In The Image

             Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

                                                           (Genesis 1:26-27)

 

          One of the questions asked in the Bible study I mentioned yesterday is about what “in our image, in our likeness” means. If you do some research on the issue, you’ll find lists of characteristics of  God that are described as incommunicable (His eternality,  unchangeableness, omnipresence) and as communicable (His love, knowledge, mercy, justice, and power.) As Wayne Grudem describes in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan Publishers, 1994, pp 156-157), “communicable” attributes are not shared in equal levels with God’s. We may exercise power, or have knowledge, but not as much as God does.

          At one point, some people (and probably we, at least as children,) thought that “in the image of God” means that God has eyes, a mouth, ears, etc. We still use this idea. God sees or hears something. God says something. He refers to His hand or arm. He’s described as a “He.” They are included in Scripture, and if we’re going to believe Scripture to be true, God must look like a male human being, right. When Jesus “came to Earth,” He was a male human, wasn’t He?

          One of the rules of hermeneutics (the understanding of a text) is to understand different genre types and their requirements, and to recognize figures of  speech commonly used in a genre. It also takes into account the culture of the recipient and the writer. For example, if writing to the people who live in the 1400s, a reference to nuclear power or President Biden wouldn’t have meaning.

          So, looking at today’s passage, the first point is that God “spoke” of making man in His image and likeness. Then there’s a “so that,” which introduces a purpose or reason for what went before. God’s making man in His own image was done (at least in part) so that man could rule over the animals. It does not say that he was to rule over plants, the land, the sea, or the air – just the animals. This might be the reason Cain’s offering of fruit was not acceptable, because God didn’t give man plants. He was to tend the plants, because that’s how he would provide food for the animals, but he was not made a steward over plants.

In addition, God gave them an example of what ruling over animals was supposed to look in His treatment of both animals and them. Ruling equals caring for. We tend to do a lousy job of that. But it should be noted that caring for does not mean worshipping or considering them to be “just like us.”

          The passage makes another statement about being made in God’s image. They were made “male and female.” Technically, most/all of the animals were made male and female, because they were told to multiply. Yes, there may be some exceptions, but in that sense, both people and animals were made in the image of God. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus describes Himself as being like a mother hen. So, while it is likely to irritate certain men, and probably more women - “in the image of God” includes both male and female.

          I have heard that the first time something appears in Scripture, it deserves special attention. This is the first time “made in the image of God” appears. We are to be like Him in our responsibilities, and in our unity – we are both “man,” and our diversity (male and female.) It’s unwise to take them farther than this without Scriptural backup because being made in His image doesn’t grant us all His rights.