As can be expected, the image of God in man is the subject of much debate.
89Not all issues will be addressed here, though the major points will be discussed. The focus of this section will mainly consist of the phrase וּ͏נ ֵתוּ͏מ ְד ִכּ͏ וּ͏נ ֵמ ְל ַצ ְבּ͏. The issues that will be addressed are intertwined, but I will attempt to address them one by one. The first issue will have to do with the two prepositions, ב and כ . Are they significant? Are they implying that mankind is in the image of God in a different way than mankind is in the likeness of God? Some have argued that these terms are interchangeable, since they are used in Genesis 5:3 in the opposite location from each other.
90This would mean that the likeness is in apposition to the image, simply further explaining what the image is.
91However, this is not the case. The preposition כ has to do with similarity and correspondence. This does not mean identity, but similarity between two otherwise dissimilar entities.
92The
89 Though not always. Even a theologian of the stature of John Webster can discuss theological anthropology without talking about the image of God. See Michael Allen, “Toward Theological
Anthropology: Tracing the Anthropological Principles of John Webster,”IJST19, no. 1 (2017): 28. For an examination of the variety of positions in Reformed thinkers, see Hannah M. Strømmen, “Beastly Questions and Biblical Blame,” inThe Bible and Posthumanism, ed. Jennifer L. Koosed, Semeia Studies 74 (Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature, 2014), 13–28.
90 Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 29; Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 76; Westermann,Genesis 1–11, 145; Middleton,The Liberating Image, 47–48.
91 The ancient witnesses also had trouble with this. Though a full textual analysis will not be done, a few points can be made. The LXX translators used the same prepositionκατάfor bothבandכhere, however they inserted a conjunctionκαὶto show that they thought that the two words were different things.
Symmachus and Theodotion used different prepositions and did not insert the conjunction, apparently seeing the two words as a unity. Aquila used two different prepositionsandinserted the conjunction, apparently seeing them as different prepositions speaking about two different things. Samaritan and Latin follow the LXX and Aquila and add the conjunction, while Syriac and Targumim follow the MT. See Tal,תישׁ͏ארב Genesis, 5; Wevers,Genesis, 80. Tal does not think this is a differentVorlage, just different interpretations.
See Tal,תישׁ͏ארבGenesis, 79*. Wevers thinks that the MT is showing that the two words are the same, in apposition, since they lack the conjunction. See Wevers,Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis, 14. As will be shown, Garr shows that this is incorrect.
92 W. Randall Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism, Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 15 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 96–98; Ernst Jenni,Die Präposition Kaph: Die hebräischen Präpositionen Band 2(Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1994); Peter J. Gentry, Biblical Studies, vol. 1 (Peterborough, Canada: H&E Academic, 2020), 14.
preposition ב, on the other hand, is a locative preposition, including being located in time.
It can have other meanings, but they are secondary to this primary meaning. The object of this preposition and its antecedent are co-referential.
93These two prepositions are not the same.
94There is one referent for both words—God. The two prepositions are saying that in one aspect, humanity will participate intimately in the divine. But in another way, humanity is similar but distinct from the divine. It is a double comparison of being both very alike and yet different at the same time.
95This will be instructive when looking at Genesis 5:3 later which switches the prepositions on the two objects.
The next question is what do the words ם ֶל ֶצ and תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ mean? Much work has been done on this, and only a cursory overview will be undertaken.
96Most people focus
on ם ֶל ֶצ since it is repeated in verse 27. But here תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ will be dealt with first. תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ occurs
25 times in the OT, mostly in Ezekiel. In these cases, the “likeness” deals with the
manifestations of God. The theophanies are physical and take up space.
97It is also used in human genealogies and procreation. In this case, it should be noted that it requires both genders, which means that it is linked to the male and female of verse 27 as well. It is in this respect that humans are “like” God. Humans have the ability to procreate, to be
“abundantly fruitful and to increase.” The command in verse 28 is an out-working of the
93 Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 104–10; Gentry,Biblical Studies: Volume 1, 14.
94 Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 112;KtC, 194. Jenni agrees, classifying theבasbeth essentiae, Ernst Jenni,Die Präposition Beth: Die hebräischen Präpositionen Band 1(Stuttgart: Verlag W.
Kohlhammer, 1992), 79, Rubrik 11, and theכas comparability, Jenni,Die Präposition Kaph, 44, Rubrik 12.
The grammars also agree. Joüon says that theבhere has a locative sense denoting a close connection. See Joüon §119h.IBHSargues that theכmarks agreement in manner. SeeIBHS§11.2.9b.
95 Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 114–15.
96 As will be shown, I disagree with those who say that these words mean the same thing. See Anthony A. Hoekema,Created in God’s Image(Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1986), 13;
Francis Watson,Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 280. See the excellent rebuttal of this argument in Gentry,Biblical Studies: Volume 1, 1–23. The same material can be found reprinted in Gentry, “Humanity as the Divine Image in Genesis 1:26–28,”Eikon2, no. 1 (2020):
56–69.
97 Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 122–25; Ross,Creation and Blessing, 113.
“likeness” of God that is given to mankind when they are created. In this way, humans are a type of theophany—they are able to generate more image bearers.
98The meaning of ם ֶל ֶצ has been much more widely addressed, specifically in its ANE context.
99The king was often seen as the image of the god as the king did the work of the gods on the earth.
100McDowell has a very thorough analysis of the image of God in comparison the Mesopotamian and Egyptian idol consecrating rituals. The image in the idol was a living manifestation of the deity.
101With regard to Genesis 2:5–15, she thinks that the author has at a minimum a shared cultural context of these Mesopotamian and possibly Egyptian rituals and uses this imagery to redefine what it means to be made in the image of God.
102It is not an idol that is the manifestation of the divine; instead, every person is God’s “kind.”
103The use of ם ֶל ֶצ in the OT is usually negative, as it usually refers to an idol.
104But here it has a positive connotation. The “image” in ANE had the authority to punish and bring about the rule of the deity.
105This is similar to what mankind is commanded to do in 1:28.
With these two terms together, a picture begins to emerge. When used together, these terms imply a reign and kinship. ם ֶל ֶצ has to do with executing God’s reign on the
98 Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 126–32.
99 Arnold,Genesis, 45; Middleton,The Liberating Image, 93.
100Walton,Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 83.
101McDowell,The Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 44.
102McDowell,The Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 117.
103McDowell,The Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 133; Catherine McDowell, “‘In the Image of God He Created Them’: How Genesis 1:26–27 Defines the Divine–Human Relationship and Why It Matters,” inThe Image of God in an Image Driven Age: Explorations in Theological Anthropology, ed.
Beth Felker Jones and Jeffrey W. Barbeau (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016), 37.
104Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 135; McDowell,The Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 119.
105Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 163.
earth, and תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ has to do with being sons and daughters of God.
106The fact that these words are mediated by different prepositions is instructive. In the way that mankind can bring out new image bearers through procreation, they do so differently than God. God creates by divine fiat; mankind generates through procreation. However, in the way that they are image bearers and servant-kings over creation, they do so in the place of the King.
107This is the reason that the prepositions are switched in Genesis 5:3. Seth is able to procreate and bring about offspring just like Adam, so he is related to his father’s likeness
with ב. But, he is not in his father’s image in the same way that Adam is in God’s image.
108The term ם ֶל ֶצ has to do with kingly rule and reign.
109Therefore mankind is made in the image of God in that God made man as a servant-king over creation.
110This is effected in God’s command and promise in verses 26 and 28b. It should be noted that the
106McDowell thinks that these two terms are synonyms and when used together they both have connotations of the ideas of kinship and reign. See McDowell,The Image of God in the Garden of Eden, 126, 207. This may have been true in the Mesopotamian and Egyptian context, but Garr’s analysis of these words in the OT is more convincing.
107Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 166–68;KtC, 199; Brian S. Rosner, “Son of God at the Centre: Anthropology in Biblical-Theological Perspective,” inAnthropology and New Testament Theology, ed. Jason Maston and Benjamin E. Reynolds (London: Bloomsbury, 2018), 230–31.
108Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 168;KtC, 200; Gentry,Biblical Studies: Volume 1, 15–16; Wilfong, “Human Creation in Canonical Context,” 43; Gavin Ortlund, “Image of Adam, Son of God:
Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 in Intercanonical Dialogue,”JETS57, no. 4 (1 December 2014): 673–88. I do not agree with Batto that this means that the image has been “greatly tarnished.” See Bernard F. Batto,In the Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible, Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 9 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 135. I also do not agree that it isonlyin Seth that the image and likeness proceed. See Catherine Quine, “Deutero-Isaiah, J and P: Who is the Image and Likeness of God? Implications forםדאand Theologies of Creation,”SJOT29, no. 2 (2015): 300.
109The physical characteristics of the animals has to do with their physical domain. Not so for the humans, who are intended to rule, Arnold,Genesis, 45.
110 Jennifer M. Dines, “Creation Under Control: Power Language in Genesis 1:1–2:3,” inStudies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J., ed. Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp, CBQMS 44 (Washington, DC: The Catholical Biblical Association of America, 2008), 3–16. I disagree with those who say that theבinוּ͏נ ֵמ ְל ַצ ְבּ͏is a complete identity, that manisthe image of God. See Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 76–80; Ross,Creation and Blessing, 112. This does not explain how man is a servant-king. Man’s reign on earth is limited. The rule is limited to Shem, and to Abraham, and then to Isaac. See Garr,In His Own Image and Likeness, 175. As I showed earlier, the use of theבis meant to show close connection without equating.
ruling aspect of being made in the image of God is not the image itself.
111The image has to do with being made a servant-king of the Creator God.
112The result of that image is that man is given the authority to rule over the creatures that God has made.
113It is not that the whole of the image is in man’s dominion over the rest of creation, or that
dominion is added to the image; but that dominion is part of the image—in the image, man is given dominion.
114This is very different from the ANE context where man is created to serve the gods.
115Though the term תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ has to do with kinship relations to God and procreation, it should be noted that both male and female are made in the image of God in 1:27.
116Male and female are both equally in the image of God. Moreover, part of what it means to be servant-kings to rule over creation means upholding God’s principles of right and wrong as well as punishing the evildoer.
117The term תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ has to do with kinship and being sons and daughters of the
111The image is functional, yes. But it is functional because it flows out of the ontological and structural aspect of being in the image. “Image” describes the result, not the process, contra Middleton,The Liberating Image. This can be seen in its use in Gen 5:3 and Exod 25:40. SeeKtC2, 236; Gentry,Biblical Studies: Volume 1, 23. See also Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 31; William J. Dumbrell,Covenant and Creation:
An Old Testament Covenant Theology(Crownhill, UK: Paternoster, 2013), 30.
112 David T. Tsumura, “Rediscovery of the Ancient Near East and Its Implications for Genesis 1–2,” inSince the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages, ed. Kyle R. Greenwood (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 230; Towner, “Clones of God,” 347; Quine, “Deutero-Isaiah, J and P,” 299.
113 KtC, 201; Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 96.
114 Herman Bavinck,Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 2:560–61.
115 Walton,Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology, 85; Phyllis A. Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” in“I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed.
Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 345.
116 Contra Ruether who thinks that Genesis teaches that only males are in the image of God, since only males ruled over society. See Rosemary Radford Ruether, “Men, Women, and Beasts: Relations to Animals in Western Culture,” inGood News for Animals? Christian Approaches to Animals Well-Being, ed.
Charles Pinches and Jay B. McDaniel, Ecology and Justice (New York: Orbis Books, 1993), 15.
117 Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 33; Ross,Creation and Blessing, 113.
Creator God.
118The fulfillment of the תוּ͏מ ְדּ͏ is accomplished in 1:28a with the command and promise to be abundantly fruitful and to increase and fill the earth. This is seen borne out in the genealogies as God blesses his people with offspring. The fact that mankind is created male and female is not part of the out-working of image; it is not that mankind needs to be male and female in order to rule. Instead, being made male and female is necessary for being fruitful.
119In summary, mankind alone is created as sons and daughters of God. Mankind alone is given the task of vice–regency to rule as Yahweh’s representatives on earth. This is a result of the image. Mankind alone is described in these kinship relations to Yahweh.
This is important, as there are certain “structures” that are necessary for these things to take place.
120Therefore the Bible is already giving clues that there will be similarity between humans and animals (procreation) as well as differences (made in the image and likeness of God, the structural characteristics necessary to be in kinship to Yahweh as well as to rule as his representative).
Genesis 2
I take the break between Genesis 1 and 2 to occur at Genesis 2:3.
121118 Blocher,In the Beginning, 89.
119 KtC, 189; Gentry,Biblical Studies: Volume 1, 23; Bird, “‘Male and Female He Created Them,’” 356.
120Cole rightly argues that one need not choose between functional or relational definitions of the image of God; these things are not mutually exclusive. See Graham A. Cole,The God Who Became Human:
A Biblical Theology of Incarnation, NSBT 30 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 29–30. But it is important to remember that since the grammar applies to humans themselves, and not the process, that this is not speaking about function but about ontology. See Gentry,Biblical Studies: Volume 1, 23.
121I follow the standard of most commentators to see a break at Gen 2:3–4 between the two chapters. See Westermann,Genesis 1–11, 80; Ross,Creation and Blessing, 101; Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 5.
The traditional argument is that the beginning of verse 4, which readsתֺוד ְלֺותּ͏ ה ֶלּ͏ ֵא, is a discourse marker that is repeated throughout Genesis. In each case in Genesis, this heading goes with what comes after. See Ross, Creation and Blessing, 117; Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 49. However, recently some have argued that in the case of Gen 2:4, theתֺוד ְלֺותּ͏goes with what comes before. See Cassuto,A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 1:99. Wenham notes that this is a tendency of those following the Documentary Hypothesis, that the later source (Gen 1:1–2:4a) was added and Gen 2:4a was used to try to connect to 2:4b and following.
See Wenham,Genesis 1–15, 6. For the typical structure of the Documentary Hypothesis, see Speiser,