This section of posts in the God Series explores the meaning of the term “In His Image” and then offers an alternative meaning and discusses the implications of that alternative meaning

IN HIS IMAGE

Review of previous posts

            The previous post in this section of posts presented a broad review of the meaning of the term “In His Image.”

Preview of this post

The most common interpretation of “In His Image” is that man was created to be a duplicate of God. This post presents a discussion of this interpretation.

Man viewed as a duplicate of God

One of the more common interpretations is that man is a duplicate of God, Himself^[1].

With regard to the “image” being the duplicate, it is noted in the JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, edited by Nahum Sarna and Chaim Potok, (Philadelphia, PA, The Jewish Publication Society,1989, paperback) at page 12 in the notes associated with Genesis 1:27, a duplication of God seems to be assumed:

The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.

The continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth's resources,....A parallel passage in 9:6-7 tells of God's renewed blessing on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because "in His image did God make mane." In other words, the resemblance of man to god bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being can be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase "in the image of God" conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.

The words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as "the image" or the "likeness" of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: "The father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (salam bel) and the king, my lord, is the image of Bel"; "The king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash"; "O king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk." In Egypt, the same concept is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tut-ankh-amun), which means "the living image of (the god) Amun," and in the designation of Tutmose IV as "the likeness of Re."...In light of this, the characterization of man as "in the image of God" furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God's presence on earth.

It should be added that the pairing of the terms tselem and demut, "image" and "likeness," is paralleled in a ninth-century B.C.E. Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription on a statue of Tell Fekheriyeh in Syria. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and obviously cannot be used for source differentiation.

 

The JPS source goes on to note that the term “They shall rule” which is used in conjunction with the term “In His Image” is used to express the coercive power of the monarch, consonant with the explanation of “In His Image”.

The “image” being a “copy” concept is even suggested in Genesis itself: “When Adam had lived 130 years, he begot a son in his likeness after his image, and he named him Seth.” A son in his father’s image would seem to imply that the image is the physical appearance. Associated with this view of man being a duplicate of God, it is noted that the term has also been interpreted, in the New Testament, to be that man has the form of Christ.

Furthermore, the duplicate-view appears to be, to say the least, quite presumptuous of us to believe that God, the creator of the entire universe and all that is contained therein, made us, human beings, as His duplicate^[2].  Next, given that evolution has occurred, and we do look different today than we did 10,000 years ago, how can we say that we are the duplicate of God, what, indeed, is a “duplicate” if things change (more about this later as there is a rancorous debate between science and religion concerning evolution versus intelligent design)^[3]? How about what humans will look like 10,000 years from now (assuming, of course that humans are even around then)? How can we say that we are the duplicates when human appearance has changed, is changing and will continue to change? Certainly, humans are not the center of the universe and certainly are not the only thing in the universe. Why would we be the one thing selected by the creator of the universe to be a duplicate of Himself?

It might be observed that since all the creations mentioned in Genesis seem to have changed in, at least physical appearance, since the time of Genesis, it seems that all the creations were given the ability to change, at least physically. Thus, it seems that God gave the ability to change to all His creations. Since this ability seems to be universal, it might be concluded that this is a characteristic of God Himself. The characteristic of change in God might be a basis for explaining many of the events in the Bible. In other posts, it is discussed that God changes both in Himself and in His relationship with humans. This concept is more fully developed in other posts and thus will not be discussed here^[4].

Maimonides

Maimonides asserts that a person who believes that God has a body is actually an infidel an unbeliever. Since man has a body, it is blasphemous to connect our corporeality to God because that would be giving God a body. Believing that the statement in Genesis that man was created in God’s “image” makes this connection if we take that statement literally[1].

Maimonides thus defines “image” and “likeness” to avoid the error of believing that the statement “in His Image” literally means man is God’s image or likeness. Maimonides begins by disabusing the concept that “image” means shape or configuration (albeit bigger and more powerful). In fact, Maimonides states that the word the Bible uses is tselem and means “essence” not physical likeness. The word “image” is to be understood as a metaphor for God’s essence, not His physical image.

Maimonides then moves on to answer the question which naturally follows: what about humanity makes us the “image” or “likeness” of God without being a physical duplicate whereby we can be “in His image” without God having a corporeal body? Maimonides answers this by looking for some quality of essence possessed by humanity that separates us from every other being created in Genesis. What does man possess that is not found in anything else created in Genesis?

Maimonides answered this by stating that man possesses an intellect. For Maimonides, intellect was the only way man could achieve knowledge of and closeness with God. The concept of the special essence possessed by man that is not possessed by any other entity created in Genesis will be discussed below. According to the dictionary, “intellect” is the power of knowing: understanding.” If “intellect” is defined according to the dictionary, it falls short because, animals have an understanding, a knowing, although it is limited in relation to man, it still is an attribute that is possessed by an entity created in Genesis. As such, to follow this line of reasoning, some other attribute must be determined which fits the criterion of not being possessed by any other entity created in Genesis, yet which still follows the basic criterion set forth by Maimonides (and Philo before him) that will allow man to become closer to God.

Man is not a “duplicate” of God, but is after God’s image.

If God would have created man with all of His attributes, He would have been creating a copy of Himself, or another God, and what would be the purpose of that? Furthermore, the verse states “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen 1:26). A “likeness” is not a duplicate. This seems to imply that man is made in God’s image, but the term “likeness” dilutes the implication that God intended man to be a duplicate, but, instead, intended to avoid the interpretation that man is a duplicate of God.

Furthermore, the creation is for the journey of discovery and growth to ever-increasing levels of attainment. Thus, there must be room for improvement, otherwise, the creation is superfluous and really not necessary. Hence, God did not create man as His duplicate, but merely as a “likeness”. Hence, there may be another interpretation of “in His image” which is more accurate and more versatile, certainly beyond the “duplication” theory and which provides man with a fundamental characteristic.

An analogy might be found in art. Leonardo DiVinci probably did not make an exact copy of the physical woman known as Mona Lisa for his drawing. Instead, and more likely, DiVinci merely used the physical woman as a guide to his painting. DiVinci added certain features, emphasized certain features, omitted certain features, and de-emphasized certain features in order to make a final creation that met with his approval. The portrait of Mona Lisa therefore is not a copy of the physical woman, but a creation that is in her image and “after her likeness”[6].

Using this analogy, with God being the artist and man being the creation, it might be said that God used Himself as a guide but added certain features[7], emphasized certain features, omitted certain features, and de-emphasized certain features in order to make a final creation that met with His approval. The human being therefore is not a copy or duplicate of God but a creation that is in His image and “after His likeness.”

 

Preview of the next post in the “In His Image” section of the God Series

The next post suggests that man is not a duplicate of God, but is made in the way an artist makes his creation “after” the original, or “in the nature of” the original, or “in the manner of” the original.

---

[series_nav]

^[1] Characterizing human beings as a duplicate of God seems to be an application of the projection theory. According to Xenophanes: “If oxen and horses had hands and could draw and make works of art as humans do, then horses would draw their gods to look like horses and oxen like oxen.” Thus, the projection theory makes God look human. By extension, if we visualize God to look human, then we now visualize ourselves to look like God; i.e., we were created in God’s image, to look like God.

^[2] As discussed in the section of posts “Who Were The Nephilim?” in the Journey Begins Series, the Nephilim were destroyed because they were too close to both God and humans. This seems to support the theory that “In His Image” does not mean “duplicate.”

 

^[3] Following this line of reasoning, one would wonder if humans did not look differently two thousand years ago than they do today. Even slight differences would be significant. Therefore, the view that man was created to look like Christ may be a bit shaky since the physical appearance of a man two thousand years ago would be different than today’s man, and we would look different from Christ due to that.

 

^[4] See, for example, the “Partners” section of posts in the God Series.

[5] According to Maimonides, God “hears” but does not have “ears,” “sees,” but does not have eyes, etc. These are metaphors for God being close to us so He can “hear” us and “see” us. For Maimonides, there is no relation in any respect between God and His creations because to be related is to be similar in some way and there can be absolutely no point of contact between the divine and the material.

^[6] Note, even a photograph is not an exact “image” as lighting, perspective, coloration, composition, etc, are often used to emphasize some features of the subject, de-emphasize others, and even add features to the overall picture, and even to the subject itself for effect.

^[7] For example, the feature of corporeality might be a feature added to man.

Series Navigation