Bible Students

The Image of God

The theological idea I have chosen to discuss in this short paper is the Image of God. The Image of God is one of the most widely debating topics of creationism amongst Christian circles, and though the interpretation is mostly disconnected from practical application, it is one of the most interesting topics of Creationism to explore. In his book, Erickson plainly says Scripture does not describe what the Image of God is. He does make some distinctions between animals and humans by drawing out the differences and makes a hypothesis based off of that. While Erickson offers a wide arrange of options for interpretation, I would like to survey some other Christian thinkers. 

Alternative Views

William MacDonald in The Believer’s Bible Commentary offers a possible explanation for what the Image of God actually is. He writes that the Image of God in Adam and Eve is their representation of God on earth. However, it is more than just that, and extends also into humanity’s character, being three-part beings (trichotomous), intellectual, moral in nature, able to communicate, and having emotions separate to instinct. This means the Image of God is (1) representative (man represents God), (2) reasoning (man has reason and intellect, unlike animals), (3) relational (man has emotions and relates to others and to God), and (4) substantive (man is a trichotomy, composed similarly to God). 

Harold Willmington in Willmington’s Bible Handbook writes that the Image of God is self-awareness, the ability to choose between good and evil, and the ability to relate to the creator. Here, Willmington identifies the Image of God as (1) reasoning (free will, the ability to choose between good and evil, and self-awareness), and (2) relational (the ability to relate to the creator). Willmington here disagrees with Macdonald, leaning towards a functional view of the Image (what man can do, including reason and relation), rather than a representative or substantive view. 

Erickson, in his book Christian Theology, states fellowship, obedience, and love in relation with the Father is the fulfillment of the Image of God, and says that the Image of God is expressed fully when people exercise these qualities. This definitely leans more towards the relational view of the Image, that man’s ultimate goal is to have relationships with God and with others. 

Herbert Lockyer Sr. in Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible notes that the Bible does not explicitly state what the actual meaning of the Image of God is, so it could be an attribute or function of man. This is an important thing to keep in mind, since fierce battles should not be fought over what the Bible does not clearly teach. 

I have reserved the thoughts of Michael S. Heiser (The Unseen Realm) and Bill T. Arnold (Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey) for last. In his book, Heiser demonstrates how thinking about the Image of God as an ability at all is flawed, and excludes people without that certain ability from truly being an Image bearer. If self-awareness is the Image, then unborn babies in the womb do not bear the image. Animals are capable of emotions, and possibly reason, so it shouldn’t be thought of as those things either. However, the Bible does offer some insights as to what the Image could be. 

There are four main insights presented. (1) Both men and woman are equally included in Image bearing. (2) The Image is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of the earthly creation, though not necessarily from the heavenly creation (there is no mention of the heavenly creation regarding this in Genesis 1). (3) There is something about the Image that makes mankind like God in some way. And lastly, (4) There is nothing in the text to suggest that the Image has been or can be bestowed in part. You either are or are not an image bearer. Defining the Image of God as any ability is flawed for that reason. Rather, the Image of God is the responsibility to represent God on earth, and to turn the chaotic world into an orderly world, just like He did (Genesis 1). Arnold seems to agree with this, noting also that Image bearing means you have dominion over the earth, pulling at the same idea Heiser discussed. Both of these men hold to the idea that the Image of God is a representative role, not a functional or substantive one. 

Comparing

Erickson seems to hold to a relational view of the Image of God. He stands alone among the Christian thinkers surveyed in this paper in that view. While some authors, such as MacDonald and Willmington, include relations in the overall view of the Image, Erickson is the only thinker to hold that relational ability is nearly or completely the entirety of the Image of God. Willmington and MacDonald both hold to a similar view that includes most of the common interpretations of the Image, while Heiser and Arnold hold to a strict view of the representative Image. However, there is a slight nuance in the description of these differing views. 

While it seems that Erickson leaned more towards a relational view, I would like to note that the distinctions between Heiser, Arnold, and Erickson are slim to none. The description of Erickson’s view was much more emotion-leaning than the way Erickson described his view, but I believe at their core they are a very similar view. Mankind is to represent God on earth, and the way mankind does this is through relationships and connections to God and man. It seems Erickson, Heiser, and Arnold all share a very similar stance. 

Summary

As described in the previous paragraph, the Image of God is the responsibility humanity has to represent God on earth. Just as God created an orderly world from chaos, man is called to take the chaotic world and to sanctify it. In that way, man relieves the earth of some of her groanings. The earth is horribly broken, and it is in man’s nature and responsibility to do what God does, through proper relationships with self, others, creation, and God. When these four basic relationships are viewed properly and exercised with godly intent, the Image of God is expressed.

Bibliography
Arnold, Bill T. Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey . Grand Rapid, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 1999.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology . Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1983.
Heiser, Michael S. The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible .
Bellingham, Washington: Lexham Press, 2015.
Lockyer, Herbert Sr. Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible . Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas
Nelson, 1986.
MacDonald, William. Believer’s Bible Commentary . Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson,
1993.
Wilmington, Harold L. Willmington’s Bible Handbook. Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House
Publishers.