Image of God: Study of Genesis 1:26-28 with exegesis and practical application
Introduction
This paper will attempt to provide the reader with an exegetical study of Genesis 1:26-28. These all important verses stand as the centerpiece of the historical prologue of God’s creation of the cosmos.[1] There are several aspects involved in the six days of creation but the intention of this paper is to explore the account of the sixth day concerning God’s creation of man (אָדָ֛ם).[2] The creation of man is seen as the apex or crowning jewel of all that God had made. There was no other creature that God endowed with the imago Dei. Therefore, enormous significance was given by God to the creation and purpose of man on earth.
When God created אָדָ֛ם in the garden he gave him several mandates. These mandates were tasks that God had required of them to perform. The tasks included: ruling or taking dominion of the earth (v.26), procreation (v.28), and subduing the earth (v.28). Each of these will be discussed in the following commentary along with concluding theological and practical reflections on the passage.
At the conclusion of the paper, I have included some valuable insights. If you are more interested in the “practical application” of this text, you may skip the “exegetical” work and head straight there. I have attempted to make this section “short and sweet” while including some valuable ideas. It briefly discusses the imago Dei, cultural mandate, marriage, “sacred/secular divide”, racial harmony, gender hostility, and the doctrine of vocation.
Commentary
v. 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”[3]
Let us make (נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה). The word עָשָׂה is used thirty-two times throughout Genesis 1-11, eighteen times between Genesis 1-5, and seven times in chapter 1.[4] The word means to make and “summarizes the entire creative activity/account…. God is a God who acts and brings his plans to realization.”[5] It is also noteworthy that God makes in verse 26 and then creates humankind in verse 27.[6]
The words (let us) have also been the subject of intense debate over the years. The question of who the ‘us’ is creates many problems for the Old Testament exegete. For lack of space I will present the two most prominent views.
[1] An address to a heavenly court:
The picture in view here is of God in a heavenly court surrounded by his angelic host.[7] The heavenly court “was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon.”[8] The specific meaning here is that of an assembly made up of “the sons of God.”[9] Biblical evidence does in fact show that when us is mentioned in this context, God is addressing the heavenly assembly (1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps. 89:5-6).[10]
This view, however, seems to connote that God needed to consult with an outside entity prior to creation. Cassuto notes three reasons as to why this interpretation is left wanting.
(1) that it conflicts with the central thought of the section that God alone created the entire world; (2) that the expression Let us make is not one of consultation; (3) that if the intention was to tell us that God took counsel, the Bible would have explicitly stated whom He consulted, as we are told in the other passages that are cited in support of this theory….[11]
There also seems to be no reference to a heavenly host previously mentioned in the entire chapter.[12]
[2] Plurality in the Godhead:
Genesis 1:2 makes reference to the third person of the Trinity: “the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” This reference provides validity to the plurality view along with plurality in the image itself.[13] Clines refers to this plurality as “duality in the Godhead” and also suggests that the Spirit of God is being addressed.[14] The Spirit of God is also referenced as being an agent of creation[15] throughout the Old Testament Scriptures.[16] Some commentators[17] view this as being the weaker of the two views because of the concept of duality, but Victor P. Hamilton has valuable advice for exegetes:
What we often so blithely dismiss as “foreign to the thought of the OT” may be nothing of the sort. True, the concept may not be etched on every page of Scripture, but hints and clues are dropped enticingly here and there, and such hints await their full understanding “at the correct time” (Gal. 4:4).[18]
The comments are in reference to those holding a position insisting that the Trinity or at least duality within the Godhead was foreign to the thoughts of the ANE. The position being affirmed does hold to at least duality in the Godhead if not explicitly mentioning the Trinitarian position of the New Testament.
In our image, after our likeness (בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ). The imago Dei has also been debated at great length but for the sake of space this paper will not concern itself with the many differing accounts. The aim of this paper does not separate the “image” and “likeness” like many have in history. The two words help explain how man is to reflect God’s character synonymously.[19]
Furthermore, the meaning of the words בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ 'as our image' and כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ ‘according to our likeness’ demonstrate that man is the imago Dei.[20] The LXX (Septuagint) uses the word εἰκόνα (eikona = icon) to describe this concept and it must be noted that nowhere in the OT does it suggest that the divine likeness has been lost.[21] A post-fall Genesis 9:6 affirmed this. God condemned murder because of the simple fact that man was made in the imago Dei.[22] This affirms that God alone holds all rights in regards to human value.
Let them have dominion (וְיִרְדּוּ) and the root word רָדָה occurs twenty-seven times in the OT. There appears to be two roots distinguished in lexicons: “rule,” occurring twenty-four times, and “take, seize,” occurring three times.[23] The present context indicates that part of God’s blessing on humankind was that he gave them the responsibility of exercising dominion over the created order.[24] Furthermore, “we may infer that dominion over the animals and over all the earth is one aspect of the image of God.”[25]
Dominion is also expressed through reflecting or imaging God’s dominion as Kingly ruler of the cosmos. Mankind was also created as God’s vice-regent to rule over creation. Psalm 8:3-8 also connotes this position:
[3] When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,[4] What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?[5] Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.[6] You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,[7] all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,[8] the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.
Man’s role as God’s vice-regent over creation must also be tempered with compassion. God’s vice-regent must also be a “champion of the poor and disadvantaged.”[26] Furthermore, they must also display appropriate stewardship over God’s resources, including the domestication of the animal kingdom. Thus, רָדָה is extensive and displays a reflection of the imago Dei in man.
v. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
The verb בָּרָא is used 49 times throughout the OT[27] and three times in this verse to emphasize the creative act of God. This verse “assumes a more exalted tone and becomes poetic.”[28] Cassuto also states that “the poetic structure of the sentence, its stately diction and its particular emotional quality attest the special importance that the Torah attributes to the making of man—the noblest of the creatures.”[29] The poetic pattern displayed in verse 27 displays the level of importance attributed to the creation of man in the imago Dei.
The idea of an ex nihilo creation is directly tied to Genesis 1 and explains “an absolute beginning of the universe as well as the absolute sovereignty of God in bringing reality into being and ordering it according to his will.”[30] However, this is not necessarily the explicit meaning in verse 27.
Lastly, this verse does seem to add further validity to the interpretation of verse 26 as the plurality in the Godhead. After stating “let us make man in our image” in verse 26 the author seems to clarify the meaning of his statement here. The words “so God created man in his own image” links the “us” in verse 26 with the creative work of God. There is no mention of God taking counsel with a heavenly court in verse 27.
Man. The Hebrew word for man in this verse is the word אָדָם. This word can be used as a proper noun for the name Adam or it can take on a generic meaning for man, woman, or even human being in general. The main thrust of the word lies in the fact that man is separate from all other created beings.
In the image of God he created (בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים) appears to mirror the mention of the imago Dei in verse 26. From verse 27 one “aspect of the image of God is man’s having been created male and female.”[31] This provides further meaning into the role of the imago Dei. Man was created to be a social being in need of companionship. The man was made for “and complements”[32] the woman and the woman does the same in turn for man.
The image of God in man is also seen through man’s ability and “potential to mirror divine attributes.”[33] Mankind was created in the imago Dei and through the re-creative work of God in regeneration man has the ability to become more like the imago Dei through the process of sanctification.
Lastly, as mentioned above the mandate to take dominion of the created order is also part of the image. Man has been given royal status as God’s vice-regent and by “exercising …dominion man is like God, since God has supreme and ultimate dominion over the earth.”[34] This can also be said to be a way in which humans imitate God. God has given them the ability to express a limited role of sovereignty over the created order.
Male and female. God chose to make אָדָם both male and female. This is a vital portion of the imago Dei but it does not define it exclusively.[35] Collins states that “mankind consists of both males and females, both of which are in the image of God and both of which are necessary to carry out the commission to “be fruitful and multiply.”[36] Man and woman hold an entirely different status from the beasts of the field because of their having been created in the imago Dei.
v. 28 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 heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
God gave his people two commandments: procreation and subduing/taking dominion of the earth. The first of the two states, “פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ” and is translated literally to mean “be fruitful and multiply and fill.” The second states, “וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ” and is translated “and subdue it and have dominion.” Both of these are made up of imperative verbs. This means they are commandments or assignments given by God. This is also known as the twofold cultural mandate.[37]
Be fruitful and multiply and fill. The first word mentioned has a root of פָּרָה and means “to be fruitful.” The second has a root of רָבָה and means to “become many or multiply.” The third and final word has a root of מָלֵא which connotes a meaning of “filling.” This is the first half of the cultural mandate. There is great significance to all of these words being parsed as: Qal, imperative, second person, masculine, plurals. They command married couples to procreate and become many on the earth. This is not to be seen exclusively as a blessing that may or may not be exercised. In the case of healthy (mentally and physically) parents, this is properly seen as a responsibility that God has placed on his creatures for the continued flourishing of humanity.
And subdue it and have dominion. The second half of the cultural mandate is also parsed as: Qal, imperative, second person, masculine, plural. The first word mentioned here is כָּבַשׁ and expresses God’s blessing alongside the command to take dominion of the earth.[38] This word is mentioned fourteen times throughout the OT in various stems.[39] This word also expresses “the exercise of force”[40] and “connotes more force”[41] than the second half of the cultural mandate to take dominion.
As mentioned above, the second half of this portion of the cultural mandate expresses the meaning of dominion. The root of this word is רָדָה and completes the imperative or command portion of the verse. This word sheds further light on God’s mandate for humanity.
Both of these words speak of the responsibility that God has placed on humanity[42] as his vice-regents. They also express the role that humans have over the created order and more specifically their responsibility to dominate the animal kingdom alongside their role in agricultural dominion. This is expressed in the concluding words of verse 28:
Over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.
This portion of creation is what is meant for humanity to subdue and have dominion over. Lastly, humans are to express these things in a way that champions a biblical ethic.
Conclusion
In conclusion there are several theological and practical aspects of this passage that provide great value to the reader. As seen above, this passage touches on various aspects of God’s creation of humanity along with the responsibilities they share in caring for the earth.
A few theological reflections I wish to comment on will surround the topics of [1] plurality in the Godhead, [2] the imago Dei, and [3] the cultural mandate. First, the topic of plurality in the Godhead is an extremely important concept throughout the Old and New Testaments. Although the concept of the Trinity is not explicitly stated in this passage the idea of plurality is. This concept explains the communal aspect of God’s character. This doctrine is then further clarified with in the New Testament.
Second, the doctrine of the imago Dei provides theological significance for the reader. God created man in his image thus giving him regal status. Furthermore, because of the imago Dei in man and God’s work of grace[43] in man, he is capable of reflecting God’s divine communicable attributes of holiness, righteousness, and justice, etc. The imago Dei also explains the communal aspects of the relationship within the Godhead, which helps illustrate a God-centered picture of human companionship. Lastly, it provides the reader with an intimate view of God’s desire to have a personal relationship with his creatures.
Third, the cultural mandate provides the reader with a biblical framework for understanding two topics with important theological significance. First, the mandate to procreate is one way in which God has commanded married couples to further populate the earth. This is extremely important as one considers the overall good of procreation and human flourishing. Second, the mandate for humanity to subdue and dominate the earth, including the animal kingdom is also in view here. As God has given human beings regal status, he has also given them the task of subduing the fish, birds, creeping things, livestock, and the earth. This seems to connote a way in which man imitates God[44] through the role of limited sovereignty on earth. This is also another way in which man displays the imago Dei.
There are also practical implications that stem from this passage. All human-beings are created in the imago Dei and are created with an innate dignity. Humans are personal beings that have been given various gifts by their Creator. They have been given the gifts of the human will, human emotions, and an intellect to communicate verbally. These are distinct gifts that have been endowed by their Creator. This should also be a means of further establishing a topic such as racial harmony. Differing skin colors or geographic places of origin should not be a way in which humans express hatred toward one another. If in fact, all humans created in the imago Dei hold equal status before God, then all are to be treated with dignity and respect.
As married couples have been given the mandate to procreate, they are also told the way in which human life is to be cared for. This passage affirms that life is sacred and a gift given by God. Therefore, humans do not have the right to end human life by means of murder or abortion.
God has also given humankind the mandate to subdue and express dominion over the earth. This breaks down any divide that may exist between so-called “sacred and secular” callings. The doctrine of vocation is affirmed in this passage and proves that all honest callings are sacred before God.[45] This means that work is a good thing and that various types of work are not only acceptable to God, but actually good and God-honoring. Therefore, all humans are to be treated with dignity even within the context of vocation and the jobs they choose to hold, even if they are referred to by many as mundane.
Finally, this passage serves the church in many ways but in a practical sense, there are few doctrines of equal importance as that of the imago Dei. If the imago Dei is presented in society as it appears in this passage then there is great potential for human life to be viewed as a sacred gift with true inalienable rights leading to the saving of countless lives. The walls of racial and gender hostility, along with abortion crumble at the feet of the God who created man in the imago Dei.
[1] Waltke, Bruce Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 55.
[2] I will use the word אָדָ֛ם (man) as a generic term for “human being”. Context will help make clear whether or not man is used as a “male” or a general reference to a “human being”.
[3] All English Scripture will be taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).
[4] Carpenter, Eugene NIDOTTE Vol. 3., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 547.
[5] Carpenter, NIDOTTE Vol. 3., 547.
[6] Ringgren, H. TDOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-2008), 390.
[7] Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989).
[8] Walton, John H. Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 129.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Waltke, Bruce K. with Cathi Fredricks Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 64.[11] Cassuto, Umberto A Commentary on the Book of Genesis Vol 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1969), 55.
[12] Clines, David J A, “The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19, [1968]: 66.
[13] Waltke, Genesis, 64.
[14] Clines, The Image of God in Man, 68-69.
[15] Ibid., 69.
[16] See Job 33:4; Psalm 104:30; Ezekiel 37.
[17] Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary, 64; Walton, Genesis, 128-129.
[18] Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 134.
[19] Stendebach, TDOT Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-2008), 394.
[20] Clines, David J A, “The image of God in man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 80.
[21] Von Rad. G. TDNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 205.
[22] Genesis 9:6 ESV- “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”
[23] Zobel, TDOT Vol. 13 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-2008), 330.
[24] Nel, Philip J. NIDOTTE Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1055.
[25] Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 14.
[26] Walton, Genesis, 138.
[27] Bernhardt, TDOT Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-2008), 245.
[28] Cassuto, Genesis, 57.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Way, Robert J. NIDOTTE Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 732.
[31] Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 14.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Walton, Genesis, 131.
[34] Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 14.
[35] Collins, C. John Genesis 1-4 (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006), 66.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Waltke, Genesis, 67.
[38] Nel, Philip J. NIDOTTE Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 596.
[39] Wagner TDOT Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-2008), 52.
[40] Ibid., 56.
[41] Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, 139.
[42] Nel, NIDOTTE, 1056.
[43] This concept is explained with much greater clarity in the New Testament.
[44] Ephesians 5:1 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children.”
[45] God’s communicable attributes provide an appropriate context for what is acceptable to God. This is why I have termed all “honest” work can be qualified as a God-given “calling.”
