The Biblical Definition of the Image of God, Part I

It's always interesting to engage modern Presbyterians on the question of the image. As many know, there are two kinds of Presbyterians, those who think the WCF is the 67th book of the Bible and those who are always reforming. This post is for the latter.

This series will likely be in 4 parts. First, I'll look at the biblical definition of the image, second, I'll look at whether Genesis 9 teaches that all mankind is the image of God, and third, I'll look at whether James teaches that all mankind is the image, and finally, I'll look at the implications of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11 and other passages for the ontological view.

What always emerges in a debate like this are the extrabiblical presuppositions that are being imposed upon words in the Bible. For instance, Berkhof concludes that the image is both the righteousness of man and his ontological constitution.

"But the image of God is not to be restricted to the original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness which was lost by sin, but also includes elements which belong to the natural constitution of man. They are elements which belong to man as man, such as intellectual power, natural affections, and moral freedom. As created in the image of God man has a rational and moral nature, which he did not lose by sin and which he could not lose without ceasing to be man. This part of the image of God has indeed been vitiated by sin, but still remains in man even after his fall in sin"

Now, Berkhof gives scriptural support for the idea that the image if bound up in the righteous obedience of man toward God, but none in support of the ontological definition. Instead, the argument, as it is usually given by those who hold an ontological view, is that men outside the covenant with God are still called the image after the fall.

Before we get to that idea in Part II, let's got back to Genesis 1, where the term originates, in order to get our definition from there. This is important because all other uses in the Bible are references back to this one.

Many scholars now note that the image of God is not an ontological description of man, but a role that God assigns to him at creation. As the bodies of heaven are given a role to provide light for man and give him signs and seasons, as fruit is given a role to feed mankind, etc., man is given a role that is pro-creative toward God's purposes of reversing the chaotic state of a humanless world and filling it up with created/ordered human beings. What this means is that the image is a role assigned to man, not man himself.

This is further understood by what is happening in the narrative. The cosmos is being depicted as a cosmic temple that represents God's sovereignty over all things. A temple is the domain of the deity. He rules over that area. But a temple is a house that surrounds what actually represents the deity, an image.

The image is a physical statue, object that represents the presence and sovereignty of the deity over that domain.

So this means that Genesis 1 gives us two ideas: (1) Man is the representative of God that displays His dominion over the physical cosmos, and (2) this representation is through his joining with God to take upon a creative role in the world in undoing chaos through pro-creative activity. In other words, he is united to God in His work to undo the chaos of a humanless world and fill it up with human beings who will do the same.

An image that no longer functions as it should (by being defiled or cracked in some way) no longer represents the deity in the ancient Near East, but must be either melted down and remade into a new image (if made with precious metals) or buried and discarded. The spirit of the deity has left it and it is no longer to be considered his or her image.

This same pattern is followed by the Genesis narrative in that only those who function as the image in being pro-creative are referred to using the image language (Seth's line in Genesis 5 contrasted with Cain's in Genesis 4).

We'll deal with Genesis 9 in Part II, but for now, I would simply say that it too evidences that the image is a role that some people take on and others do not. There is no evidence anywhere in Genesis that the image is ontological. It is a symbolic way of describing how man functions in relationship with God, the role he takes on when he adopts the good work of God in reversing chaos through creational activity, i.e., the creation and preservation of covenant human life.

What this means is that angels are not the image, Satan is not the image, Balaam's donkey is not the image, etc. simply because they have a higher consciousness, moral reasoning ability, or natural affections (don't all animals have natural affections?). Intellectual power and moral reasoning is given to angels, but they are not physical representatives in the physical cosmos. The same is given to Balaam's donkey, but neither he nor angels can make physical covenant human beings, and therefore, they cannot be the image. But unbelievers don't make covenant human beings either. Unbelievers are not agents of the reveral of chaos, therefore, but agents of chaos itself. Hence, unbelievers cannot be the image either.

This is why the image is restored in Christ. Christ is the true image of God and all those federally connected to Him, whether in the OT or NT, become the image once again. They become life-bearers rather than murderers as Paul describes the unregenerate man in Romans 3.