Created in the Image of God: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Imago Dei

In 1500, the German artist Albrecht Dürer painted a self-portrait. The result is striking because Dürer chose to portray himself in a manner that had hitherto been reserved for devotional figures of the divine. The artist is shown half-length, staring intensely at the viewer (e.g. himself). Although the facial features do resemble those of the sitter, Dürer idealized his own physiognomy, conforming it to late medieval depictions of Christ. Moreover, the positioning of the artist’s right hand in the scene imitates the iconography of the act of blessing by the Salvator Mundi, the “Savior of the World.”1 While the Self-portrait of 1500 has been derided as an example of personal vain-glory,2 sympathetic critics have attempted to cast their analysis in a more “theological” manner. It is argued that to Dürer’s way of thinking, “the creative power of a good painter derives from, and to some measure is part of the creative power of God… ;” the artist himself writing, “God is honored when it appears that He has given such insight to a creature in whom such art resides.”3 For Dürer, experientia, or “observation of nature,” was the “noblest of the five senses,” and that which most clearly reflected the “insight” of God.4 In fact, one art historian goes so far as to label the work, a “confession” and a “sermon.” “It states, not what the artist claims to be, but what he most humbly endeavors to become: a man entrusted with a gift which implies both the triumph and tragedy of the Eritis sicut Deus (‘You shall be like God’).”5

In many ways, Albrecht Dürer’s work epitomizes the church’s continual grappling over the imago Dei, “the image of God.”6 For some, the “image of God” is in the eye of the beholder: that aspect of one’s own personality, character, or talent, which—in their view (experientia)—is uniquely reflective of the “divine in us.”7

However, with the rise of historical-critical study of the Bible in the late nineteenth century, a different venue to dealing with the issue was opened.8 Upon the discovery of thousands of texts by archaeologists, scholars turned to ancient Near Eastern parallels to try to explain the imago Dei.9 And on this basis, it is now generally accepted that the phrase is derived from “royal language” attested from Mesopotamia and Egypt, wherein a king or pharaoh is sometimes called the “image of (a) god.” While supposedly being “democratized” in the Genesis account, such an observation readily lends itself to the idea that human beings function as the divine image through the exercise of “dominion” and “rule.”

Still, even though there is something of a consensus in current biblical scholarship that the “exercise of rulership” is to be equated with the imago Dei, a number of questions must be addressed:

• What does the term “image” actually denote in the Ancient Near East?10 More pressing, what was an “image” and how did it function?
• Secondly, what are the immediate and broader biblical contexts in which this phrase “the image of God” occurs, and what bearing does a narrative reading have on the discussion?
• Finally, what does it mean that humanity was “created in the image of God?” It is often assumed that this clause refers to the making of human beings as “an image,” or fashioning men and women into an image, e.g. as somehow reflecting /mirroring God or some aspect of God’s own act or being. But some serious theological and grammatical difficulties arise despite the widespread acceptance of such translations and interpretations.

The Image in the Ancient Near East

Addressing the first point, in the Ancient Near East, the primary purpose of an image (Heb. ṣelem) was to demarcate the boundaries and limits in, and from which, a higher power exercised legitimate rule: the “image” transmitted the message and claim of its owner. Thus, in the ancient world, an image is best described as a sign or herald which pointed back to its original author and promulgator.11

Despite the overwhelming association of the term with an inanimate object—a stela, a standard, a carved or cast figure—human beings also functioned as “images.” We have already mentioned that kings were called the “image of a deity.” But it must be quickly stated that monarchs, when so named, were themselves regarded not as autonomous beings, but rather as serving the god, e.g. the Divine King, who appointed the individual to their office. This is no minor point, for it shows that mundane royal power was derived from, and circumscribed by, divine fiat.12 As a result, a king or pharaoh was not so much the “(mirror/physical twin) image of a god”—as is usually understood—but was an “image/instrument for a deity,” e.g. one who acted on behalf of, and by, the consent of the divine. More precisely, the ruler was a retainer whose foremost duty was to uphold a way of life that was regarded as transcendent in origin.13 Theoretically, a king as the “image for a god,” had no inherent authority: power was (temporarily) invested in the person upon the occupancy of an office (Kingship) which had been granted to them. No matter a monarch’s boasts to the contrary, his hierarchical position in ancient society was penultimate: it was the sovereign’s task to testify to, and carry out, the word and intention of The Ultimate (the Divine Realm).

Not surprisingly, beneath such rulers stood their own officials who served in a similar representative capacity as “royal images.” Judges, priests, ambassadors, and vassals, were placed in power by the grace of the sovereign, and the recipients of such largesse were to be entirely subservient to the command of their patron. Officers were obliged to transmit the king’s word, and not their own. Initiatives were to be guided and approved by the throne. Rumors— no matter how trivial—were to be reported back to the capital for the ruler’s decision.

What must be stressed in all of this, is that the “image” is to be understood as a legal and political concept. It expressed the reality of a very specific arrangement: an “image” was thought of, and described in terms of responsibility—of “obedient servanthood.” In the Ancient Near East, this ideal was exemplified by the title, arad kitti, “the faithful servant.”14

The arad kitti was the figure who was loyal to his sovereign’s command even in the face of great temptation to desert to another lord; or to rebel and go one’s own way; or who, because of adversity, was tempted to override the counsel of the superior because of the risk to one’s immediate safety or personal satisfaction. Essentially, the individual appointed as “an image of/for” a king or deity was in a covenantal relationship: a person’s duty being the carrying out of the bond which tied the parties to one another as Lord and Servant.

If one accepts that the reading “God created man in his image” in Genesis 1 has its origins in “royal ideology” of the Ancient Near East, then, it is against, and within, this symbolic world of Office and Obligation that the biblical concept of the imago Dei should be considered.

The Immediate Biblical Context of Genesis 1:26-27

The Scriptural context in which the phrase, “the image of God” appears, is the making of humanity by God—the penultimate act of creation, occurring on the sixth day. This event is part of, and culminates, a much longer sequence which is marked by a sense of “orderliness,” conveyed by the general pattern of:

1) God speaks; 2) The accomplishment of the divine command; 3) God recognizes the result as “good;” 4) Date.

Commentators have long acknowledged the deliberate nature of the account of chapter 1, and have noted parallels between the Genesis narrative of the formation of the cosmos, and a type of text found elsewhere in the Ancient Near East known as the “building” or “dedicatory” inscription.

This rather broad characterization—while useful—needs to be elaborated further: the creation of the world in Genesis 1:1-2:4 describes the construction of a particular type of architecture—a temple.15 God, acting in the role of a king:

• First designates by decree the spot acceptable for a cult-shrine (Gen. 1:3);
• Followed by the formation of the roof and floor (Gen. 1:7, 10);
• Next, God provides a place for ritual ablution and cleansing (Gen. 1:10);
• Then, he furnishes appropriate illumination and timetables for the tasks to be carried out within the edifice (Gen. 1:14-15);
• Finally, God stocks the sanctuary with materials for use within the designated area (Gen. 1:20-25);
• At each juncture, the work “in progress” is inspected and approved (“It was good”).

Within this literary scheme, the subsequent formation of human beings as “male” and “female” “in the image of God,” would parallel the installation of “images” within an ancient shrine. Presupposing the conceptual background offered above, the purpose of these human “images” would have been regarded in functional terms: to represent, bear witness to, and to serve under, the authority of the Divine/Royal Patron.

These images—just like the personnel of a sovereign in the Ancient Near East—are to speak and act on the basis of their commission. Established in their office—in their position as “image for God”—they are to be nothing more, and nothing less, than the arad kitti, “the loyal servant” of their Lord, bound to, constrained, and defined by, His Sovereign Word alone.

Taken in this way, the biblical specification of humankind “in the image of/for God” as “male” and “female” is not just a designation of gender, but should be considered as the assignation of mutual responsibility and duty, e.g. ethics.16 Both men and women—as such—are chosen for their position to acknowledge faithfully the sovereignty of their Creator over them and their office.

The precise role given to corporate humanity of male-female “in the image of/for God”—best understood as “in the service of God”—is announced by the Deity in Gen. 1:26, and reiterated in Gen. 1:28-30:

And God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” And God said: “Behold, I have given to you every plant yielding seed… you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every plant for food.”

Here, blessing is the act of investiture: humanity’s tasks are both assigned and effected by Divine Mandate, with God’s benediction being cast in the form of a threefold royal grant:

1) Servant/herald-humanity is given the ability to reproduce; the intended emphasis being that the office of “image” is to be filled and exercised in perpetuity, a common motif in the awarding of royal posts.17 2) Servant/herald-humanity is allowed to “subdue” and “have dominion” over the rest of Creation and its inhabitants. The phraseology is very subtle here: while seemingly having the implication of unlimited power, the terms “subdue it” (Heb. kivsuah) and “have dominion” (Heb. redu) may also be rendered in a more benign fashion, as “domesticating” and “shepherding.”18 The exercise of such prerogatives, thus, is to be directed towards, and contributes to, the primary task of humanity’s “image/office” of “servanthood” under the jurisdiction of the Divine.

3) Humankind—as with any officeholder or vassal in the Ancient Near East—is granted victuals and provender: a salary and pension as benefit of its position of being in relationship to its lord.

The stress of the text is that whatever authority humanity has to yield, does not arise out of any natural ability in Man, but has its sole basis in the mercy, generosity, and permission of the Divine Suzerain towards it.

Following humankind’s installation “in the image/service of God,” within the world which has been purposefully fashioned as the Temple of God, the Lord of the Sanctuary declares everything that he has done to be “very good.” “Good/goodness” (tov) is characteristic of juridical language in the Ancient Near East.19 The term denotes that which is “fitting and proper as effected by the action of the superior in the formulation of a binding relationship between two parties.” This biblical “good,” therefore, is not to be derived from some neutral point, nor is it to be regarded primarily as an aesthetic quality; but it, too, is “legal” in nature. “Good/goodness” is “that which is agreeable to the initiator and author of the covenant.”

The acknowledgment that “everything that he has made— behold—it was very good,” is the declaration that each aspect in God’s creative plan is duly suited for its respective role: the parts contribute to the proper fulfillment of the whole. And significantly enough, Creation concludes—not with the making of humanity—but with the institution of the Sabbath: the great festival in which God is to be honored, is established as the true goal of the divine acta.

Within this immediate scriptural context, the making of human beings “in the image of God,” would denote that all mortal action is to be directed towards the glorification of the Lord of the Covenant and Builder of His Sanctuary. Importantly, human beings—male and female, equally and together—are granted a sacral responsibility. They are, by expressed decree, to be “priests,” servants, and heralds for their Divine Suzerain.

The formation of humanity in Gen. 1:26-27, “in the image/service of God” above all else, would refer to the inauguration of a particular post and tenure. Analogous to historical practice in the Ancient Near East, such a contractual office is to be regarded as a privilege: it is not to be seized, taken over, or arbitrarily changed by, the occupants on their own terms. Rather, it is to be received in gratitude, carried out in humility, and—bound to the Lord of the Covenant, and guided by his Word—its sole purpose is revealed to be the joyful service and exaltation of God.20

Another Reading of Genesis 1:26-27

One of the difficulties in dealing with the imago Dei is the rarity of the phrase itself in the Bible. Other scriptural references to it are largely dependent upon its initial usage in Gen. 1:26-27, and this scarcity has readily lent itself to speculation. Nevertheless, explanations of the term which posit some sort of “resemblance” between God and humanity—whether ontologically or analogically—have to overcome the problem of the utter transcendence of God in his Being and Act from that which he has created: God is God, and human beings are human beings.

Moreover, there are also other peculiarities of Gen.1:26-27 with which one must reckon. Contrary to usual Hebrew syntax, the verb bara, “to make, create,” normally does not take the preposition be-, “in,” to signify a secondary object, as the translations of these verses would suppose (“Let us make man in our image…so God created man in his own image”).21 Only in the Genesis passages referring to the imago Dei is such a formulation in evidence. But both its exceptional grammar, as well as the theological objections raised above, serve to caution us that such a rendering is not to be automatically assumed.

In this regard, however, it should be pointed out that the phrases, “in the image of,” and “according to the likeness (of)” are attested frequently in extra-biblical writings from the Ancient Near East as idioms. In ancient Egyptian, for example, “in the image of” is a simple designation for “oneself;” while “according to the likeness of” expresses the notion of “completeness” or “totality,” e.g. “totally.”22 These phrases are used as adjunct or appositives to nouns, and emphasize the idea of “one’s own self.” Thus, the lexical arrangement—Proper Name + qualifier “in the image of PN”/ “according to the likeness of PN”—means, “an individual himself, completely (did something); or “someone—on their own—(did something).” The terminology is self-referential, and is used to convey the concept of sui generis, or uniqueness.

Despite the complex interpretative history of the imago Dei, it is quite attractive to take Gen. 1:26-27 in this fashion: the Hebrew phrases besalmenu, “in his (lit. our) image,”23 and kidmuthenu, “according to his (our) likeness” are to be seen as idiomatic, parallel to similar constructions attested in other Ancient Near Eastern languages.

Furthermore, we would suggest that these figurative expressions belong not to the predicate “man/humanity” (adam), but are to be linked, instead, to the subject “God:” lit. “God-in God’s-own image/according-to-God’s likeness created man.” Such a possibility is supported by the Hebrew word order, and is, in fact, quite plausible in light of Gen. 1:27, where “in the image of” is placed at the beginning of the clause, being closely bound to the subject “he,” i.e. “God”: “It is in-his-image, that God created humanity.24

What would “God-in-the-image of God/God-according to his likeness” signify? On the one hand, it would merely be a formula for saying: “God himself, totally (or accordingly).” Yet, this would have great significance within the overall discussion of the imago Dei, since it would be an attempt by the biblical witness to stress that God had undertaken the creation of humankind in his complete and utter sovereignty: it is God alone, by his grace, that he made this adam.

“God-in-God’s image, according-to-his-likeness,” e.g. “God’s own self—completely,” is the revelation that this deity has freely undertaken the formation and commissioning of man: it is God who acts out of, and in, and from, his own authority. If such a reading is valid, several implications may be drawn from the text:

• Gen 1:26-27 would be stating that humans are not formed “into” or “as” “the divine image,” at all. Rather, this “image” and “likeness”25 is entirely self-referential, self-defined, and self-applied to God: divine being is not transferred to humanity in any manner at creation. There is no natural correspondence between humanity and its character, and God, other than the reality of God’s granting to Man the ability to exist and function as this creature before Him.26
• However, the formulation, “God, God’s self, totally created humanity” in no sense, is a denial of Man’s status within the created scheme. Male and female are brought into being for a specific purpose: to serve as bearers and holders of a sacral post, sharing in the benefits granted to them by their Suzerain. They are to live with, and by, the revelation that God alone is, and has declared Himself, to be this, their Sovereign Lord.
• The Creation of Man by “God’s own self, totally,” is a biblical refutation of an idea then current in the ancient world, that human existence is an accident, or originated out of chaos. Gen.1:26-27, affirms that the formation of Man is the result of God’s own intentional and free act— not as an afterthought, compulsion, or forced necessity.

Wisdom and the Imago Dei

We are not unaware that the proposed “God-in-God’s image (e.g. God himself) created humanity” is a departure from tradition, and an immediate question arises as a result: Does it eliminate the earlier rendering, discussed above, of “God created humanity in the image/office of/for God?”

Not necessarily; while a tension exists between the two statements, there is also the real possibility that both meanings were intended to be conveyed by the text. The Creation narratives in Genesis bear distinct affinities with a type of literature from the Ancient Near East known as “Wisdom.”27 “Wisdom” has to do with proper discernment and judgment. And one of the major lessons that this genre imparts, is that a “truth” based on human reason or experience is often faulty and short-sighted. Only that Word which is given from God forms the proper basis for living a meaningful life in the midst of a contradictory and paradoxical existence. The very manner in which such “wisdom” is formulated is intended to reveal the sagacity— or the lack, thereof—of its recipient. Proverbs and propositions often use puns and expressions that are multivalent in meaning. A statement will apparently, say one thing, but simultaneously, intends something quite different to be understood—even the exact opposite. The “wise individual”—the “sage”—is able to discern what is actually being transmitted by the author.

Given the ambiguity of the Hebrew, Genesis 1:26-27 may be regarded in this way, with four distinct meanings implied:

1) “God created man in God’s own image.” Whatever the ṣelem /imago is, the most important aspect to note about it, is that it is determined by, and subject to, the decision and action of its Creator, alone.

2) “God created man in/into God’s image.” The “image” is used in its technical meaning of a “marker/servant/office-holder” on behalf of, or for, God. Though linked to “royal ideology,” the function and role of the “image,” or “instrument,” is subordinated to the intention and desire of its Sovereign Lord.

3) “God-in-God’s (own)-image created humanity.” This stresses the transcendence of God as Creator. God alone defines God’s self and act over, and against, those whom he has fashioned as human-beings.

4) “God created man in/as God’s image.” By contrast to the preceding readings, humanity, on the basis of its own judgment, views itself as a direct reflection of God, having the ability to declare its own sovereignty, interpret the divine will, and define itself apart from the oversight of its Creator. Man equates some aspect of its “creatureliness” as a direct correspondence with a divine attribute, or “divinity”—that it is just like God.

Despite some differences, the first three examples are closely related. The stress—in one way or another—is that the fashioning of human beings is the freely chosen act of the Divine Sovereign; man’s existence is determined both by the divine claim, and by its “occupation,” which is subordinate to, and shaped by the decision of God for it. Whether the “image” is to be applied to God idiomatically (#3), or to man, functionally (#1-2)—and we would argue that both readings (# 2-3) are valid and implied—the creation of the latter is overwhelmingly realized in terms of “obedient servanthood,” a task and role clearly formulated within the narrative logic of the canonical text as being based on, and explicated as, a “covenantal relationship.”

Ironically enough, #4 has been hermeneutically prevalent throughout history, even though it is the very essence of the temptation offered by the “serpent,” “to partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil… (for) when you eat of it… you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

“To be like God” ( sicut Deus) will be proven demonstrably, to be the false understanding of the imago Dei. Through its misguided interpretation that “being created in the image of God” means asserting the right to displace divine command with its self-derived knowledge about itself, and how it is to live, humanity will gain the unfortunate experience (experientia) of death.

The Reclamation and the Repristination of the Imago Dei

Over the centuries, one of the most pressing questions regarding the imago Dei has been: What became of the “image” subsequent to the eviction of Man-Woman from the Garden? Earlier commentators—seeking to identify the “image” as the human possession of a divine attribute— were faced with the insurmountable problem: How could that which God had created “in perfection” dissolve into decay? Calvin’s famous description of the “deformation” of the “image” implanted in the soul is an attempt to come to grips with such a difficulty.

However, if one takes “in the image” as a reference to “God’s self,” such inquiries about the “loss of the imago Dei” become irrelevant: God does not stop being the God who created humanity out of his own gracious will. Still, there can be little doubt that the sinful arrogance of human beings “to be like God” (sicut Deus) is a continuing theme of the Genesis narratives, if not most of the Bible. Clearly, the later Reformed emphasis on the sinful depravity of Man is not entirely misplaced, having its roots in the Scriptures themselves. Nevertheless, this negative depiction of human falleness is counterbalanced in the book of Genesis with the portrayal of individuals who remain obedient to the guidance of God and his Word: Noah and Abraham. Because of their faithfulness, they are recipients of special covenants28 from God; these individuals will provide prototypes and models who exemplify the concept of the imago Dei in its instrumental and vocational sense as “servants/images for God,” who recognize the utter sovereignty of God over them, outside of the rarified confines of Eden.

This idea of “special election” of a loyal vassal eventually reaches a climax in the Pentateuch in the formation of the pact between God and Moses, where the entire community is to “become a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5). Through Torah—the covenantal instruction centered around the Decalogue—comes the opportunity for humanity to live out the Divine Intention for it from the Beginning, even in a Fallen World—acknowledging, as the corporate entity of Israel, that “God is Lord, and we are his people.” This declaration represents the reinstatement of Gen. 1:27, in its two-fold sense, both as divine claim upon, and commissioning of, humankind: in the wilderness, Israel accepts the role and task of arad kitti, “the faithful servant,” recognizing the title of its Divine Suzerain over all of Creation.29

Indeed, this emphasis upon service to YHWH as entailing the office, and election, of Israel is an important theme in the Scriptures, receiving its most vivid treatment in the exilic prophets, particularly the second half of the book of Isaiah.30 After the announcement that their captivity is to end, God—in an act reminiscent of both Creation and Exodus—summons his people forth from the “chaos” of Babylon, and declares it to be his “servant” anew. The identification of “servant/vassal-Israel” culminates in the description of a figure, who, in his loyalty, bears the “transgressions” and “iniquities” of the nation upon himself, despite terrible cost to his own life. The acknowledgment that YHWH—in his sovereign freedom— has fashioned Israel for this task alone—to be radically obedient to the Lord and his covenantal command— exemplifies the re-Creation of humanity “in-the-image of God” following the destruction of the Temple and the return of the nation to its homeland.

This prophetic language wherein the “image” and “servanthood” are linked, ultimately converges in the apostle Paul’s description of the kenosis, “the pouring out” of the pre-existent Son of God, an act which is requisite to the drama of salvation:

(Christ Jesus) who—though he was in the form of God—… emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of man. And being found so formed—as a man—He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, (namely) death by a cross (Philippians 2:6a, 7-8).

In Pauline theology, the story of Jesus’ radical faith and faithfulness—e.g. the history of his obedient servanthood which demonstrates his true lordship—represents authentic humanity as intended by God from the beginning. The denial and deformation of man’s vocation by the first Adam, is reversed through the One who submitted himself in humility to God’s Word and plan.31 The restoration of the proper understanding of “being-created-in-God’s image” in all of its aspects—denoting the unique Lordship of God as Creator, and subservience of Man thereto—is manifested and effected by God’s great, and once-for-all act of mercy in, and through, his Son, his life, death, and resurrection.

Humanity’s “being conformed” and “conforming” to Christ and his witness—both ontologically and ethically— henceforth specifies the content and meaning of the imago Dei. Christology defines anthropology: the “Second Adam” is the repristination and re-creation of the “Old (Fallen) Man” and his corrupting of his office.

The election—the commissioning and claiming of humanity by covenant—through the free and gracious act of the Electing and Covenanting God-—revealed in, and as, Jesus Christ will mark the “two-fold” reality underlying the biblical phrase “God’s created man-in-his-image/ God-in-God’s-own-image created man.”32

Re-integrating the Imago Dei

We would conclude our survey, by affirming that both textual and linguistic material available from the Ancient

Near East, is quite valuable in illuminating the background of the biblical “imago Dei.”33

We have argued that, rather than denoting the “exaltation” of a particular talent or characteristic of human nature—as is frequently the case in popular debates of this topic—the imago Dei has to do with the Creation, Commissioning, and Claiming of Man by God in covenant. It is as “Lord” of this Bond, and as Author and Initiator of this specific binding relationship, that God defines both himself, and his creature. Such an arrangement, we would suggest, is signified by the “double meaning” of the phrase “God-in-God’s-image created man/God created Man in God’s image.”

This dialectical expression contains within it the revelation that first and foremost, God is the Electing God who acts out of his own Sovereign Will (e.g. “God-in-God’s-image created man: God himself, completely created humanity”); and secondly—but importantly—humanity has been brought into existence, and appointed to occupy and carry out a sacral office (e.g “God created man in his image/in service for him”).

Man is the consequence of God’s purposeful decision, and has been called into being for a particular task: to glorify its Sovereign, being empowered by grant, to fulfill its station within the divinely ordered world. Critically, both the form and function of this office are entirely dependent upon, and realized in, God’s Word, alone. Humanity’s action within the Cosmos-as-Temple, on behalf of its Suzerain, is itself, described and circumscribed by decree—God’s Self-Disclosure.

As a result, we would assert that any “anthropological” interpretation of the imago Dei as “in the image/office of/for God” has to do with ethics. However, the ethics implied in the biblical account of Creation are of a certain type: they are the obligations placed upon the arad kitti— the faithful servant. Humanity is not “enthroned” as an autonomous autocrat, but is installed as a beloved vassal, whose trustworthiness is signified by reverence for, and obedience to, God and His Command.34 For it is literally “God’s Word” which will determine the parameters of the relationship between the two parties. That which leads to “life and good” is to be derived neither from humanity’s evaluation of itself, nor from its experientia—not even from its potential or ability to act within the sphere of Creation— but by Divine Ordinance.35

Simply put, the “image” of the imago Dei is expressed in the continuing witness and validity of God’s declaration of partnership, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” God is faithful in his covenantal promise as Creator and Lord, and Mankind is to occupy its rightful place as His Servant in the world, being guided by, sustained, and bearing witness to, that Divine Word spoken to it from the Beginning. Likewise, this will be the essence of the office subsequently given to the community of Israel in the midst of the Fallen World; as Torah—Covenantal Instruction—will define anew the original commissioning of, and commission to, humanity to “rule/shepherd” a Creation, now broken and reeling from sin.

And, according to the testimony of Scripture, this service to, and for, YHWH, is decisively revealed in the actual embodiment of the Divine Word—the Word which was at, and from, the Beginning, and which has become flesh in history—in, and as, Jesus Christ. It is through This One— who brings to Man the Light which shone forth at Creation, and who announces the Sabbath of the Lord to the world— that Israel’s mission, and humanity’s original and eternal vocation and purpose are both demonstrated and consummated.

In and through Christ Jesus—He who was, and is, with God as Son and Servant of YHWH—we hear once more, and finally, that it is “in-the-image-of-God that God made Man;” and that Man-and-Woman, adam—equally and together— have been fashioned by God Himself to be holy and free for God, and thus, wholly free for one another in the responsibility of a covenantal community.

We would suggest that it is this interplay between the Creating and Commissioning God, and Created and Commissioned Humanity which constitutes the biblical concept and reality of the imago Dei for the church. Hopefully, it is from such a point—the recognition that humanity is defined by the Sovereign Word and Act of God as homo foederis Dei, “man of, and by, God’s covenant”36—that further discussion may proceed.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 3, No. 6 (Nov/Dec 1997).