Ancient Near Eastern Conceptions of “Image” and “Likeness”
Before examining the biblical conception of man in the image of God, we will examine some Ancient Near Eastern conceptions in the hope that it lends insight into the biblical conception. The Adam figure of Scripture made in the image of God was not unique to the Israelites. Numerous Ancient Near Eastern cultures show similarities:
. . . the notion that Adam was set in a sanctuary as a royal “image” of his God is an ancient concept found even outside Israel. [1]
This royal figure was most clearly seen in Ancient Near Eastern kingship. A number of Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts compare the king or pharaoh to his god using similar language to Genesis 1:27. Images of gods were common among surrounding pagan nations, often fashioned from wood, stone or precious metals. These images held great significance as it was understood the gods inhabited these images. Communications with the gods were conducted through these images and thus, without the image as a means of contact, man was hopelessly lost. Blessing likewise came to the community through worship, service and petition to the images. The close relationship between the image and the one it represented is reflected in magical practices of Ancient Near Eastern cultures:
. . . Images (drawings, statues, etc.) often stood in for their referents. When a doll was pierced with needles by a magician, the woman whom it represented was understood to be affected as well. Binding the statue of a demon, ghost, or witch and carrying it into the wilderness or otherwise disempowering it was understood to disempower its referent as well . . . The soles of pharaohs’ sandals were engraved with images of enemies, allowing the pharaohs to crush them with every step. This strong connection between image and referent is underscored by the magical technique of making a god angry with one’s intended victim by telling the god that the victim has abused the god’s image . . . [2]
The relationship between the image and its referent is also seen in Ancient Near Eastern cultic practice of installing graven images into temples, where strong correlation is evident between the procedure and the story of Adam:
The Genesis portrayal of humans being created in the image of God and being placed in the sanctuary of Eden is even generally in line with the Ancient Near Eastern practice in which images of the god were placed in a garden-like temple. There is a fascinating parallel from Mesopotamia, where “the creation, animation and installation of divine images followed a strictly specified set of rites” (Beckerleg 1993: 310). A series of rituals were acted out in the workshop of a craftsman, at a riverbank, in an arboreal garden and finally, in a temple. Through the rituals the inert image of a god was born, brought to life, clothed and changed into a living manifestation of the god. The image was then installed in a temple. Likewise, God formed Adam in his “workshop” (Genesis 2:7a), he was transmuted into a living person by God’s breath (Genesis 2:7b), and was fully brought to life (Genesis 2:7c). Next he was installed in the garden (Genesis 2:15) (Beckerleg 1999: 310). Such a background suggests further that Adam was a living “image” of the true God, not of a false pagan deity and, as such, was placed into the garden temple. [3]
Given the correlation between the image and its referent, it is not difficult to see this concept extended to priestly and kingly roles:
. . . parallels from Assyria and Egypt . . . show that typically images of gods were placed in the god’s temple and that kings were viewed as living images of a god. [4]
. . . the image can stand in the place of the god, that it can even be divinized (the god şalmu), and that a particular image (şalmu) can represent some god or other. Accordingly the king can be described as an image of the god, and the images as the representatives and caretakers of the divinity. Hehn referred briefly to the Egyptian description of the king as “image of god.” The image of god then is the representative or viceroy of the god. [5]
In Egypt, the Pharaoh was referred to as the son of his god, describing him as the image and the bodily representative of his god:
In the context of an inscription about a temple for the god Amun, the god is recorded as calling the king Amenhotep “My son . . . My living image” (Lichtheim 1976: 46).[6]
On a stele of Amenophis II from Amada the Pharaoh is praised as “the beloved son in bodily form of Re . . . the good god, the creature of Re, the ruler . . . image of Horus on the throne of his father, mighty in power”[7]
It is found in the new kingdom particularly in the 18th dynasty: “Image of Re,” “holy image of Re,” “living image upon earth,” “likeness of Re,” etc. Note the link between the image of God and creation. Pharaoh is “the glittering image of the Lord of all and a creature of the gods of Heliopolis . . . Re begot him for himself . . . as his own living image,” . . . Pharaoh says of himself: “I am his son (that is of Osiris), his defender, his likeness, who comes forth from him.” [8]
A similar pattern is observed in Mesopotamia:
The idea seems to be that the king on his accession to the throne becomes like a sun-god. If it is too much to say that the king becomes identified with the sun-god, it is nevertheless true that “The King could be viewed, in Mesopotamia as elsewhere, as an image of the sun-god”. In this respect, as in others, the king resembles his god; he is his son, made like him in his image. [9]
One sees the antiquity of the idea of a ruling king as an intermediary between his subjects and his god. The ruler had responsibility to represent men before his god(s) while rendering service and sacrifice to the gods. The king was not only his representative and image, but was the bodily form of the god, much like a graven image could serve as the body in which the deity’s spirit dwelt. Though he functions as the representative, more surprising is his relationship as “son” of his god, “born” or begotten of his god.[10] Note the parallels between the mandate given Adam and that recorded by Amenophis III:
. . . in an Egyptian text the deity addresses Pharaoh Amenophis III: “You are my beloved Son, produced from my members, my image which I have established on the earth. I have made you to rule the earth in peace.” Here the emphasis is on the king’s role in the royal office, his function ex officio. Analogously, in the biblical texts the image refers not to something in human nature (reason, will, conscience, immortal soul, etc), but to the role of adam, consisting of male and female, in their bodily, historical being. Viewed in this perspective, adam is not an autonomous being, at liberty to rule the earth arbitrarily or violently. On the contrary, human dominion is to be exercised wisely and benevolently so that god’s dominion over the earth may be manifest in human action. [11]
The pharaoh as “son” of the gods was effectively divine, a god in bodily form (as image); the representative before the gods in heaven. He was to care for his people, protecting them, benefiting them and enforcing justice on earth.
With such a complex personality the Pharaoh constituted the totality of divinity on earth, in heaven and in the underworld, Horus, Re, Osiris and Ptah all having been represented as the first rulers in Egypt. To that extent the Pharaoh was the image of them all. He reigned as “the shepherd of the land keeping the people alive”, co-coordinating the natural and social forces under his control for the well-being of mankind, maintaining the divine order of society and championing justice (Maat), of which he was the source. In short, as was declared on the tomb of Rekhmi-Re, a vizier at Thebes in the Eighteenth Dynasty, “the King of Upper and Lower Egypt is a god by whose dealings one lives, the father and mother of all men alone by himself, without equal.” [12]
As a deity, pharaoh was often worshiped and held a dual role of king and priest. As representative before the people and the gods in heaven, his role was seen as one with the gods, effectively the bodily form on earth of the gods in heaven, the representative in the temple of the gods in heaven and his subjects on earth. His oneness with the gods seems to suggest the indwelling presence of the gods, making him god on earth:
In the temple cult, the pharaoh, himself a full-fledged deity, confronted his heavenly father . . .The pharaoh alone was permitted to perform the sacrifices and the ritual of worship; the priests functioned only as his representatives.[13]
Though considered a god himself, pharaoh performed the intermediary role of sacrifice and worship to the graven or molten images of the temples. Through the gods’ indwelling these images, prayers and petitions could be brought by pharaoh or the various priests acting as representatives for him, though pharaoh was supreme above these graven and molten images:
The Egyptians believed that the sun god, Re, would empower other lesser deities to enter stone images placed in temples (Budge 1951: 164-166). Accordingly, an inscription from the Pyramid Age affirms that the Creator Ptah “fashioned the [lesser] gods . . . He installed the gods in their holy places . . . he equipped their holy places. He made likenesses of their bodies . . . Then the gods entered into their bodies of every wood and every stone and every metal” (Breasted 1959: 46). Ramses III (1195-1164 BC) said that in the temple of the sun god, Re, he “fashioned the gods in their mysterious forms of gold, silver, and every costly stone . . .” [14]
The “indwelling” of the pharaoh with the spirit of the gods and its similarity to Genesis 1 is attested by Beale:
The Egyptian king is not merely a “sacred image of the deity (Faulkner 1969: 82), but he is a living image of the god. Furthermore, other Egyptian texts say that the god “Horus has acted on behalf of his spirit in you [the Pharaoh]” (Faulkner 1969: 122 [Utterance 370, §]), and one king is recorded as saying, “I am the essence of a god, the son of a god, the messenger of a god” . . . Perhaps most striking, because of its similarity to Genesis 1:26, is the statement by Ramses II (1290-1224 BC) about his relationship to his god. “I am thy son whom thou hast placed upon thy throne. Thou hast assigned to me thy kingdom, thou hast fashioned me in thy likeness and thy form, which thou hast assigned to me and has created”. . . [15]
The similarities with Genesis 1:26-28 are unmistakable. Likewise, pharaoh’s sonship with the gods and indwelling of the spirit of the gods parallel Israelite and later Christian concepts about Jesus as king and last Adam, with believers receiving sonship, sealed with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. These parallels do not seem coincidental. Pagan principles however, applied only to the king or pharaoh where biblical conceptions were democratized to all mankind. The concentration of these principles into the king alone gave the king great power and sway within his territory as well as a cultic platform to magnify himself as god to his subjects, perpetuating and extending his absolute authority. Pagan deifications of the king were not embraced within Judaism who saw all men in the likeness of God but not equal with God.
. . . the word “likeness” serves to guard against any idea that man could be equated with God, a conception which is implied in the ancient figure of the king-god, and the whole early idea of divine kingship which had become repugnant to the Hebrew prophets. In [Eden] the serpent offers man the prospect of equality with the gods, “Ye shall become as gods”; here the [biblical] writer removes all possibility of such thoughts. It is the glory of man to be in God’s likeness, but there the limit which may not be transgressed is fixed. [16]
Despite this differences, the similarities have led some scholars to conclude that Israel assimilated and improved these pagan practices. Other scholars have concluded that the “image of God” became blurred or distorted via the Fall. Importantly, these pagan rituals recur in varying forms in later history (e.g. Imperial Rome) and may shed light on end-time prophecies. Chief among these distorted pagan views is the elevation of the king or priest to the level of deity.
For current purposes, one sees in pagan antiquity a conception remarkably similar to the Israelite view of the image and likeness of God. It certainly provides insight into the way the Adam narrative was constructed, hinting at his responsibilities before God. That the one made in the image of the gods was a representative of the gods and the people is significant as it suggests a dual role of king and priest, an expectation for Adam. Critically, there was an ancient conception that man on earth was made in the image of a heavenly man who was the archetype of earthly man. There is an undeniable parallel in Christ, who was the image of God the Father, yet also an earthly man specially called “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45). As son of God, His role as priest and king also strongly parallels that of pagan kings who served as priests, mediating between their gods and men.
That Pharaoh’s job was to assure favoritism of the gods so that chaos would not break loose in the kingdom suggests the king was to make concession to the gods for sins or breaches of protocol, establishing a basis for early burnt sacrifices. It further suggests that among the king’s duties were to bring peace to the empire (likely both military and cultic peace) and assure righteousness was followed by enforcement of laws designed to benefit the kingdom and its subjects. Part of his job then, was to assure social justice. Such a conception seems within the realm of Old Testament teaching relative to God’s leaders as representatives of the people. Even the expectation that certain cultic rituals might be performed to loose blessings while binding enemies to assure peaceand agricultural abundance seem to have a parallel in biblical writings.
There may be further parallels between the pagan king as the son of the gods and the Israelite conception of their community as the son of God. Israel corporately was Yahweh’s firstborn. Christ’s employment of the term “Son of Man” hints that Christ viewed Himself not only as mankind’s representative before Yahweh but also to Him as the heavenly archetype of man (see Daniel 7:13) and representative of a new race of spiritual men. Perhaps most interesting is the Christian conception of Jesus as God, which seems to have parallels with the idea of the pagan concept of the leader having a god-like status without equal. It seems to parallel the pharaonic idea that he was the totality of divinity on earth, in heaven and in the underworld. Finally, some insight may be gleaned from the idea of the king as the living image of the gods with the spirit of the gods within him. It may indicate why graven images were forbidden and shed light on Israelite and later Christian conceptions of being indwelt with the Spirit of God.
The Old Testament Hebrew Conception of Man in the Image of God
After creation of land animals, the Genesis narrative records that man was made in the image of God, about which much has been written. Few verses have developed such interest:
Since biblical interpretation came in contact with Greek thought and the modern understanding of humanity, scarcely any passage in the whole of the Old Testament has retained such interest as the verse which says that God created the person according to his image. The literature is limitless. . . What is striking is that one verse about the person, almost unique in the Old Testament, has become the center of attention in modern exegesis, whereas it has no such significance in the rest of the Old Testament and, apart from Psalm 8, does not occur again. [17]
Despite much theological focus, little is truly known of the author’s intent in introducing the concept. There is a wide breadth of interpretation, at times lacking scriptural backing and significant misunderstanding about God’s purpose in granting man dominion over the earth, despite the direct linkage of the two concepts. While differences persist, there is general agreement that man represents the pinnacle of God’s creative purposes:
The creation of human beings in two sexes in the image of God is the climax and goal of Genesis 1. So important is it that the angels are invited to watch in the words, “Let us make man in our image” (1:26). [18]
That man is created in the image of God bears notice as he is the only earthly being created in God’s image. None of the other animals or plant forms are declared to be made in God’s image. The only possible exception is God’s angelic host. [19] The creation of mankind in God’s image is accompanied by a blessing to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.” Cassuto asserts that man is granted dominion since he alone is created in the Divine image. [20] Man, the climax of the creation drama, is blessed by God and given dominion over the earth, opening the theater of human history. But what does man’s creation in the image of his Creator mean, and how is it linked to dominion over the earth?
The Meaning of Image
The views regarding the meaning of both “image” and “likeness” are varied and disparate. Little insight is gained from the brief statement found in the creation account. The most common explanation of man’s creation in the image of God centers upon man’s spiritual and mental qualities that differentiate him from other lifeforms. This view dates back at least to Philo, influenced by Greek philosophy. It has been carried on in various forms by countless theologians:
For Augustine, this likeness consists in the power of the soul, in the memory, intellect and will, an explanation which is very like to that of the 19th century, and which is found in all theological schools which take up the text. . . More recent Old Testament interpreters find the likeness in personality, understanding, the will and its freedom, self-consciousness, intelligence, spiritual being, spiritual superiority, the immortality of the soul . . . [21]
Recent scholarship has focused on the use of the terms “image” צלם tselem and “likeness” דמות dĕmuwth as well as the use of similar terms in pagan religion. The result of this reconsideration is a focus upon man’s corporeal features rather than his spiritual nature.
The original meaning of this phrase is uncertain, but it is at least certain that the Hebrew words rendered “image” and “likeness” invariably have a concrete meaning in the Old Testament, and will not bear the interpretation of a spiritual or moral likeness to God imparted to man at the Creation. It is clear from passages, even in the later books of the Old Testament, that God was conceived of as in human form (cf. Ezekiel 1). [22]
Von Rad draws comparisons from the historical practice of the conquest of kings to argue that “image” is based upon corporeal features and should be understood as referring to man’s function on earth:
Just as powerful earthly kings, to indicate their claim to dominion, erect an image of themselves in the provinces of their empire where they do not personally appear, so man is placed upon earth in God’s image as God’s sovereign emblem. He is really only God’s representative, summoned to maintain and enforce God’s claim to dominion over the earth. The decisive thing about man’s similarity to God, therefore, is his function in the nonhuman world. [23]
Anderson adds:
One should take the word translated “image” (tselem) much more concretely than is often done by those who attenuate its meaning to the “spiritual” part of human nature, or, in Greek fashion, to the “soul” as distinguished from the “body.” Elsewhere the Hebrew word refers to something concrete and visible, for instance, a picture drawn on a wall (Ezekiel 23:14) or a statue of a god (2 Kings 11:18; Daniel 3:1). Such concreteness characterizes the usage of tselem in Genesis 1:26-27, although the explanatory addition of “likeness” (dĕmuwth) moves in the direction of greater abstraction. The view in the Priestly account is apparently that ‘adam, regarded as a total bodily whole (a psychosomatic unity, as we would say), is fashioned after the heavenly beings of God’s council who are addressed in the plural pronouns of Genesis 1:26 (“us,” “our”). In this interpretation, ‘adam is made in the image of the heavenly beings (“angels”; see Psalm 8:5 LXX) who surround God and are members of the heavenly council referred to in Micaiah’s vision (1 Kings 22:19-23) and in the prologue to the book of Job (Job 1:6). But the main import of the statement about the imago Dei is not just to define human nature in relation to God but to accent the special function that God has assigned human beings in the creation. Human beings, male and female, are designed to be God’s representatives, for they are created and commissioned to represent or “image” God’s rule on earth. To be made in the image of God is to be endowed with a special task.[24]
It is man’s corporeal characteristics that are more the focus of God’s image rather than moral, spiritual or psychological features. That “image” implies corporeal characteristics seems to be borne out in the usages of tselem as well as some New Testament Greek references.[25] More important, for the ancients, being made in the image of God made man God’s representative on earth. Being made in the image of God addresses our function, not our appearance. We have the image of God as authorization that we are His representative, much like a signature or fingerprint proves personal authorization in today’s documents. Being made in God’s image and likeness also provide a basis for relationship with God:
The amazing reality is that God desires relationships with human beings. This is why He created mankind in such a way that he is capable of participating in the relationship God offers. Since a relationship is possible only when similarities exist between two individuals, man had to be created with certain similarities to God. Perhaps these are the traits that collectively make up the “image of God” placed in man at creation. [26]
Anderson adds:
The dignity of humankind is not based on something intrinsic to human nature, such as “the infinite value of the human personality.” The worth of human beings lies in their relation to God. They are persons whom God addresses, visits, and is concerned about. But above all they are “crowned” as kings and queens to perform a special task in the Creator’s earthly estate. [27]
That we are crowned as kings speaks to the dominion God has granted mankind. It also lends insight into our responsibilities as overseers of the earth. We are to rule the earth as God would, establishing bounds, creating and eliminating chaos by creating spaces that can bring forth life. This kingly role is fundamental to our relationship with God and places man above all other animate creatures and allows him to emulate God:
In Genesis 1, however, the intention is not to define the essence of humanity or the essence of God, but rather to indicate the task of human beings and their relationship to God. As God’s living image on earth, human beings – “male and female” – are to act as God’s representatives. They are drawn into God’s cosmic administration as overseers of God’s earthly estate. Hence the thought moves quickly from the “image” to the announcement that God has given human beings a special blessing and has commanded them to exercise dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:28). Likewise in Psalm 8 the thought that human beings have been placed slightly below God (or, reading with the Septuagint, “angels”) is quickly followed by the thought that Yahweh has crowned them with royal rank and has put all things under their feet (Psalm 8:6-8[7-9]). Human beings are to exercise sovereignty within God’s sovereignty, so that all earthly creatures may be related to God through them and thus join in the creation. [28]
Anderson’s argument that all creation is joined to God through man’s (godly) exercise of dominion is insightful. God’s purpose in the creation of man is one of fellowship – fellowship with a created being that has the ability to accept or reject that fellowship and to accept or reject the high calling for which man was created. Man can uniquely articulate God’s praise and seek relationship through prayer. Man’s unique capabilities allow him to uniquely “image” God through creative use of speech, music, art and intellect. Man’s uniquely creative capabilities not only allow man to image God, but also imply an accompanying responsibility for how he chooses to harness these creative capacities. Man’s responsibility in imaging God is to bring peace on earth and to demonstrate godly benevolence toward others and all creation. That man is caretaker to all creation and represents all creation before God suggests a priestly role, one he is uniquely suited to as he is created of the dust of the earth yet given the spiration of God. [29] Thus, imaging God not only involves a kingly role of dominion but a priestly role of mediation. He is to maintain the boundaries God has established (kingly) while mediating with God for all creation’s benefit (priestly). Man’s refusal or failure to properly image God also implies guilt before God and others. The special responsibility imparted to man not only defines the unique relationship between God and man but also elevates man to a position of dignity above the other creatures:
God has created man in his image; that means in such a way that a relationship can exist between the creator and this creature, so that he may speak to him and he can answer him. This is peculiar to him among all creatures; thereby man has been given a dignity which only he possesses: human dignity. This has far-reaching consequences: all men possess this dignity throughout all generations (Genesis 5) throughout the earth (Genesis 10). It can be violated, desecrated, and ignored by people; but it cannot be destroyed by them. It has been conferred upon the human creature by the creator; as long as men exist, they are as God has created them in relation to him. [30]
Man demonstrates dignity as he models godly behavior. Later Scriptures more thoroughly define God’s expectations for righteous behavior and rule of mankind:
The supreme quality of God is righteousness; since man was created in the image of God, it is his highest task to imitate God and acquire the attributes that God taught to Moses on Mount Sinai: “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exodus 34:6-7). [31]
While mankind is expected to function in accordance with God’s laws, it is not merely in function that man images God but in form. It is man’s creation in God’s image in form that provides the enablement to function in godly fashion. The function to rule and subdue implies investiture of significant authority and responsibility. This responsibility can be delegated to man given his unique relationship with God, having been made in His image and a little lower than the angels. His form is of the dust of the earth, yet the actualization by the breath of God gives him a form that allows the priestly mediation. As creation’s representative, it points toward his (intended) role to represent creation before God and His heavenly council.
Made in God’s image, man’s nature and role are unique in creation. The fact that man shares organic, bodily life with all creation qualifies him to represent that creation before God. Through man the praises of the physical creation can be addressed to God. Humanity, the climax of creation, has a role to fulfill. Man mediates between the Creator and the created world of which he is part. In man God may deal with His creation personally. God speaks to man, and with human lips man replies for the creation of which he is head . . . When God creates people in his image it indicates, perhaps among other things, that we are to function as his stewards over creation. When God gives the mandate to subdue and rule, he is assigning a task and providing the wherewithal to accomplish that task. Through Genesis 1 we come to understand that God has given us a privileged role in the functioning of his cosmic temple. [32]
This high calling seems anticipated in the words “Let us make man in our image” rather than “Let the land produce men” (cf. Genesis 1:20, “Let the waters bring forth . . .” and Genesis 1:24, “Let the earth bring forth . . .”). The distinction from animals suggests God has specific purposes for this created being, purposes that are aligned with God’s purposes. It establishes a unique relationship between man and God, allowing communication of purpose and establishment of relationship between God, man and the balance of earthly creation:
The expression “image of God” is used uniquely with reference to human beings and so sets them apart from the other creatures. Whereas the other creatures are created “according to their kinds”(Genesis 1:21, 24,25), humanity is made “in the image of God.” . . . It is often said that the Bible represents God anthropomorphically (i.e. as a human being). More accurately, a human being is theomorphic, made like God so that God can communicate himself to people. [33]
This differentiation from other animate lifeforms yet similarity with God suggests authority and power in God’s creation of man, both royal and priestly, as does the thrice given blessing upon mankind. The investiture of divine authority and power is not a license to abuse creation, exploiting it to supply man’s carnal desires. Man’s royal position of authority conflates kingly with priestly duties (see Revelation 1:6). Man is earthly creation’s leader assigned by God in absentia. God is a spirit; His presence is in his cosmic temple, located in the heavens. Man was formed from the ground – the earth – and as a physical being his home/presence is on the earth. Just as God and His heavenly council rule the heavens, man is delegated authority to rule the earth.
Ruling over creation is not done by show of force or exploitation. God separated and bounded the domains, bringing order from the chaos and showing His authority over creation by naming the separated, bounded domains. Man, as God’s vicegerent, rules similarly, by simple verbal command. He is to enlist all the various elements of creation that God called “good” as well as the animate lifeforms God placed under him when He brought the animals to Adam to be named. There is no hint of conflict between man and creation just as there is no pagan myth of God slaying the primordial chaos monster. God subdued the chaos by simple verbal command and filled the domains of creation with verbal blessing. Man is to do the same.
In its aggressive and violent forms, subjugation has not place. In God’s image, humankind “subdues” the earth by preserving and directing its natural power for the flourishing of life. [34]
Violence, particularly against other humans, becomes a key prohibition in Genesis 9 that lends insight into the meaning “image”. Violence against God’s appointed representative on earth becomes a form of rebellion against God’s authority and enmity toward God:
It is primarily because man is made in the image of God that it is sinful to slay him. “To deface the King’s image is a sort of treason among men, implying a hatred against him, and that if he himself were within reach, he would be served in the same manner. How much more treasonable, then, must it be to destroy, curse, oppress, or in any way abuse the image of the King of kings!” (Andrew Fuller’s Exposition of Genesis). [35]
God’s mandate shows the magnitude of man’s failure. The oppression, exploitation and violence during man’s reign reveal his failure as Priest-King over creation. The earth is filled with physical seed lacking the spiritual instruction needed to rule with kingly authority or priestly mediation. Man’s failure to image God shows his estrangement from the high calling given him. Though made in the image of God, man was to be the image of God on earth. The failed calling anticipates a “Son of Man”, a new Adam who would fulfill the mandate to fill the earth with spiritual sons, reclaiming it and transforming it into a garden-paradise, ruled with righteousness and mercy, and bringing peace to all by mediating between God and creation as Priest, King and Savior.
The New Testament Implications of Man in the Image of God
When we turn to the New Testament, we see a surprising development:
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15)
Paul claims that believers, made in the image of God, are now to be conformed into the image of His Son, a Christological reinterpretation of the creation-narrative. How has this happened? Paul provides the answer in 2 Corinthians 4:
4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (cf. Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3)
Paul sees Christ as the image of God, astriking, deepened meaning and reinterpretation. [36] It parallels that of Jesus as the vine. As Christ called Himself rather than Israel the true vine, we now find Paul calling Christ the true image of God rather than man as His image-bearer. The basis of Paul’s claim likely borrows from the ancient conception of the heavenly archetype of man (i.e. Daniel’s “son of man”) as the representative between God and man. [37] Often earthly Adam, the father of the human race, was thought to be in the image of this heavenly man. In the Christian conception, Jesus was not only considered a heavenly pre-existent representative of Adam, but importantly, He was viewed as a new Adam:
45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15
Implications of Christ as the new Adam
That Jesus was viewed as the last Adam supports that Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection inaugurated a new creation in which He was the first man. Jesus was thus the head of a new race of spiritual men:
The Gospels portray Jesus as an Adam figure who is inaugurating a new creation. Matthew’s genealogy begins with the Greek expression biblos geneseōs, which can be translated the “book of the genealogy” or the “book of beginnings” or even the “book of genesis”. This appears to be an allusion to Genesis 2:4 which also has biblos geneseōs . . . Then, just as in Matthew 1, there follows a genealogy (the first in the Bible), beginning with Adam and ending with Noah. That Matthew is, indeed, alluding to Genesis 2 and 5 is enhanced by observing that these are the only two places in the entire Greek Old Testament where the phrase biblos geneseōs occurs. Matthew’s point in using this phrase is to make clear that he is narrating the record of the new age, the new creation, launched by the coming, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. [38]
Matthew’s argument seems based in the ancient conception of a heavenly son of man, given his use of the term “Son of Man” some thirty two times. Matthew’s record of Jesus’ resurrection also supports the view of Jesus as the pre-existent Son of Man given Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:18 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”, an echo from the original creation in Genesis 1:26, 28 that gave man dominion over the earth. With Jesus’ resurrection however, He not only fulfills the mandate the first Adam forfeited by his sin (to rule the earth) but as the new Adam, Jesus also is granted authority in heaven. This new man is both a physical man of earth (begotten of a virgin – Luke 1:27) and the spiritual man of heaven (pregnant through the Holy Spirit – Matthew 1:18). He is thus uniquely suited to ruling both domains. As God’s perfect representative of God’s creation, He gains authority over all of God’s new spiritual creation. [39] His birth, death and resurrection begin a new process of liberating and transforming the old creation into a new creation. With this transformation, the old creation begins the process of passing away, being replaced with a transformed new creation. Paul develops this theme in Romans 8, describing this coming new creation using the picture of child-birthing:
20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Gage sees the redemption of creation intimated in the opening chapters of Genesis, picturing the earth as the womb from which man is birthed. Following this picture, the consummation of the mankind’s redemption is seen in the resurrection of mankind from the dust of the earth:
The eschatological redemption of the earth and man is anticipated in the protological creation of man from the earth. The תולדות pattern (“these are the generations of . . .”) first applied to the earth bringing forth Adam (created of dust) establishes the biblical image of mother earth as a womb (cf. Job 1:21; Psalm 139:15). In Pauline theology the eschatological consummation is expressed in terms of the travail of the earth in childbirth, the resurrection of the last day becoming the final cosmic תולדות, when the earth brings forth the sons of God (redeemed from dust, Romans 8:22). [40]
Creation’s liberation is transformative, eliminating decay and replacing it with the glory of a creation that is eternal. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul carries this motif further, applying this freedom to the believer, arguing that it transforms the believer into the image of God:
17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever‑increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
Paul argues that the spiritual transformation is in Christ, the glory of which is hidden from unbelievers and veiled to those of the old covenant (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:7-16). The transformation is into the image of Christ, shifting the emphasis from man made in the image of God (and the angels) to man transformed into the image of Christ, a new spiritual man. In the old creation man was made in the image of God – that is in his corporeal features. In the new creation, man is transformed spiritually into the image of Christ, the God-man.
Paul’s argument goes further. Jesus is not just the image of God but the firstborn over the new creation. And not just the beginning of the new creation, but pre-existing the original creation – the One through whom all creation came into being and the One that holds all things together:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation– 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. Colossians 1 [41]
A significant shift has occurred. Creation is now understood Chrisotologically and wisdom texts, often personified, are now seen as the incarnation of the Word of God. [42]
According to this tremendous declaration, the whole creation centers in, and is grounded upon, God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. This Christological view of creation is especially evident in the prologue to the Fourth Gospel. Like the book of Genesis, it opens with “in the beginning”; and like the portrayal of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, it speaks of an agent that was present with God at creation. Here, however, is a radically new note: the incarnation of God’s creative word: He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. (John 1:2-3, NRSV) [43]
Jesus, the pre-existent “Adam” was the one by whom all things were created and He is the firstborn over a new creation, the father of a new humanity. Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the true Adam who alone could properly “image” God, of which the first Adam was only a shadow.
Adam served as the representative man. Christ came as the second Adam (Romans 5:12-21; 1 Corinthians 15:22) – not as a divine afterthought, but as the One chosen from the foundation of the world to manifest all that the divine image in man may mean. [44]
Adam, as representative man, was a son of man. Jesus, as the last Adam, is also a representative for all of Adam’s children and as such is not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus is the heavenly man who brings reconciliation to earthly men. As representative of Adam and his whole race, Jesus reconciles all in the first Adam to God the father, for all who by faith accept Christ’s free gift of grace. It restores to mankind what was lost by the first Adam, re-establishing God’s intended role and pattern for mankind. This restoration brings mankind together into a new community that is one in Christ. [45] Entrance into this new community begins not with physical birth as Israel often presumed of old, but with spiritual birth that comes with the acceptance of Jesus as Lord, initiating a transformation from earthly man to spiritual man (Colossians 3:10). This reconciliation puts man in a new relationship with God and his fellow humans by imparting to him a new nature, a spiritual nature, “which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:10). As Christ’s followers, we are being conformed into His image so that we too, may also show forth the glory of God, being transformed from earthly to heavenly. [46] This new relationship grants humanity sonship with God as we are now Christlike and as such, also part of the new race of spiritual men founded in Christ.
1 How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3 (cf. John 1:12; Romans 8:14, 19; Philemon 2:15)
The marvelous transformation is foreshadowed in the first Adam, also referred to as God’s son, though in Christ there is a far greater reinstatement of Sonship than was lost in the first Adam (cf. Romans 8:17) and through which we reveal a far greater glory than Adam. The new sonship in Christ is part of the goal of human history; that humanity would be in relationship with God, reflecting His glory. Christ as alpha of creation is also the omega of human history, the spiritual man that enables true relationship between God and the new race of spiritual men. The culmination of this transformation occurs at the end of the age, when our final enemy death is conquered and believers are bodily resurrected to receive a glorified spiritual body.
Jesus is the firstfruits of a new race of humanity, a spiritual race that ultimately attains immortality making them truly in the image of God! At the same time, Jesus’ resurrection fulfills God’s ultimate purpose to dwell with men through Jesus’ presence in the earth as one of, yet head of this immortal race of men. Jesus, as agent of creation who was present with God from the beginning anticipates God’s ultimate purpose in creation: the creation of a race of men truly made in His image that would spend eternity in relation with Him. In resurrection, Jesus as the heavenly Adam fulfills the mandate of the earthly Adam, displacing him and his earthly offspring with a heavenly Adam and spiritual offspring. The first Adam held the fate of all men who were of his image and came from him. His failure in testing brought death to all who were from Adam. In Jesus rest the fate of all men who are conformed to His image and believe in Him. His obedience to God the Father in testing has restored relationship and brought eternal life to all who are “from Him”. Being made in the image of God anticipates eternal life as part of God’s redemptive plan. Jewish writings anticipated eternal life as part of God’s purpose in creating man in His image:
For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Wisdom 5:23 [47]
Through Christ’s resurrection, we have been made for incorruption as incorruption is a facet of God’s image. We must be holy and eternal as God is holy and eternal. Incorruption also applies to all creation. In the creation account of Genesis 1, everything that is created is declared “good”. The resurrection of believers is the climax of the transformation that was initiated in the birth, death and resurrection of Christ. It reaffirms yet elevates the declaration of Genesis 1:31 that creation was “very good”. At the completion of God’s program, creation has been perfected, elevated above the original creation.
The new image of the heavenly man supersedes the image of God “placed” in the descendants of Adam. It was not possible for the descendants of Adam to fulfill the mandate to image God. With Christ’s coming and the impartation of the Spirit of God, believers can now show forth the true glory of God:
Moses caught a glimpse of God’s glory, and it was this which was reflected from his face, and which was seen by Israel – until even that was hidden from them; but Christians gaze directly at the glory of the Lord – a glory which . . . is seen in Christ, who is the image of God . . .Whereas Moses concealed the glory which was reflected from his face with a veil, Christians wear no veil, but reflect the glory of the lord constantly, as though in a mirror, as they become like him in character; nor does their glory fade, for they are made progressively more glorious, as they are transformed into Christ’s image. [48]
What an incredible difference the work of Jesus has made. It does not simply restore what Adam lost, but replaces it with a greater glory, raising up spiritual men whose relationship with God is not restricted to the boundaries of a garden-paradise but now extends to the ends of the earth where Jesus’ seed shares in bringing the good news of salvation to a lost generation of men, filling them with the Spirit of Life that seals our resurrection.
The image is not erased after the Fall but continues seminally to every individual (Genesis 5:1; 9:6). 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 (cf. Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2), 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 of 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 (Ephesians 5:23-32) and fills the earth with spiritual children (Isaiah 53:10-11; Matthew 12:46-50; John 1:11-13; Galatians 3:29). He blesses his disciples and fills them with the Spirit of life (cf. emphysaō in LXX of Genesis 1:7 and John 20:22). He brings everything under his dominion (Luke 10:18-19; Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18-20), including Satan and evil (Genesis 3:15; Matthew 4:1-11; Colossians 3:10), and enters into the rest of God (Hebrews 1:3).[49]
Having completed such an amazing work, a work no other could fulfill, no wonder Jesus has been “appointed heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:1-3) and has rightfully “sat down on the right hand” of God on high.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Colossians 1:15
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. Hebrews 1:3
Relevance to Christians Today
In the Genesis Creation-narrative, man was invested with dignity greater than that of any other creature. He alone is made in the image of God for a noble purpose. Being made in God’s image, he is God’s chosen representative and has the task to oversee God’s creation, tending it as He would. He is creation’s priest-king in Yahweh’s absentia. That he is made in God’s image validates his fitness to act in God’s stead. It points to man modeling God’s nature in his rulership of the earth, further supporting the pattern prior noted, where the first creation becomes the model for understanding the new creation (see Figure 1). The creation of the physical cosmos provides insight to the final creation, the spiritual cosmos over which rules a spiritual God through His spiritual yet incarnate Son Jesus.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab Critically, being made in the image of God is not a characteristic innately placed within him at creation. Man was not created as a reflection of God, but was created with the purpose to reflect God. It is not a quality but a choice. Man can choose to properly represent God through godly choices and decisions; or he can choose ignore his calling by selfishly representing himself. Man made in the image of God implies calling and purpose. This is the Old Testament framework within which earthly man failed his calling to properly represent God.
But within this framework are still unanswered questions: How can man as a physical being represent God who is spirit? In seeking to fulfill his role as priest and king over the earth, how can he assure restoration of all that was lost at the Fall? With his responsibilities limited to the earth, how can he redeem those who’ve died and now reside in the deep, a domain which man cannot subdue and a domain over which he was given no dominion? These questions will be resolved by Christ, the heavenly man and archetype of earthly Adam, who was pre-existent and through Him all creation came into being, and through Him all creation will be restored to a new heaven and new earth. Christ is the nexus between heaven and earth, between the physical and spiritual. Christ is the all-important One who alone can properly represent God as He is God and properly serve as priest and king for man as He is the “heavenly” man. As Creator of all, Christ has dominion over heaven, earth and the deep, enabling Him to rescue even the righteous dead.
Critically, with Christ as the new heavenly man, earthly men and women must be conformed to His image. Again, this is not a spiritual quality imparted in us but a choice to accept Him as savior and live according to His laws. When this choice is made, He invests us with God’s Spirit, enabling us to live faithfully, i.e. to be conformed to His image. It moves us from the physical to the spiritual. Note the testimony of 1 Cor 15:49: “just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.” Being conformed to Christ transforms us from earthly to heavenly, making conformance to Christ critical if we expect to gain heaven. Heaven is the place of the Heavenly Man and those who seek to secure heaven must recognize the requirement that we “bear the image of the heavenly man”.
[1] Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 88
[2] Johnston, Sarah Iles, Magic, printed in Johnston, Sarah Iles, Ancient Religions, USA, Harvard College, 2004, p. 147
[3] Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 89-90
[4] Ibid, p. 83
[5] Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, London, SPCK, 1984, p. 151
[6] Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 89
[7] Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, London, SPCK, 1984, p. 152
[8] Ibid, p. 152-153
[9] Borsch, Frederick Houk, The Son of Man in Myth and History, Philadelphia PA, Westminster Press, 1967, p. 103, quoting Frankfort. Borsch also reports this same belief prevalent among Gnostics that man was created in the image of the gods. p. 59
[10] The relationship as “son” is perhaps most surprising as it parallels the Old Testament and New Testament theology of Adam as God’s son, Israel as Yahweh’s firstborn and believers as “sons of God”. Israel’s theology is however democratized as it claims all men to be made in the image of God.
[11] Anderson, Bernhard W., From Creation to New Creation, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1994, p. 162
[12] James, E. O., The Tree of Life, An Archaeological Study, Leiden Netherlands, E. J. Brill, 1966, p. 94
[13] Schoeps, Hans-Joachim, The Religion of Mankind,Garden City, NY, Doubleday & Company, 1966, p.75
[14] Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 88-89
[15] Ibid, p. 89
[16] Hook, S. H., In the Beginning, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947, p. 38 The elevation of man to equality with God seems anticipated in the end-times, having itself a protological introduction in the fall of Adam, who sought to be like God.
[17] Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, London, SPCK, 1984, p. 148
[18] Wenham, Gordon, Reading Genesis Today, St. Paul MN, Word & World Publishing, 1994, p. 129. Note also the view of the plural use of elohim as the angelic hosts versus the more traditional evangelical stance that God is addressing Himself as a trinity. The view that the angels were witnesses (if not also participants in the creation) dates back at least as far as Philo and seems to be the traditional Jewish view. Walke agrees, saying: “Various referents have been suggested for the ‘us.’ The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Ephesians 3:9; Colossains 1:16; Hebrews 1:2). That God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the Spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that better satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isaiah 6:8; 40:1-6; Daniel 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrences of the pronoun ‘us’ for God, God refers to ‘us’ when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate.” Walke, Bruce K., Genesis, A Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 2001, p. 64 The concept that man is made in the image of the angels bears on future studies of the “Sons of God”.
[19] If one accepts that man and angels are created in God’s image, it opens the possibility that mankind is an earthly “model” of the angelic order in heaven (i.e. each was to serve God’s purposes, each were to serve in positions of authority (possibly both kingly and priestly, and each were to glorify God).
[20] Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Vol 1 & 2, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1964, p. 58
[21] Westermann, Claus, Genesis 1-11, A Commentary, London, SPCK, 1984, p. 149
[22] Hook, S. H., In the Beginning, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947, p. 37. To Hook’s point, the Old Testament envisions God as the Ancient of Days in a human form with human features.
[23] Von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis, A Commentary, Philadelphia PA, Westminster Press, 1972, p. 60
[24] Anderson, Bernhard W., From Creation to New Creation, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1994, p. 14-15. Cassuto also sees the meaning of “image” as originally pointing to corporeal features. Westermann similarly notes the meaning only as a concrete statue without spiritual or moral dimension but cautions it should not be limited to this dimension only. Grelot emphasizes the physical human features though seeing these as symbolic of God’s relationship with his creation: “God is never conceived as an abstract principle, but always as a living being whose image can be recognized in the human body and in human emotions. God is in relationship with the world and with people, and symbolic expressions are able to render the form of this relationship, in its multiple aspects, accessible to our senses, in order to touch the sensibilities of those who receive the message.” Grelot, Pierre, The Language of Symbolism, Peabody MA, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 2006, p. 32
[25] The majority of the references require physical characteristics to identify the image (Genesis 5:3; Exodus 20:4, Leviticus 26:1; Deuteronomy 4:16, 23, 25; 5:8; 9:12; 16:22; 27:15; Judges 17:3-4; 18:14-31; 1 Samuel 19:13, 16; 2 Kings 3:2; 10:27; 21:7; 2 Chronicles 3:10; 33:7; Psalm 106:19; Isaiah 40:19-20; 44:9-17; 45:20; 48:5; Jeremiah 10:14; 51:17; Ezekiel 8:3-5; Daniel 2:31-35; 3:1-18; Hosea 3:4; Nahum 1:14; Habakkuk 2:18; Matthew 22:20; Mark 12:16; Luke 20:24; Acts 19:35; Romans 1:23; 8:29; 11:4; 1 Corinthians 11:7). Note that Job 4:16; Psalm 73:20 may refer to characteristics that are not corporeal. When we move to the New Testament, there seems to be a reinterpretation that emphasizes spiritual likeness and spiritual image (1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 4:4; Colossians 1:15; 3:10; Hebrews 1:3; 10:1 and possibly Revelation 13:14-15; 14:9-11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4).
[26] Wise, Kurt P., Faith, Form, and Time, What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe, Nashville TN, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002, p. 14. Wise may be overstating his case here as people routinely have relationships with other created beings such as their pets. These relationships, while rewarding, are limited as pets lack the ability to communicate uniquely as man does.
[27] Anderson, Bernhard W., From Creation to New Creation, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1994, p. 15
[28] Ibid, p. 33. Though much scholarly focus on “image” centers on man’s function, Anderson correctly balances function with form noting Seth being made in Adam’s image (Genesis 5:3) which confirms that Seth was in form similar to Adam (e.g. Seth looked like his father, if not displayed similar mannerisms). Seth was in the image of Adam as a psychosomatic whole. This explanation does not rule out man’s function in the image of God as Vanderkam has noted that the reference to Seth (and by implication not to Cain, Abel or Adam’s other sons) suggests that the mandate/blessing to “image” God and have dominion over the earth is ordained to follow the line of Seth. Vanderkam, James, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition, Washington DC, The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984, p. 23
[29] That man is of the earth gives him a unique connection to the earth, enabling him to properly represent it. Similarly, with the spiration of God, he can uniquely interact with heaven, God and His heavenly host.
[30] Westermann, Claus, What does the Old Testament Say about God, Atlanta GA, John Knox Press, 1979, p. 40
[31] Schoeps, Hans-Joachim, The Religion of Mankind, Garden City, NY, Doubleday & Company, 1966, p. 228-229
[32] Walton, John H., The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009, p. 149
[33] Walke, Bruce K., Genesis, A Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 2001, p. 65
[34] Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 386
[35] Pink, Arthur, Gleanings from Genesis, available at www.pbministries.com/pink This concept lends insight into why Judaism was to love one another as oneself. To do so is to express love for Yahweh. It also gives additional force to Jesus’ warning regarding anger against one’s brother without cause (Matthew 5:21-22), where Jesus elevates the judgment on libelous insults to that of killing a man. Such anger and destructive insults against God’s vicegerent are angry and destructive insults aimed at God.
[36] We say spiritual in that, though Christ appears with a physical body, he was resurrected with a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44) and though retaining the physical scars of His crucifixion, we are told that He was pre-existent with the Father and thus spiritual. What is remarkable, is that His authority prior mentioned in Genesis, comes from the fact that He is the image of God where the image is corporeal, and that validates His role as Priest and King over all creation. While the marks of His crucifixion may validate His role, nevertheless His role is spiritual and He images His Father who is a spirit.
[37] See for example, Borsch, Frederick Houk, The Son of Man in Myth and History, Philadelphia PA, SCM Press Ltd, 1967
[38] Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 171
[39] Jesus, as the pre-existent man in heaven also had authority over the present creation (John 1:3 and Colossians 1:15-20). His authority extends to the transformation of the present heaven and earth into the new heaven and earth. That transformation is the redemption of the present creation, the reconciling of all things to God.
[40] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 23
[41] Note that Christ represents the fullness of God and His glory. Thus, in the new creation Christ is filled with God’s glory and we can fill the earth with God’s glory only as we are members of His body and thus similarly exhibiting the fullness of God.
[42] An example is found in Wisdom 7:26 “For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.” Quoted from Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, USA, Zondervan Printing, 1980, p. 62
[43] Anderson, Bernhard W., From Creation to New Creation, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1994, p. 244
[44] Clowney, Edmund P., The Unfolding Mystery, Discovering Christ in the Old Testament, USA, NavPress, 1988, p. 22
[45] This new community reverses the curse at Babel (fulfilled at Pentecost with the descent of the Spirit) that separated the nations including breaking down the separating wall between Jew and Gentile, making one new community and race of spiritual men.
[46] Regarding the arguments about whether the “image of God” implies being made in the nature of God or merely representing God in function, the New Testament antitypical claim that believers are being conformed into the image of Christ suggests that being in the image of God goes beyond a functional role and includes being in the nature of God. The transformation from the earthly to the spiritual man supports this conclusion.
[47] Brenton, Sir Lancelot C. L., The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English, USA, Zondervan Printing, 1980, p. 57
[48] Hooker, Morna D., Beyond the Things That are Written? Saint Paul’s Use of Scripture, published in The Right doctrine from the Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Beale, G. K., editor, Grand Rapids MI, Baker Books, 1994, p. 287
[49] Walke, Bruce K., Genesis, A Commentary, Grand Rapids MI, Zondervan, 2001, p. 70