The Dignity Of Mankind And The Image Of God
OK, last time we just introduced the subject with regard to the dignity of mankind and the creation of man as the climax of the creation narrative in Genesis 1. Just to review a little bit of that, the narrative builds to finally reach its climax in the creation of man. I don’t think I mentioned it last time, but there might be just a hint of that even in the—I’m getting picky here, but looking at the definite article, “the,” that appears on the sixth day. So throughout the narrative, we have day one, day the second, day the third, day the fourth, day the fifth, and then the second day, or the sixth day. Maybe that contributes to drawing attention to it as well.
But then when we get to the creation of man, beginning in verse 26, we have the most extensive part of the narrative; in comparison to the other days, much more space is given to it here in verses 26 and following. And the most attention of this passage is given to the creation of man. We have the word “created” appearing here. Remember I mentioned that that word is used sparingly throughout the narrative. It’s to mark something new that has come about. That’s used here. And then we have the expression, “God said, let us make man in our image.” And there’s some signal there of God’s more personal involvement in the creation of man. Before this, it was, “let there be,” “let there be,” or “let the earth bring forth.” But here we have something more personal involvement going on.
Then this is taken up again in chapter two, verse seven, to give us more detail of the creation of man. And then especially verses 26 to 28, “let us make man in our image.” Throughout the narrative, the creation of the vegetation, the creation of the animals, they were made after their kind. We don’t have that expression here. We’re made after the image of God. And then verse 27 adds to it, I think to emphasize that this is the high point of the passage. So verse 26, “let us make man in our image.” And then verse 27 tells us God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them.
And then verse 28 amplifies on that a bit in a significant way. It tells us that man is given this image of God to reign over creation as God’s representative. Fill the earth, subdue it, have dominion over the earth. Man is created in God’s image. He is to fill the earth, that is, extend God’s image throughout the planet, and exercise dominion over all of it. The fish, the birds, everything about the created order is to be under man’s dominion. So let’s take our time today just to look at that question of the image of God in man. What is it? If you don’t have a handout, by the way, raise your hand. We’ll make sure you got one.
Terminology
First of all, just the terminology. We have two expressions in verse 26. “Let us make man in our image after our likeness.” There has been a lot of work that’s been done on that to try to differentiate those two terms. What is different? What is image? What is likeness? How are they different from one another? The bottom line of that whole discussion is there’s really not much you can distinguish between them. They’re not two different concepts, but they’re synonymous. I made the two terms used, I think, just to emphasize this.
So verse 26, notice, “let us make man in our image and after our likeness.” And then verse 27 repeats it, but it just uses the one term, “God created man in his own image.” So the one is the two and the two are the one. Again in chapter five in verse one, when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. There that term is used for the two. So the two really mean the same thing. I think “likeness”—”let us make man in our image after our likeness”—I think likeness only serves to re-emphasize what image has already said.
So the point then is that man is made to be like God in some way. Now it’s interesting there, just in its historical setting in one respect, and that is that in the ancient Near Eastern religions and neighbors around Israel, the king was in the image of God, not the people. But here it’s the very definition of what a person is. We’re made in the likeness of God, in the image of God. So it’s not something reserved for the king. It’s something what every human being is: created in God’s image.
In What Ways Is Man The Image Of God?
So then the question is, in just what ways is man the image of God? The Bible doesn’t spend much time defining the term as such. What we have instead is a description of what God is like, and then, now and then, some descriptions of how man is like God in those ways. So how, in what ways, is man like God?
First thing we do is we don’t look to ourselves to project on God what God is like. That’s backwards. You don’t want to say, “Well, we have a body, therefore God has a body.” That’s working backwards. The model is God himself. How are we like him? The point is not: how is he like us? So there’s something about humanity that reflects God. So to understand what image is, we have to understand first how God has revealed himself and how we are like that. And as we’ve seen now in Genesis 1 and 2, it’s given in large part to tell us what God is like.
What is God like in Genesis 1 and 2? Well, just some highlights, some things that are obvious. God is creative. He makes things. God has wisdom in designing the world. God is able to speak, communicate. God makes moral judgments and evaluative judgments. He pronounces it good. Aesthetic judgments, maybe that’s involved as well. God is a relational being. Find that already. “Let us make man in our image.” Some, I think, some early hints of the Trinity. But being a relational being, God is capable of kindness. He’s marked by love, provision, commitment, and those kind of relationships, not only among the triune Godhead, but with man himself that he creates.
There’s an interesting verse in the Psalms in this regard. I don’t know if I put this on your handout or not, but Psalm 94 and verse 9: “He who planted the ear…” Isn’t that an interesting expression? It’s talking about this ear, not the ear of corn. It’s talking about the ear you hear with. “He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?” And the point there is God is able to see his people. He’s able to watch over them. God is able to hear their cries. And God has made us like that to reflect him in that way that we are able to see, to watch over, to hear, and to communicate.
So you remember the expression—I think Eric used it last week in teaching Sunday school, and you’ve heard me use it a couple of times here and there—the term “anthropomorphism.” Anthropos—man; morphism—a form. So an anthropomorphism is an image that speaks of God in man terms. So “the arm of the Lord” or “the hand of the Lord” or “the eye of the Lord.” God is spirit; he doesn’t have an eye, he doesn’t have an arm or a hand, but it’s anthropomorphic language. I think in some cases, at least, we should see here, it’s not—anthropomorphism is not the word here. It should be “theomorphism.” We’re made like him. He’s not made like us, but we are described in God terms. And we find that then in this study of God, man is the image of God.
Now, all of these kinds of things then set man apart from the rest of creation. He’s a moral being. He’s a rational being. We are, more or less rational most of the time, self-conscious, self-directing, able to make decisions, calculations—all of these are the attributes of personhood. And in these ways, we’re like God. So at the very least—and we’re not done yet, I don’t think—but at the very least, we can say the image of God involves the attributes of personhood, what it is to be a person. It distinguishes us from the animals: able to make calculations, judgments, evaluative judgments, calculate our future, plan our investments, make tough decisions based on values and morals. All of these are the attributes of personhood. And that’s part of, and at least reflective of, the image of God that we are.
Now there are some more factors I think to take in mind, and I just want to walk through them here in several of the verses that we find in scripture, defining image or explaining it, expanding on it in some way. First of all, as I’ve already mentioned in Genesis 1 verses 26 to 28, there’s an emphasis that’s given on this idea of man ruling or having dominion. Let’s read the verses again. Verse 26: “God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the heavens, over the livestock, and over all the earth and 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. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it, and have dominion.”
So, in this way, man is like God. He rules. He has dominion. And this is why we say that man was created as God’s vice-regent. Sort of king over the earth, under God, the great king, but man as king over the earth. His vice-regent ruling in his place. Now, I don’t think we can go so far as to say that this dominion is the definition of what image is. I don’t think that’s right. But it is a function of our image, our being in God’s image, and that as his image bearers, we are able to rule. And in that way, we reflect God. So in a sense, we can even think of the word “image” as a verb. We “image” God by ruling. I don’t think that’s quite the definition, but that’s certainly involved.
In verse 27 then, we find that this idea of man having dominion over the earth is true of man and woman equally. God created man in his own image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. So we have this plurality within unity. We have male and female both making up what is called “man,” or as we would say more politically correctly today, “mankind.” But this plurality within unity—male and female sharing the image of God, male and female being man, mankind. Some have wondered, is this then a faint hint of the Trinity as well, that there’s a plurality within unity? Could be.
Now, I think I have in your handout Genesis chapter 9 in verse 6. You remember the context here? This is just after the flood. God is speaking to—did I say Moses? Noah. God is speaking to Noah here. It’s the context of the Noahic Covenant. And a couple of things that are important to point out here for our purposes. Number one, the unique dignity that’s given to man. This is not just a prohibition of murder. There’s an explanation as to why murder is prohibited. And that is because God made man in his own image. So to attack man is in a sense an attack on God. And that’s what makes murder a capital offense. And so God says, “he who sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed as well.” Capital punishment for a capital offense; the attack on man is an attack on God.
Now we’ll see a little bit more about that, but hang on to that because it’s an important principle we find later with regard to some implications of the image of God in man. So I said two things are important here, Genesis 9:6. One, the unique dignity of man. And number two, the image of God, whatever it is, is preserved after the fall.
Now it becomes interesting because in the history of interpretation, the Reformers typically interpreted the image of God as original righteousness. And that was lost in the fall. So the image of God is lost. The sentiment I think is right. The terminology in the theology specifically is wrong. The image of God is preserved after the fall. So whatever it is, we are still the image of God, even as fallen creatures. Now, I’ll point out a little bit later that the image of God in man has been effaced by the fall. It’s the word I like to use. But it’s not been erased. We’ll have to see how that works out in a little bit.
We have an echo of this in James 3 verses 8 and 9. “No man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.” So there is the evil of slander. Again, here’s a person who is made in God’s image, and an attack on him or her is an attack on God. And so this ought to, he says, affect the way that we speak as well.
But again, even though the image of God in man has been preserved after the fall, it has in some sense been effaced. And we find that in the New Testament with passages regard to the image of God. Redemption itself entails a restoration to God’s image. So for example, you have in Romans 8, verse 29, we’ve been predestined to be conformed to the image of his son. So there’s got to be some kind of restoration of the image of God in us involved in redemption. Eventually, 1 John 3, when Christ returns, we will be like him. So finally the image is restored entirely.
We have some passages in Ephesians and Colossians that reflect that as well. Ephesians 4:24, “put on the new self created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” Here Paul is exhorting believers to be what they are. And so, you’ve been made someone new in Christ, you’re a new creation. So now in Ephesians 4, he’s exhorting them to put on that new man, to act like who you are in Christ. And what is this new self? Well, it’s created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. So we’re made like God and it’s been effaced, but it’s restored, at least in this sense, in terms of holiness and righteousness being restored in us. Part of God’s transforming work in us is to restore his image in that way.
Colossians 3:10, “you have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of our creator.” Now this is very much like the verse in Ephesians, but some of the specific terminology is different. In Ephesians, the redemptive work of Christ in us restores us in terms of righteousness and holiness. Here, renewed in knowledge. Does that mean mere intellectual knowledge? Knowledge of God? Does this have to do with something deeper than that? Our presuppositions have been shaped? Our frame of reference has been transformed? Well, whatever it is, he doesn’t spend time defining it here. There’s been a renewal of God’s image in terms of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
Now, at that point, I think it’s also helpful to recall that Jesus himself is the perfect image of God. And I think I’ve given you a couple of verses there: Colossians 1:15, 2 Corinthians 4:4. Both of those verses speak of Christ as the perfect image of God. So now we get a bigger picture. God creates man in his image. The fall has happened, there’s been a rebellion, and as a result, in some ways, the image of God has been effaced. We’ve been ruined in some significant ways, and now by the incarnation, the Son of God has come, and we see what man is supposed to be really. He’s the perfect image of God, the model of who we should be, the model of who we will be in Christ.
Now coming a little bit closer then to definition, again, I mentioned the Reformers identified the image of God with original righteousness, and that was lost in the fall. And again, I think that the sentiment is right. Original righteousness was lost, but not the image of God. It was effaced in some way, ruined, marred in some respect. In Colossians 3 here in this list that I’ve given you, it does not speak of the image of God as regained, whole cloth. It speaks of it as renewed, restored. So it does indicate that the image of God has been ruined in some way, but it does remain; it’s not been erased, it remains basically intact.
Now then, the traditional view of the image of God that has dominated in Christian theology is that the image of God entails then some specific attributes of man that make man resemble God. It makes us like God in some way. And those attributes, if you can find how to define them, will tell us what we are, in what sense we are God’s image. So it has to do, in this view—and I think it’s right—with what man is, what man has, that is like God. There’s something about the human constitution that makes us like God. And I think in all of these passages that I’ve just run through, we can pull some observations from it that help us, I think, define it in that way.
So, I’ve written down here some attributes like reason, will, personality, relationships. Very importantly, an awareness of God. A sense of morality. Individual freedom. Making choices according to our own values, and so on. So the image of God in us has been effaced in some way, but it’s not been completely erased. We still have intact these abilities of reason, will, personality, relationships, and most importantly, an awareness of God, a sense of dependence upon God, a sense of obligation to God. And I think that’s the idea then in what an image of God is or the likeness of God is: the inherent dignity of man that we saw in Genesis 9, and in James chapter 3, the superiority of being.
What does that consist in? Well, we are different from the rest of creation in that we have reason, we have will, we have freedom of choice, we have relationships, we have an awareness of God, a sense of morality, we know right and wrong, and in all of those ways we differ from the animal creation. And that in turn is what enables us to rule over creation as God’s vice-regents. That’s what David celebrates as we saw last time in Psalm 8, where he revels in the fact that God has made man with such great dignity. Remember it’s that interesting Psalm where he praises God for making man so great. That’s what he’s doing, and in these ways, man is great.
Ephesians 4:24, again, that you have there, “put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” There’s what we might call the religious dimension of what it is to be in the image of God. Theologians have long talked about this sensus divinitatis, the sense of God, this awareness of God, different from all the rest of creation. And not only is there an awareness of God, but with that awareness of God, it’s an awareness of God as God, and so there’s an inexpungible sense of dependence upon God. All the rest of the created order is equally dependent upon God. What distinguishes mankind from the rest of creation is that we’re aware of it. There’s a sense of dependence upon God.
And not only is there this sensus divinitatis—it’s a Latin expression, it’s the sense of God, the awareness of God—there’s a seed of religion, semen religionis. Remember that one? We looked at that a couple years ago: the seed of religion. So not only is there a sense of dependence upon God, but there’s a sense of obligation to God. There’s a sense of right and wrong, and a sense that there’s a judge, and there’s guilty, and there’s right, and there’s wrong, and there’s good, and there’s bad. All of that is entailed in being in God’s image, and I think that’s alluded to here in Ephesians 4:24, “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
All of the rest of the created order is equally obligated to God. The difference with mankind is we’re aware of that, and we sense that obligation to God, and we have to make judgments accordingly. Colossians 3:10, “you have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of the Creator.” So knowledge, rationality. I suspect that may go deeper than that in terms of the frame of reference that we have, shaping values and all of that, presuppositions. Reason, morality. These are at least part of the essentials of what it is to be in God’s image. They’re the essentials of personhood. With that comes the ability to speak, there comes conscience, and things like that.
Now the newer view that has been advanced in the last generation or two of what the image of God is tends to define the image of God in terms of man’s function. And so it’ll zero in on what I’ve already mentioned: image as a verb. We “image” God. I think that’s right, but again, I think the function of imaging God rests on something more fundamental, and that is what we are in the image of God. I think the traditional view is right, to recognize image as something that we are, attributes of mankind that reflect attributes of God. Same with this newer view; they’ll emphasize the matter of relationships, male and female. Man and woman having relationship with one another reflecting the image of, reflecting God in that way, the relationships within the Trinity and so on. Again, I think that’s right, but I don’t think that defines image. I think it’s a function of image that’s grounded in what we are with these other attributes that I’m talking about.
So I think bottom line then, because of what we are constitutionally in terms of rationality, holiness, conscience, knowledge of right and wrong, and all of that, it shows us to be like God. And because of that, then, we can exercise dominion over the earth, name the animals in Genesis chapter 1, and so on. There might be more implicated, implied in that. Genesis 1, God is creator. Man is made in a way that he can be creative because of these attributes of God that he has. We’re able to relate to God. I am sure that that’s primarily involved in what it is to be in God’s image. Because of these attributes he has given to us, we are able to relate to him.
And I think Augustine picked up on that in that famous line: “Thou has made us for Thyself, and we cannot rest, save as we rest in Thee.” That’s a unique quality of mankind. So man alone in the created order has this awareness of God. Man alone in the created order has the sense of dependence upon God. Man alone in the created order has the sense of obligation to God. We have this irresistible sense that God is, and we’re dependent upon him for everything, and that we’re obligated to him in terms of right and wrong. And wherever you find humanity, no matter how remote, no matter how uncivilized, you find these factors: that there’s awareness of God, a sense of dependence on him, and a sense of obligation to him.
And that’s why in the Bible this consciousness of God is a given. It’s not argued. It’s a given. It’s universally recognized. And that’s why in apologetics the standard proofs of the existence of God carry so much force. It’s not that they prove the kind of God that God is or anything like that, but they do have a certain kind of force and the biblical writers themselves pick them up at times. It has a force because we already recognize that God is. And so when someone comes along and says, “Well, if there’s an effect, there must be a cause,” we get that. We say, “Okay, there must be an ultimate cause, a first cause, an uncaused first cause.” We hear those arguments, yeah, it makes sense. It’s because I think we already have that sense of God in our hearts.
So in all of this, the image of God then sets man apart and above all of the created order. An interesting statement, sort of a by-the-way statement in Matthew chapter 12: Jesus has just healed a man on the Sabbath, and of course the Pharisees are jumping on that. “Is it right to heal on the Sabbath? You’re not supposed to work on the Sabbath.” And Jesus makes appeal to the ox-in-the-ditch principle back in Moses’ law. If an ox falls in a ditch on the Sabbath, you can still get it out because it’s a merciful thing and should be done even though it’s the Sabbath. He makes sort of a reference to that. He says, “how much more value is a man than a sheep?” And of course, the argument then stands. If you can help an ox out of the ditch, of course I’m going to heal this man on the Sabbath. It works. The logic worked. But notice the thinking behind that. “How much more value… of how much more value is a man than a sheep?” And what is it that makes man of more value than a sheep? It’s all this that we’ve been talking about.
Man is king over creation because of who he is, because of our ability of reason, morality, sense of right and wrong, sense of our obligation to God, sense of dependence upon God. All of that sets us apart from all of the rest of the created order. So then, I think the primary upshot of all this is that image has to do with human identity, our significance. Human identity is more than just a collection of attributes. And creation is not just a question of origins. It has to do with who we are, our identity, and our dignity. And this understanding of man in the image of God is essential to a right understanding of who we are.
And I think it is entirely right, and we’re entirely justified in saying that atheism, then, is not only impossible—I would argue that it is intellectually impossible; you can convince yourself otherwise because of the fallenness of the mind and all that, but ultimately, atheism is impossible—but not only is it impossible, atheism is impoverishing. It destroys the dignity of man. What is man if he is not in the image of God? He’s nothing but an evolved animal. And it is this doctrine of the image of God that shows mankind to be above the rest of the created order.
Ethical Implications
Now, I mentioned on your handout there that there are some ethical implications, and actually there are just massive, massive ethical implications of this doctrine that man is the image of God. One we’ve already looked at, Genesis chapter 9 and verse 6: murder is wrong because an attack on man is an attack on God. Man is made in God’s image and there’s a certain respect that must be given to man accordingly. Recognizing that that person is made in God’s image renders him sacred in a sense and he must not be attacked. Now, there are exceptions to that, of course. The verse, Genesis 9:6, makes an exception. If man sheds blood, by man his blood shall be shed. But it’s speaking of the unique dignity of man preserved after the fall. So an attack on man is an attack on God. I think that has massive implications with regard to the whole contemporary debate about abortion.
James chapter 3, verses 8 and 9. James applies this not in terms of physical or clinical murder or death, but in terms of our treatment of others. No human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. I think we saw this just a few weeks ago in our studies in James. What an inconsistent use of the tongue we have. We stand together Sunday morning and sing praises to God and then turn around and slander someone else. Believer, unbeliever—it is man in the image of God. He must be treated with a certain respect.
Do I have on your handout Proverbs 14:31? No? Okay, I’ll read it for you. “Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.” He wants you to see the logic in that. Here he’s applying this principle of man made in the image of God. Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his maker. So an attack on man, whatever status socially he has, an attack on man is an insult to the God who made him.
I said this has massive implications. This has implications for the abortion question. This has implications with regard to what has come up in our Congress recently: infanticide. They call it abortion still. It’s “after-birth abortion,” which is just a polite way of saying infanticide. This has implications with regard to discussions of euthanasia, racism, care for the sick, care for the elderly, care for the handicapped. This has implications with regard to common courtesy, our treatment of fellow man. All of this is an outworking of man created in the image of God.
Now when it comes into the church, there are further reasons to treat one another with respect. We’re “one another” in Christ. We’re brothers and sisters. We’re men for whom Christ died. The reasons keep piling up. There’s also the law of love that Jesus enjoins on us in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” But all of that traces back to this. We’re made in God’s image and because we reflect God in some important ways, our fellow men are to be treated with a definite respect. So image—the image of God—is all about human dignity. We lose this doctrine, we lose what sets us apart from all the rest of creation, and I think that’s, in my opinion, the whole point of the doctrine of evolution as well.
What time is it? I can’t see the clock. Is my time up?
Image Of God In Biblical Theology
OK, very quickly then, I have this last point on your handout: image of God in biblical theology. It’s just fascinating to trace this out. I think Pastor Greg did this in a series of Sunday school lessons some years ago here. But to trace this idea of the image of God through the scriptures and how it develops: we’re created in God’s image. We’re given this dignity and purpose. Then in the fall, Genesis chapter 3, that image of God is effaced in some terrible ways. Immediately in Genesis chapter 3, we’re promised a champion who in some sense will overcome all of that and defeat the tempter.
The next huge step that we have is the incarnation of Christ who is the true image of God. He’s called the Son of Man, the Son of Adam—all of that to emphasize that as well. But Paul, in the verses that we looked at in Colossians 1 and then 2 Corinthians 4, also in Hebrews chapter 1, has emphasized he’s the true image of God. And so we, to discover what man in the image of God looks like in its ideal, look at Jesus.
But then this one who is the true image of God does this redemptive work through his death and resurrection, and we, in those verses that I’ve shown you, are made, restored to be in the image of God in Christ. The Christian mission then, Matthew 28, taking the gospel to the world, is simply a reiterating of the creation mandate: fill the earth. Extend God’s rule over all the earth and do it through the gospel by which men and women are restored into the image of Christ. And we pick up some of that language in the book of Acts, where you find the language, “the word of God grew and was multiplied.” The word of God grew and was multiplied. It’s picking up that language of the creation mandate: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.”
Further, in biblical theology, it has implications for ethics that we’ve already talked about. And then finally, in the doctrine of glorification, we shall be like Him. What Christ is in His resurrected state is what we shall be in our resurrected state as well. Dr. Bruce Waltke, in his commentary on Genesis, has a wonderful summary of this. Let me just read it to you before I close.
“The image is not erased after the fall, but continues seminally to every individual. However, after the fall, the first Adam, and all of humanity, can only partially fulfill the cultural mandate, procreating and subduing in sorrowful toil. Only Christ, the second Adam, can completely fulfill the regent function of the image. The one who is uniquely the express image of God’s person, the heavenly son of man and rider on the clouds, is the true image and so God’s true king on earth. He brings salvation to fallen humanity. He completes perfectly humanity’s twofold function. He makes the church his bride and fills the earth with spiritual children. He blesses his disciples and fills them with the spiritual life, and he brings everything under his dominion, including Satan and evil, and enters into the rest of God.”
Wonderful, packed summary of all that’s taught in regard to the image of God restored in Christ. All right, a lot. Anybody want to add a question or comment before we close?