The Biblical Definition of the Image of God, Part II

Berkhof writes, "Notice that man even after the fall, irrespective of his spiritual condition, is still represented as the image of God, Gen. 9;6; I Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9. The crime of murder owes its enormity to the fact that it is an attack on the image of God. In view of these passages of Scripture it is unwarranted to say that man has completely lost the image of God."

It is odd that he quotes 1 Corinthians 11:7, as this passage, I will argue, negates this idea rather than supports it; but the other two are often cited as supporting the idea that the image is ontological, and therefore, rebellious mankind still has it. 

In this post, I want to deal specifically with Genesis 9:6.

The passage reads as follows.

ויברך אלהים את נח ואת בניו ויאמר להם פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ

 ומוראכם וחתכם יהיה על כל חית הארץ ועל כל עוף השמים בכל אשר תרמשׁ האדמה ובכל דגי הים בידכם נתנו

 כל רמשׁ אשר הוא חי לכם יהיה לאכלה כירק עשׁב נתתי לכם את כל

 אך בשׁר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו

 ואך את דמכם לנפשתיכם אדרש מיד כל חיה אדרשנו ומיד האדם מיד איש אחיו אדרש את נפש האדם

 שפך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך כי בצלם אלהים עשׁה את האדם

 ואתם פרו ורבו שרצו בארץ ורבו בה ס

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, 
"Be fruitful and multiply and fill up the earth. Every land animal and every bird of the sky will be terrified of you. Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority.  

You are to eat any moving thing that lives. As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. 
 

“But you must not eat meat with its life (that is, its blood) in it.

  

And I will surely exact punishment for your blood, your life, from every living creature I will exact punishment. From the hand of mankind, from each man, his brother, I will exact punishment for the life of the man. 

“Whoever sheds the blood of the man,

by man his blood is to be shed;

for in God’s image

God has made man.

“So you are to be fruitful and multiply; increase abundantly on the earth and multiply on it.”

Notice first that there is an inclusio created by the creation mandate in order to put all that is said in between in the context of the role of the image.

Now, this text is often used to support the idea that since man is the image of God, something ontological and intrinsic to human nature, he ought not be killed. Hence, the man who kills a man should be killed.

You may pick up the irony in that statement already, as if there is something intrinsic to man's nature that makes it wrong for him to be killed, then killing a man, even for killing another man, would also be inherently wrong. If the reason why a man should not be killed is because he is the image, ontologically speaking, then the one who kills is also the image and should not be killed. 

Beside the contradiction, however, this traditional reading ignores three contexts that would clarify what is going on.

The first is the immediate context. In each of the things commanded (i.e., be fruitful, eat meat, don't eat meat with blood, kill the murderer, be fruitful), it is the image doing the what is commanded. In other words, the image is the subject, not the object. Hence, the reason given, that man is made to be God's image, in 9:6 follows the executing of murderers. It does so because the role of the image is to thwart chaos. It does this by being fruitful and multiplying, expanding its food sources to survive, refraining from eating meat with blood that would likely diminish it, and by ridding the earth of chaotic agents that reduce humanity upon the earth. In other words, the text is  not necessarily saying that all mankind are God's image. Instead, it is saying that because man is made to be God's image, he must take upon himself the role of the creation mandate in new and expanded ways to create and preserve covenant human life. Hence, he must execute murderers to preserve humanity, expand his food sources, etc., not just be procreative in his personal sexual activity.

This means that the text is not saying it is wrong to kill a man because he is the image of God, but that murder is wrong and the image of God needs to execute those who do it.

This is the distinction between the murderer and the image of God who executes him. One is unauthorized and one is authorized by God to kill a human being. One steals mankind from God and works against Him, and the other preserves mankind and works with His creative purposes. This means that what is wrong with killing a human being in the act of murder is that it is not authorized by God who is the sovereign King and owner of all things. This is why God can command the Israelites not to murder and then turn around and command them to kill those who break the law or engage them in war.

Hence, if we are to follow the pattern in the immediate context in terms of its structure, the image is the one doing the activity that is procreative. It is not said whether the victim is the image of God at all, only that he is a man.

The larger literary context of the book also indicates this. As argued before, the image of God is a role that is only assigned to the woman's seed who join God in overcoming chaos and the serpent who wishes to spread it. Both Genesis 1 and 5 indicate that the designation of image belongs only to those who do the procreative work of the creation mandate in covenant relationship with God. It never describes those who do not join God in this. Even in this text, it is the activity of the creation mandate that defines all of it.

Finally, the larger biblical context indicates that the image is only those who are in Christ. He is the image of the invisible God, and the Bible says that the image is something that must be created in us through Him (Heb 1:3; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; 3:10; Eph 4:24; Rom 8:29).

That means that the larger biblical context would have us believe that Christ alone is the image of God and we are not until we have been united to Him and begin to be conformed to His image. We are a new creation in Him. The old man is never described as God's image. Furthermore, I would argue that 1 Corinthians 11:7 implies the image to be a role, and not something ontological--otherwise, the text implies that the woman is not God's image, contradicting Genesis 1:26-27 (we'll discuss this more in Part IV).

That means the immediate context, the larger literary context of the book, and the larger canonical context all push in favor of reading the image of God as a role one takes upon himself in the activity of the creation mandate, and nothing is said here that would indicate that all mankind is the image.