“The Image of God”
WHAT IT IS — AND — WHAT IT IS NOT

good-sounding ideas have been promulgated in explanation of the 'Image of God' in God's design of humanity that there is often an inclusive approach among many preachers/teachers that something must be 'right' in what has been said. The danger with this attitude is that, with any spiritual error, it is not simply that it is wrong, but that it hides or deflects us from a specific truth.

For that reason it is perhaps good to begin by 'clearing the decks' of what this Image of God is not.

Because His Image is unique to God's design of humanity, it can neither be morality nor spirituality. Both of these are fully present in the angels of God, and they are certainly not formed in His image.

In other words, the Image of God in humanity is not a God-facing quality. It is not something that adds to human worship or spiritual awareness in any way in which the angels of His presence have a lack, as not themselves bearing His image.

Nor is this Image a special quality that has been lost by the moral fall of mankind, for after the Flood of Noah God makes it clear that from now onward humanity is to be responsible for justice because God made mankind in His Image. It that factor was lost by the Fall that would undermine and make nonsense of the very reason presented here for the unique value of human life in contrast to all other life –

A fairly common misinterpretation of 'Image of God' among Christians is that human beings are a 'trinity' of spirit, soul and body (a misunderstanding of 1Thess.5:23), as being a reflection of the Trinity of God. This error arises from a false understanding of the New Testament word for soul (ψυχή/psuchē), which actually simply means 'life' and is not a separate spirit entity. This is demonstrated in the use of this same word in Revelation for the lives of fishes in the sea (Rev.16:3), who have no life after death.

Genesis One statement of God's decision to create humanity, the use of the plurals "let us", "our image", and "our likeness" do not describe a committee of the Divine Trinity making a decision. The plurality of God's personality in Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not in the context of this statement and so are not a part of its message to Israel through Moses. Nor is this simply the royal 'we' of a king's pronouncement on behalf of his kingdom as some have said. The Old Testament itself illustrates for us the use and meaning of the plural pronouns in God's decisions.

Isaiah the prophet's call to his ministry took place in a vision during his worship in the temple. He describes this as –

statement from the Throne uses the plural "us" because it is a declaration of the Court of God Most High.

In other words, Isaiah's call to be a prophet was not a purely private matter arising within the intimacy of his personal relationship with God. It was a call to represent God's authority to Israel – to carry whatever message the Lord may instruct him to deliver – authoritatively.

is demonstrated in the very next chapter when delivering a message publicly to fearful King Ahaz of Judah saying –
"If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all. ...Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as Heaven."

Isaiah then gives a public prophecy beside the highway concerning the deliverance of Judah from the threat of the combined military forces of Syria and israel, with such profundity that, long after its fulfillment in Isaiah's lifetime, the leading Jewish Scribes (Septuagint translators) far beyond Isaiah's time correctly translated it as also a messianic prophecy. Inherent in Isaiah's call was the authoritative nature of his ministry as expressed in the plural pronoun for the Court of God in Heaven on whose behalf he spoke.

is the Bible's own original context of the Image of God that explains to us God's own understanding of humanity made in His Image.

in Isaiah, the plural pronouns refer to the decision of Heaven's Court. Image has here nothing to do with shape. But it has everything to do with exercising authority over creation, God's creation, on behalf of God, as its context above confirms.

The blurring and turning of this 'Image of God' in mankind – from a creation-facing responsibility to a God-facing religious or spiritual function/relationship – has robbed us of the actual purpose of human existence in God's design for humanity.

pious as it may sound, humanity was not designed for the purpose of worshipping God, in spite of what Calvin or any other great reformer has said. God has no need of that! His holy angels are far better equipped to enhance His presence in adoration than any natural human function could ever be. Humanity needs to worship God simply as an effective preparation to fulfil its purpose in representing Him authentically and authoritatively.

turning the 'Image of God' in mankind in a God-ward direction is to undermine the authority factor in its purpose and so nullify the very essence of His design in the special value of human existence.

The Bible's climax of all human history, shown in the symbol of God's people as His Bride-City, the New Jerusalem (cubic as the ultimate fulfillment of Israel's 'holy of holies'), will then be the place of God's Throne, God's authority over all –