or free, Jew or Gentile, born or unborn, each individual human being is God’s image and has value in God’s sight. Even the non-Christian continues to be an image-bearer of God (Gen. 9:6; Js. 3:9). Therefore, there is no place for male chauvinism. There is no place for bigotry. There is no place for racial prejudice. There is no place for the inhumane treatment of other human beings. And there is no place for the selfish slaughter of defenseless unborn babies.

Third, the biblical doctrine of man as God’s image upholds the dignity of the marriage relationship and the complementary roles of men and women. In a day when the institution of marriage is under attack, this point needs to be stressed. All forms of immorality, especially homosexuality, are distortions of God’s image. Furthermore, the feminist movement, which depreciates the woman’s role as a mother and housekeeper, is an attack on God’s image. On the other hand, where there are happy marriages, and men and women assume their proper roles, there we see a reflection of the Godhead.

Fourth, the biblical doctrine of man as God’s image underscores fallen man’s total depravity. Some fear that an emphasis on man’s dignity as God’s image will undermine the doctrine of total depravity. It is man’s dignity as God’s image, however, that makes his sin and rebellion against God all the worse. John Murray underscores this point when he writes,

The higher is our conception of man in his intrinsic essence, the greater must be the gravity of his offense in rebellion and enmity against God. If we think of depravity as enmity against God, the more aggravated must be that enmity when it is man in the image of God who vents it…. Man conceived of as in the image of God, so far from toning down the doctrine of total depravity, points rather to its gravity, intensity, and irreversibility.[72]

Just as the shame that a prodigal son brings upon his parents is heightened by his continuing relationship to them as their offspring (cf., Gen 5:3), so too the shame that fallen man casts upon God is increased by his continuing relationship to God as His image. Fallen man has now become an inaccurate replica and a misrepresentation of his Creator. Man’s sin is a continuous slander against the majesty, might, and benevolence of a Holy God.

Fifth, the biblical doctrine of man as God’s image provides a pattern for sanctification. As Meredith Kline remarks,

Man’s likeness to God is a demand to be like God; the indicative here has the force of an imperative. Formed in the image of God, man is informed by a sense of deity by which he knows what God is like, not merely that God is (Rom. 1:19ff.). And knowledge of what one’s Father-God is, is knowledge of what, in creaturely semblance, one must be himself. With the sense of deity comes conscience, the sense of deity in imperative mode. The basic and general covenantal norm of the imitation of God was thus written on the tables of man’s heart (Rom. 1:32; 2:14f.).[73]

Thus, God commands man to work six days and to rest upon the seventh “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (Exod. 20:11). In Lev. 19:2, God says to the children of Israel, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (see also 1 Pet. 1:15, 16). Jesus says to the disciples, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). We are to imitate God because we are His image.

Sixth, the biblical doctrine of man as God’s image identifies the goal of salvation in Christ. The NT identifies the goal of salvation in terms both of our restoration as God’s image and also of our conformity to Christ’s image (Rom. 8:29). And this is not surprising since the Lord Jesus Christ is God’s perfect image (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3). Our great hope is that someday we will be true images just like Jesus. And that great hope is itself a motivation to pursue Christ-likeness in this life. In the words of the Apostle John, “Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).

Notes

1. This would be the consistent view of naturalistic evolution, on which such philosophies as Materialism, Marxism, Atheism, Pragmatism, and Behaviorism are built.
2. Scientology and many “New Age” religions and cults promote such a viewpoint. See Peter Jones, Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Pagan America (Mukilteo, WA: WinePress Publishing, 1997).
3. These all employ the impersonal jussive. See Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (GKC), ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A. E. Cowley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910), §109a.
4. Gesenius notes, “The cohortative lays stress on the determination underlying the action, and the personal interest in it” (GKC §108a).
5. Scripture citations are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.
6. Irenaeus of Lyons appears to suggest a distinction between “image” and “likeness” but is not always consistent. Compare, for example, Book III, 23:1, 2; Book IV, 38:3, 4; Book V, 1:3, 6:1 in Against Heresies, in vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977). Clement of Alexandria likewise vacillates between seeing the two terms as distinct and synonymous. See Exhortation to the Heathen (Protreptikos), Chapter 5 [p. 199] in The Ante-Nicene Fathers; Christ the Educator (Paidogogos), Book I, 11, 12, vol. 23 of The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, trans. Simon P. Wood, ed. Joseph Deferrari (New York: Fathers of the Church, 1954); Stromateis, Book III, 42:6, vol. 85 of The Fathers of the Church. David Cairns provides a helpful analysis of these two prominent and influential early church fathers vis-à-vis their view of man as God’s image and likeness. The Image of God in Man (New York: Philosophical Library, 1953), 73-86. For other surveys of the early church fathers, see also Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1986), 33-35 and H. D. MacDonald, The Christian View of Man (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1981), 47-67.
7. For Aquinas’s reflections on man as God’s image, see volume 13 of St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica, translated and edited by Edmund Hill, O.P. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), 49-86 [Question 93, Articles 1-9]. See also the analyses of Aquinas’s teaching in Cairns, 114-19; Hoekema, 36-42; MacDonald, 80-92.
8. This may be why anthropologists have defined man as Homo sapiens, literally, “thinking man.”
9. As we will see, this tendency to limit God’s image to man’s intellect has more affinities with Greek philosophy than with biblical teaching. Both Plato and Aristotle saw man’s intellect as the “spark of divinity.” But the Bible does not limit the image of God to man’s intellect.
10. Lectures on Genesis 1-5, trans. George V. Schick, vol. 1 of Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1958), 62-65. Luther also sees a functional aspect (i.e., “ruling”) to man as God’s image (66-68). Cairns provides an overview of Luther’s view in which he notes that Luther affirmed the existence of a “relic” of “the image” in man after the fall, though he commonly speaks of the image being entirely lost at the fall (121-27).
11. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), I.15.3-4. Like Luther, Calvin sometimes spoke of “the image” being entirely lost or destroyed. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, trans. John King (reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2003), 1:94. Elsewhere, however, he qualifies his language, denying that the image has been “totally annihilated” but describing its remnants as “frightful deformity.” Institutes, I.15.4. For more on Calvin’s view, see Cairns, 128-45; Hoekema, 42-49; MacDonald, 95-96.
12. Calvin also saw traces of God’s image in man’s physical constitution. Institutes, I.15.3. Luther and Calvin allowed that man’s role as vice-regent over the earth was related to his identity as God’s image, but they saw this functional aspect as clearly subordinate to the constitutional dimension of the imago Dei.
13. Church Dogmatics, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. J. W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), III, 1.195-96. Brunner expounds his reflections in Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology, trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1939), 82-211; The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1952), 75-78. Though not uncritical of some aspects of the existential view, David Cairns adopts the basic “relational” perspective. The Image of God in Man, 180-205.
14. See Brunner, Doctrine of Creation, 55-57. As we are going to see, there is certainly some validity to this view. Genesis 1:27 seems to tie man’s being created as God’s image to man’s creation as male and female. Nevertheless, when this view is made to serve existential theology, it tends towards a “social gospel.” Man’s need is seen not so much in terms of a new heart, but rather in terms of repaired relationships. Furthermore, this view can tend towards a depreciation of doctrine. According to existential theology, it is no longer important whether you and I believe the right things about God. What is important is that we have a “personal encounter” with God and love our fellow man. As a result, one’s creed becomes a completely personal and subjective matter.
15. David J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 53-103; Edward Mason Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1984), 80-358; J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 93-145.
16. In addition to the scholars noted in the preceding note, exponents of this view include Walter Brueggemann, Genesis: Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 32; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary, 2nd ed., trans. John Marks (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 60; Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 160-61. Charles Sherlock combines the relational and functional aspects. The Doctrine of Humanity, in Contours of Christian Theology, ed. Gerald Bray (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 29-38. As we will argue below, this functional aspect of subduing and ruling the earth is a major aspect of what it means to be “the image of God” and probably the primary idea emphasized in the text. By itself, however, the functional view is insufficient to account for all that it means to be created in God’s image.
17. The usages of צֶלֶם in Psa. 39:6 and 73:20 may be metaphorical and abstract. But even these “dream-images” correspond to what is concrete and physical.
18. These would include: ὁμοιος, ὁμοιαζω, ὁμοιοω, and ὁμοιωμα.
19. David Clines sees as “likeness” as complementary to “image”: then specifies what kind of image it is: it is a ‘likeness’—image, not simply an image; representational, not simply representative.” “The Image of God in Man,” 91. Gerald Bray sees “image” as primarily concrete in nature and “likeness” as primarily abstract in nature. “The Significance of God’s Image in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 42:2 (1991), 196.
20. Clines sees the two terms as a hendiadys (92). In the Genesis passages (1:26-27; 5:1), however, the nouns “image” and “likeness” are not separated by a conjunction, which is what we would expect for a hendiadys.
21. Some have attempted to deny the meaning of correspondence to the preposition beth. However, Exod. 25:40 clearly uses the beth with this meaning, when God instructs Moses to make the articles of the tabernacle “according to the pattern [בְּתַבְנִיתָם] that was shown to [him] upon the mountain.” The following commentators argue for correspondence to an external image: Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1990), 137; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 167; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, in The Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 28-29. Phillip Hughes also defends this interpretation in his monograph, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1989), 15-23.
22. The beth essentiae and the kaph veritas (or asseverative). See GKC §§ 118x; 119f; Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (GBH), trans. T. Muraoka (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000), § 133c, g; Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), §§ 249, 261.
23. For more examples of the beth essentiae, see Num. 18:26; 26:53; 36:2; Deut. 1:13; 26:14; Josh. 13:6-7; 23:4; Psa. 78:55; Ezek. 20:11.
24. For more examples of the kaph veritas, see Num. 11:1; 2 Sam. 9:8; Job 10:9; Psa. 122:3; Eccl. 10:5; Cant. 8:10; Hos. 5:10; Nah. 3:6.
25. This view has been ably defended by David J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 53-103. Let me offer the reader several other considerations that support this conclusion. First of all, in ancient Near Eastern religious literature, kings (and priests) are referred to as the image of their god, not merely as corresponding to some image of their god (see the subsequent discussion later in the body of this paper). Second, in 1 Cor. 11:7 the apostle Paul explicitly states, “man is [ὑπάρχω, which, in this case, is synonymous with εἰμί] the image and glory of God.” He does not even use a preposition. He simply identifies man as God’s image. Third, the NT writers refer to Jesus Christ as the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:14) or the exact representation of God (Heb. 1:3). Since Christ is the second Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:45-46), we would expect a parallel between Christ as God’s image and mankind as God’s image. Fourth, if the “image of God” is something external to man and if man is created to correspond to that image, then it may be asked whether this image is male or female in form. If male in form, how then can it be said that woman is also created after the image of God? Finally, since the concept of “image” almost always has a three-dimensional, physical-material connotation, to posit some external image as the pattern for man’s creation would be to suggest the preexistence of some material object. Such a pre-existent material object would not be consistent with the doctrines of God’s spirituality and the non-eternality of matter. For these reasons, it seems best to conclude that the “image” and “likeness” of God refer to what man actually is, not merely to some external pattern to which man corresponds.
26. Sherlock, 31; G. C. Berkhouwer, Man: The Image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jellema, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962), 67.
27. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 443.
28. The English poet Alexander Pope epitomizes the spirit of the Enlightenment when he writes, “Know then thyself; presume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is Man.” An Essay on Man, II, 1, cited by R. Laird Harris, Man—God’s Eternal Creation: Old Testament Teaching on Man and His Culture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), 7.
29. Institutes, I.1.1, 2.
30. Herman Bavinck provides a helpful summary of the biblical teaching: “It follows from the doctrine of human creation in the image of God that his image extends to the whole person. Nothing in a human being is excluded from the image of God. While all creatures display vestiges of God, only a human being is the image of God. And he is such totally, in soul and body, in all his faculties and powers, in all conditions and relations. Man is the image of God because and insofar as he is truly human, and he is truly and essentially human, because, and to the extent, he is the image of God.” In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 187. Others who take a more holistic approach in defining the imago Dei include Ronald B. Allen, The Majesty of Man: The Dignity of Being Human, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), 73-84; Hoekema, 11-111; Hughes, 51-64; MacDonald, 31-46.
31. Clines, 101.
32. Some have tried to deny this conclusion. For example, Jochem Douma, following Klass Schilder, argues that the imago Dei refers primarily to man in right relationship to his Creator: “Being the image of God is first of all a religious matter. Just as Yahweh can withdraw from his temple, even so can He withdraw from man, who was created as His temple and as His image…. Is the unbeliever still the image of God? ‘No,’ the answer must be. But the ‘no’ is not without qualification. It is a ‘no, but ….’ No matter how estranged from God and His service man becomes, he remains a temple. The temple may well be empty, but that does not give us the right to speak with denigration about the temple or tear it down…. That he might not be functioning as the image of God is not decisive for us; what is decisive is that God wants him to function as the image of God, because man was created this way and this way alone.” The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1996), 51-53. I realize that to identify fallen man as the image of God may appear to minimize the effects of sin and to undermine the doctrine of total depravity; as we are going to see, however, fallen man’s continuing identity and function as God’s image actually intensifies his depravity. Man was an accurate replica and faithful representation of his Creator; however, as a result of the fall, God’s image has been marred and distorted. Fallen man has now become an inaccurate replica and a misrepresentation of his Creator.
33. In this sense, man may be called an “ontological” image.
34. There are literally hundreds of passages, but a few will suffice: intellectual (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 29:4; 1 Kings 3:12; Eccl. 2:1, 15; Cant. 5:2; Isa. 44:19; Mark 12:30; Luke 8:35; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:10), emotional (Gen. 42:28; Deut. 28:65; 1 Sam. 2:1; Neh. 2:2; Psa. 40:8; 73:21; Prov. 23:16; Cant. 5:4; Isa. 16:11; Jer. 4:19; Lam. 1:20; 2:11; 3:13; Hos. 11:8; John 16:20-24; Acts 13:52; Philip. 4:4), and volitional (Deut. 2:20; Josh. 24:15; Judg. 9:3; 1 Chron. 22:19; Psa. 37:4; Eccl. 8:11; Luke 7:30; John 7:17; 2 Cor. 8:3; 1 Pet. 2:4-7).
35. Gen. 12:14; 24:16; 29:17; Exod. 28:2, 40; 2 Chron. 3:6; Psa. 27:4; Prov. 31:30; 1 Cor. 14:40; Philip. 4:8.
36. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), 62. It is this ethical dimension of man’s constitution that is emphasized in chapter 6, paragraph 2 of both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the London Baptist Confession of Faith. The latter reads, “After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, rendering them fit unto that life to God for which they were created; being made after the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness.”
37. Gen. 2:16-17; 3:6-7; 6:5; Eccl. 7:29; Jer. 17:9; Rom. 1:32; 2:14-15; 3:10-18; Eph. 4:23-24; Col. 3:10.
38. The Christian View of Man (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 169.
39. J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 121.
40. James Jordan, Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 1999), 105ff.; idem, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 19-26.
41. This is called “synergism,” which Millard Erickson defines as, “The idea that man works together with God in certain aspects of salvation, for example, faith or regeneration.” Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1986), 163. Although the Greek word συνεργός is used of those who labor together in preaching the gospel (Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 1 Thess. 3:2), it is not used to refer to sinners cooperating with God in the work of regeneration.
42. See Deut. 30:6; Ezek. 36:26; Jonah 2:8; John 6:37; 1 Cor. 15:51-57; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:4-8.
43. Augustine writes, “Because he is made in the image of the Trinity, consequently it was said ‘in our image.’” On the Trinity, 11.5.8. Fulgentius of Ruspe (c. 467-532) remarks, “When he says ‘our’ in the plural, he shows that the very same God in whose image the human being was made is not one in person. For if in that one essence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there were one person, ‘to our image’ would not have been spoken but ‘in my image.’ Nor would he have said ‘let us make’ but ‘I shall make.’… But while the human being is said to be made according to the one image of the one God, the divinity of the Holy Trinity in one essence is announced.” To Peter on the Faith, 5. Both of these citations are drawn from Genesis 1-11, ed. Andrew Louth, vol. 1 of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2001), 1:30-31.
44. Herman Gunkel, Genesis, trans. Mark E. Biddle (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1997), 111.
45. Alan J. Hauser, “Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Implied in the Creation Account? No,” in The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986), 110-29; Bruce Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 64-65; Wenham, 27-28. The problems of this view are (1) men are created as God’s image but not as the “image of angels” (v. 27), and (2) God created the world alone, without the co-participation of angels (Psa. 102:25; 2 Kings 19:15; Isa. 40:13-14; 44:24; Jer. 10:13).
46. S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, Westminster Commentaries, ed. Walter Lock (London: Methuen & Co., 1904), 14. But as Paul Joüon notes, the plural of majesty only occurs in nouns, not in pronouns and verbs. GBH § 114e, n. 1; § 136d-e.
47. Joüon, GBH, § 114e.
48. Clines, 68-69; Mathews, 162-63; Hamilton, 134.
49. See Eugene H. Merrill, “Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Implied in the Genesis Creation Account? Yes” [this is the counterpoint to Hauser’s article referenced above] in The Genesis Debate, 110-29; Payne, 166-67.
50. Jordan, Through New Eyes, 24.
51. In a more vital sense, however, only true believers are called “the children” of God (John 1:12-13; Eph. 5:1; Philip. 2:15; 1 John 3:1, 2, 7, 10; 5:2).
52. See Josh. 7:16-18: household [בַּיִת]; clan [מִשְׁפָּחָה]; tribe [שֵׁבֶט]; nation [גּוֹי], as noted in Wolff, 214-16.
53. The dual-emphasis upon personal responsibility (Num. 35:33; Deut. 24:16; Jer. 31:30; Ezek. 18:2-21) and corporate solidarity (Gen. 3:15; 12:1-3; Exod. 20:5; Josh. 7:11-12, 18-20; 22:20) may also serve to highlight the One and the Many within the Godhead.
54. Clines, 83; Curtis, 117-20; Middleton, 104-08; Wolff, 160.
55. Cited by Clines, 85.
56. Cited by Curtis, 226.
57. Ibid., 227.
58. Cited by Clines, 85.
59. Cited by Middleton, 112. For more examples, see Clines, 83-85; Middleton, 108-22; Curtis, 143-245.
60. Wolff, 160-61. Walter Brueggemann remarks in a similar vein, “It is now generally agreed that the image of God reflected in human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statues of himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present.” Genesis, in Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 32.
61. See Clines, 95-99; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:146-47; Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 160-61.
62. Here the waw (וְ) plus the jussive is translated best as a purpose clause. See Job 21:19; GKC § 165.
63. Clines remarks, “No definition of the image is complete which does not refer to this function of rulership” (97).
64. As noted above, the concept of the image of a deity constituted part of the ancient Near Eastern royal ideology. Two early Egyptian texts, however, serve as exceptions to the general rule and apply the concept of “image” to all humanity. An excerpt from the Instruction for Merikare (c. 2100 b.c.) reads, “Well directed are men, the cattle of the god. He made heaven and earth according to their desire, and he repelled the water-monster. He made the breath of life (for) their nostrils. They who have issued from his body are his images [snnw]. He arises in heaven according to their desire. He made for them plants, animals, fowl, and fish to feed them.” (lines 131-33). A later text, Instruction of Ani, which dates to the middle of the 2nd millennium b.c., reads, “Men are in the image of the god in their custom of hearing a man in regard to his reply. It is not the wise alone who is in his image [snnw], while the multitude are every kind of cattle.” Cited in Middleton, 99-100. For the most part, however, the texts of the ancient Near East reserve the concept of image of deity for figures of royalty. For a helpful assessment of the parallels and contrasts, see John Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 19-44.
65. In the same way, parents demonstrate their authority over their children when the parents name their children.
66. The English terms reflect the Hebrew word play between אִשָּׁה(ʾis̱s̱āh) and אִישׁ (ʾîs̱).
67. Matthew Henry appropriately notes, “That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” A Commentary on the Whole Bible (reprint ed., Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 1:20.
68. The Hebrew name Eve (חַוָּה) occurs only here and in 4:1. The LXX here translates the name as “Life” (Ζωή), but in 4:1 transliterates it (Ευαν), which the apostle Paul follows (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13). In light of the reason given for Adam’s assigning her this name and in light of the apparently etymological relationship to חָיָה, it seems likely that the name derives from the Hebrew noun for “life.” The fact that the Hebrew חַוָּה has a median waw rather than a median yod may suggest that it derives from a more primitive form of the word. In support of this possibility, it may be noted that the Ugaritic verb “to live” contains the medial consonant yod in the Qal form but the medial consonant waw in the Piel. This fact suggests a factitive meaning for Eve, such as “giver of life,” or the intensive idea of “propagator of life.”
69. Despite the curse, the woman will bear children. Moreover, she will mother an offspring who will align himself with the interests of Yahweh’s kingdom and eventually overcome the works of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15). It is likely that Adam discerned these redemptive implications in Yahweh’s punishment of the woman and responded by assigning her a new name (3:20). Waltke refers to Adam’s naming his wife “Eve” as “the beginning of hope” (95).
70. This is the basic thesis of Gregory Beale: “[Adam and Eve] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth.... It is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth…. They were to extend the smaller livable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory…. God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate” (81-82). Beale traces out the many biblical links between the Garden of Eden, the OT Tabernacle/Temple, the NT Church, and the New Heavens and New Earth. He argues persuasively that the Great Commission should be viewed as extension of the creation mandate of Genesis 1 and 2. What the first Adam failed to do, the Last Adam will successfully accomplish, and the holy Garden will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. See The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004). John Fesko follows Beale’s reading of redemptive history and suggests the NT church’s identity as the “Second Eve.” Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Ross-Shire, UK.: Mentor, 2007), 145-82.
71. I gleaned and adapted these practical lessons from Greg Nichols’ unpublished lectures on the Doctrine of Man.
72. “Man in the Image of God,” in Collected Works of John Murray (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 2:38-39.
73. Kingdom Prologue, 62.