“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.” (Genesis 1:26-27; ESV)
Pick up almost any book on Christian education, and you will find as a central concept this idea of “the image of God.” Certainly, it is a vital idea. Education involves two images of God-the student and the teacher. Our views about the nature of each of these will lead to definite educational methods. For example, a belief that the child is no more than a “behaving organism” leads one to the mechanistic stimulus-response method of education derived from B. F. Skinner.
And so it is important what we mean by “the image of God.” Unfortunately, most Christians do not do justice to the text for this lesson when they deal with it. The words “image” and “likeness” both basically mean “like;” but how is man “like” God? Obviously, man is not an exact replica of God-man is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc. So in what way is man “like” God? Here is where much speculation takes place. Some say man is like God in that he is a rational being. Others locate man’s image-bearing character in his moral nature. Still others claim that man’s aesthetic and creative nature is what is meant here. Some say it is his social nature; others, his spiritual nature; still others, hls ability to make free choices.
Each of these choices makes a difference in educational practice. For example, an educator who believes that man’s freedom is what makes up his image-bearing nature will reject such methods as drill, rote memonzation, and strict discipline. These restrict the child’s freedom of choice, and thus are a denial of his nature. However, others, having a different opinion about “image of God,” may have no problem with these practices.
The answer to this problem can only be solved by digging into Scripture itself, to determine what Moses meant by the terms “image” and “likeness.” We must not engage in speculation about what these (or any other) terms mean; we must engage in exegesis, letting Scripture interpret itself.
The Hebrew word translated “likeness” is d’muth, which is used about the same as our word “like.” The Greek (from James 3:9) is homoiosis. A study of this word doesn’t shed much additional light on the matter; it merely states that man is “like” God, without specifying how he is like God.
The word “image” is, in the Hebrew, tselem. It’s basic meaning, like d’muth, is “like.” However, when we note the contexts in which it is used, some additional light is shed. It is commonly used (as in I Sam. 6:5, 11) for “idols.” Now, the ancients did not actually believe that these idols were pictures of their gods. For example, it would be absurd to think that the Israelites, in Ex. 32, believed that a calf was literally their god. No, the “images” were seen as representatives of the gods. The calf represented God, and the golden hemorrhoids represented the real ones—by sending the representative away, they symbolically got rid of the real thing (better than Preparation H!). Idols were representatives of the gods; praying to them was as good as praying to the real thing.
Not only is the “image” a representative of God, he is an authoritative representative. This is seen in the context in Genesis 1. Immediately after God says, “Let us make man in our image,” He says, “And let them have dominion.” Note also vs. 27-28. The representative of God is one with authority over creation. The essence of the image of God is dominion. We are authoritative representatives of God on earth-’’viceroys,” to use Matthew Henry’s term.
This is borne out by a look at the New Testament word which translates tselem-eikon (Col. 3:10). This term originally referred to the image of the emperor on his coins; the coin was thus made authoritative, true, and genuine. We can see this note of authority coming through in other passages: 1 Cor. 11:7, where the whole context is one of rule and authority, 2 Cor. 4:4-5, where Christ, who is the image of God, is preached as Lord; and Col. 1: 15ff., where Christ being the image of God means that He created all things (vs. 16), He sustains all things (vs. 17), and He is the head of the Church (vs. 18).
Thus man, as the image of God, has dominion over the earth as God’s authoritative representative on earth. Now, this representative must obey his king; this is brought out in Col. 3:10. Here, the restoration of the image of God is said to be a restoration to true knowledge --epignosis. As Paul uses this term, it does not refer merely to intellectual knowledge, but to obedient knowledge. In Col. 1:9-10, Paul prays that we may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will, so that we may walk in a proper manner. In 2 Tim. 3:7-8, “never coming to the knowledge of the truth” is parallel with “opposing the truth.” In, Titus 1:1, knowledge is according to godliness. So we are restored to the image of God which is obedience to God; we are like God as we obey Him.
And so we may tie all this together. Man was created in the image of God. This means he is God’s representative on earth. As God’s representative, he has authority, rule, dominion over the earth. Yet this rule is under God; man must obey God in his representative capacity. -
We may sum up man’s image-bearing nature by the word dominion. This is how man is unique among the creatures, and how he is like God. Now, the speculative ideas mentioned at the beginning are not entirely wrong they are aspects of dominion. Man uses his unique rational powers to exercise dominion (note Gen. 2:19-20). Man does have a moral nature—he is under God in his dominion. All of the choices mentioned above are valid. They do not sum up the “image” concept, though, but are many aspects of dominion.
Quickly, what are the implications of this for education? We may note that a restoration of the image of God means a restoration of dominion; and this image is restored through obedience. Education, thus, is unto dominion. Christian schools are not to be monasteries, into which children run to escape from the world. We train the children for conquest. If we deny this drive for dominion, we are actually denying that man is made in God’s image.
Man is made in the image of God-he is God’s authorized representative, His “viceroy”, on earth. Let us train our children for the fulfillment of this task.
Pick up almost any book on Christian education, and you will find as a central concept this idea of “the image of God.” Certainly, it is a vital idea. Education involves two images of God-the student and the teacher. Our views about the nature of each of these will lead to definite educational methods. For example, a belief that the child is no more than a “behaving organism” leads one to the mechanistic stimulus-response method of education derived from B. F. Skinner.
And so it is important what we mean by “the image of God.” Unfortunately, most Christians do not do justice to the text for this lesson when they deal with it. The words “image” and “likeness” both basically mean “like;” but how is man “like” God? Obviously, man is not an exact replica of God-man is not omniscient, omnipotent, etc. So in what way is man “like” God? Here is where much speculation takes place. Some say man is like God in that he is a rational being. Others locate man’s image-bearing character in his moral nature. Still others claim that man’s aesthetic and creative nature is what is meant here. Some say it is his social nature; others, his spiritual nature; still others, hls ability to make free choices.
Each of these choices makes a difference in educational practice. For example, an educator who believes that man’s freedom is what makes up his image-bearing nature will reject such methods as drill, rote memonzation, and strict discipline. These restrict the child’s freedom of choice, and thus are a denial of his nature. However, others, having a different opinion about “image of God,” may have no problem with these practices.
The answer to this problem can only be solved by digging into Scripture itself, to determine what Moses meant by the terms “image” and “likeness.” We must not engage in speculation about what these (or any other) terms mean; we must engage in exegesis, letting Scripture interpret itself.
The Hebrew word translated “likeness” is d’muth, which is used about the same as our word “like.” The Greek (from James 3:9) is homoiosis. A study of this word doesn’t shed much additional light on the matter; it merely states that man is “like” God, without specifying how he is like God.
The word “image” is, in the Hebrew, tselem. It’s basic meaning, like d’muth, is “like.” However, when we note the contexts in which it is used, some additional light is shed. It is commonly used (as in I Sam. 6:5, 11) for “idols.” Now, the ancients did not actually believe that these idols were pictures of their gods. For example, it would be absurd to think that the Israelites, in Ex. 32, believed that a calf was literally their god. No, the “images” were seen as representatives of the gods. The calf represented God, and the golden hemorrhoids represented the real ones—by sending the representative away, they symbolically got rid of the real thing (better than Preparation H!). Idols were representatives of the gods; praying to them was as good as praying to the real thing.
Not only is the “image” a representative of God, he is an authoritative representative. This is seen in the context in Genesis 1. Immediately after God says, “Let us make man in our image,” He says, “And let them have dominion.” Note also vs. 27-28. The representative of God is one with authority over creation. The essence of the image of God is dominion. We are authoritative representatives of God on earth-’’viceroys,” to use Matthew Henry’s term.
This is borne out by a look at the New Testament word which translates tselem-eikon (Col. 3:10). This term originally referred to the image of the emperor on his coins; the coin was thus made authoritative, true, and genuine. We can see this note of authority coming through in other passages: 1 Cor. 11:7, where the whole context is one of rule and authority, 2 Cor. 4:4-5, where Christ, who is the image of God, is preached as Lord; and Col. 1: 15ff., where Christ being the image of God means that He created all things (vs. 16), He sustains all things (vs. 17), and He is the head of the Church (vs. 18).
Thus man, as the image of God, has dominion over the earth as God’s authoritative representative on earth. Now, this representative must obey his king; this is brought out in Col. 3:10. Here, the restoration of the image of God is said to be a restoration to true knowledge --epignosis. As Paul uses this term, it does not refer merely to intellectual knowledge, but to obedient knowledge. In Col. 1:9-10, Paul prays that we may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will, so that we may walk in a proper manner. In 2 Tim. 3:7-8, “never coming to the knowledge of the truth” is parallel with “opposing the truth.” In, Titus 1:1, knowledge is according to godliness. So we are restored to the image of God which is obedience to God; we are like God as we obey Him.
And so we may tie all this together. Man was created in the image of God. This means he is God’s representative on earth. As God’s representative, he has authority, rule, dominion over the earth. Yet this rule is under God; man must obey God in his representative capacity. -
We may sum up man’s image-bearing nature by the word dominion. This is how man is unique among the creatures, and how he is like God. Now, the speculative ideas mentioned at the beginning are not entirely wrong they are aspects of dominion. Man uses his unique rational powers to exercise dominion (note Gen. 2:19-20). Man does have a moral nature—he is under God in his dominion. All of the choices mentioned above are valid. They do not sum up the “image” concept, though, but are many aspects of dominion.
Quickly, what are the implications of this for education? We may note that a restoration of the image of God means a restoration of dominion; and this image is restored through obedience. Education, thus, is unto dominion. Christian schools are not to be monasteries, into which children run to escape from the world. We train the children for conquest. If we deny this drive for dominion, we are actually denying that man is made in God’s image.
Man is made in the image of God-he is God’s authorized representative, His “viceroy”, on earth. Let us train our children for the fulfillment of this task.