In the Image of God
an excerpt from “The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis”
Humans in the Image of God
There is a long history of efforts to understand “the image of God” as an aspect or function in humans that sets them off from other creatures and in terms of which they are “like God.” Depending on philosophical and theological predispositions, the image was seen in such things as human “reason” or, by the Reformers, in “true righteousness and holiness” (cf. Barth, 192–206; Berkouwer). In the twentieth century, a consensus has gradually emerged concerning the image among OT scholars (Jonsson, Scharbert). Early in the century, some scholars considered the image to refer to the human body as physically resembling God (cf. Isa 6:1, 5; Ezek 1:26; Dan 7:9–10), a form of “theomorphism” (von Rad, 145–46). Such a view is too simple (see above). The image is properly understood as referring to the entire human, not a part or property. In recent research, Stendebach discerns two main lines of interpretation of the image. First, humankind is God’s representative upon earth, given the task of dominion over the nonhuman creation. The second model sees humankind as God’s counterpart (Gegenüber Gottes), so that a dialogical relation between God and humankind exists (Stendebach, 1051–52). Both models are valid, in that they express aspects of being “in the image of God.”
But in either interpretation, Genesis Gen 1:26b expresses the purpose or goal of creating humans in the image of God. Unlike the Mesopotamian myths, in which humans are created to serve the gods (e.g., Atrahasis I; Enuma Elish 6:8), in Gen the goal is dominion. The vocabulary, the ANE parallels, and the royal language of Ps 8 (which does not use the term “image of God” but clearly presupposes it) all confirm that this dominion is to be understood in terms of kingship, which has been “democratized” to refer to all humans. The meaning of the image, thus, does not lie in the mere terms used, but in Israel’s, or more precisely, the priestly tradition’s, understanding of representative kingship.
In this brief treatment only the essentials can be noted. For Israel, kingship (with its authority and power) is to be used for the good of those subject to the king according to the standards of justice and righteousness (Ps 72); kingly power exists to “serve” the well-being of the populace (1 Kgs 12:7). Moreover, kingly power is not absolute, it is limited to serving God’s purposes for kingship and to the tasks proper to kingship; when Saul or Uzziah transgress the limits and purposes of their office, they are judged (1 Sam 13; 15; 2 Chron 26:16–21). Thus, we are to assume that humans in the image of God exist to carry out God’s purposes on earth as his royal representatives. And their dominion (as male and female; cf. Bird) over the earth is connected with its fruitfulness and well-being, not with its destructive exploitation (Kaiser).
