Old Testament Survey - Lesson 3

Dr. Daniel Block 
Old Testament Survey
ot300-03
Image of God
Lesson Transcript

The issue of what it means to be the image of God is so important that we really need to spend a little bit more time on what does the Bible mean by that expression, image of God, imago Dei. We'll begin this excursus by simply reflecting on the common modern understanding of imageness. Theologians today understand imageness in various ways.

We are images of God in that we are rational, we are spiritual, we have intellectual freedom, we have relational ability, we can relate to God and fellow humans, or even you see it in some places, we are a triunity, body, soul, and spirit like God is a trinity. That's how we often hear the conversation going. But to grasp this text, we need to interpret it in its ancient Near Eastern context.

So we'll talk about a little bit about ancient Near Eastern understanding of imageness. On the screen, I have an image of Hadad Yithi, an ancient governor in the province in Upper Mesopotamia, Hadad Yithi. The interesting thing about this image is on front and back, there were inscriptions.

The front is inscribed in Akkadian, and in the back, we have an Aramaic translation of that Akkadian text. The interesting thing is the two words we discover in Genesis 1:26, let us make man in our image and in our likeness. Those two words are found on this text from the 9th century BC in Aramaic.

Those two words are found here. So this is obviously an image of the and it is set up as an image to represent the ruler there. When you see that image, you get an idea of what the ruler was like, or he's doing something here for the ruler.

But let's contrast this, or let's contrast the biblical view of what imageness, being the image of God means in the Bible, as opposed to outside the Bible. Here's Enuma Elish, Dali's translation. Let Marduk, the god of Babylon, addresses the high god Ea.

Let me put blood together and make bones too. Let me set up primeval man. Man shall be his name.

Let me create a primeval man. The work of the gods shall be imposed on him, so they shall be at leisure. Let me change the ways of the gods miraculously, so they are gathered as one and yet divided in two.

Notice, we're making humankind to be the slaves of the gods, so the gods can just chill. They shall be at leisure, do whatever they want. Here's another one from Atrahasis.

Ea spoke to the gods, the womb goddess is present. Let her create a mortal man, so that he may bear the yoke, the work of Enlil, the let man bear the load of the gods. They are the grunt workers for the gods.

Here's an Ezra Haddon text, a couple of them. A free man is as the shadow of a god. The slave is as the shadow of a free man, but the king, he is like the very image, Mushulu, of God.

Or here's another one. The father of the king, my lord, was the very image, Salmu, same root as we have in the Bible, of Baal, that is Marduk, and the king, my lord, is likewise the very image of Baal. Or here's an exorcism text.

The exorcism is the exorcism of Marduk. The priest is the image of Marduk. Conclusion.

Humankind was created in ancient Near Eastern thinking to be the slaves of the gods. Humankind was stratified regarding images. Only special people are viewed as images of the gods, the kings, priests, and nobility, not the ordinary people.

They are slaves of the kings who are the images of the gods. In this world, an image, a tselem, always represents a concrete three-dimensional representation of something, an interpretation confirmed by the pairing of those two words, tselem and demuth, in Genesis 1.26, which are found on that hadad yithi inscription that we showed earlier. It is humankind's status as image that distinguishes this species from everything else that God has made.

We are not simply the highest of evolved creatures, specially created for this purpose, to stand in for God. The dignity involved in imageness extends to both man and woman. Adam equals male plus female, Genesis 1.27 and 5.1-2. We should interpret imageness primarily in functional terms.

To be the image of God is to be his deputy and representative, not representation. Adam is created to govern the world for God as God would were he personally present, Genesis 1.28, Psalm 8. Adam's status as image determines the special sanctity of life, Genesis 9.6. Whoever sheds human blood by a human shall his blood be shed for as the image of God he created him. This principle of life for human life is based on the sanctity of human life in particular.

Whoever kills another human being kills an image of God and, in effect, has declared to God and to the rest of the world, this person doesn't deserve to represent God. That is the height of hubris and arrogance. In Hebrew thought, the notion of imageness is democratized.

All members of the human race are images of God, all. While the fall affected men's and women's ability to function as the image, the dignity associated with this status is retained even after the entrance of sin. Psalm 8 celebrates our image status, Proverbs 14.31, 17.5, James 3. How can you curse men and bless God when human beings are created as images of God? It doesn't work.

We are still images of God. This special status of members of the human race as images of God provides the basis for a distinctly theological biblical ethic. What we do to one another, we do to God.

Jesus said, in as much as you've done it to the least of these my brothers, you've done it to me. Well, of course, Jesus is the incarnation of God, and these are images of that God. We'll conclude this discussion by considering some of the implications of Genesis 1 for a biblical cosmology, the view of the world.

A couple of principles here. One, both interpretive extremes, those that concentrate on the meaning of day and insist on a 24-hour period for yom, and those which treat this text as a mere myth whose basic worldview is borrowed from the pagans, they tend to overlook the authorial agenda. Both interpretive extremes tend to miss the point.

Two, views of universal origins that deny or diminish the role of God are excluded from a biblical worldview. This text affirms the direct hand of God in every phase of creation. Ancient pagans would have rejected any view of universal origins that leaves the evolution of matter to chance.

That's absurd. You didn't have to be an Israelite to recognize that. Three, views of universal origins that denigrate the dignity of humankind by reducing this species to mere animal, along with the rest, even the most highly evolved, are excluded.

Adam was created specially by God to function as his deputy and representative. Four, views of origins that diminish the order or blur the boundaries built into the universe are excluded. The definition of species becomes crucial, but dogs do not come from Tyrannosaurus Rex by this view.

Microevolution is clearly possible. You've got different kinds of dogs that look quite different, and you hardly call them by the same name, but they're all dogs. So there is microevolution in species, but macroevolution is a different issue.

This document suggests minimally that crawlies, birds, marine, and land animals have separate origins. Five, views of the universe that treat matter either as an extension of deity, pantheism, or as inherently evil, gnosticism, are excluded. God declared everything good, and what God calls good, we should call God.

That was a consideration of implications of Genesis 1 for a Christian cosmology. What about the implications of this text for a Christian anthropology? Views of human origins that diminish the direct involvement of God in the creation of Adam are excluded from a biblical anthropology. You get this especially in chapter 2, which functions as an expansion and exposition of Genesis 1, 26 to 28.

Two, views of human origins that diminish people's distinction from the rest of creation and human beings are excluded. Minimally, we should insist on the separate and special creation of Adam, male and female, the functional superiority of Adam over creation, not by virtue of brains or superior evolution, but by divine mandate, the unity of all humankind based on the origin and a single pair of parents. Third, views of human species that diminish the dignity of any member on any grounds are excluded.

This includes grounds of gender, race, intelligence, physical form, circumstances of conception. Every human being is equally an image of God, and its life is to be treasured, not just those whom we deem to be perfect specimens, at least to the eyes. Four, views of human species that blur the fundamental distinction between male and female are excluded.

This is a binary world. Adam consists of male and female. Five, views of human species that diminish the value of human procreation are excluded.

Do you know what it means to have children? It means that God involves us in the creation of images of himself. There is no higher privilege.