Neither Barth nor Brunner believed Genesis to be a true account of creation history. Neo-orthodox theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner both developed theories about the image of God based on human experience. The image of God is primarily a distinctive privilege of inexpressible value that mere animals do not share. They were image-bearers, as evidenced in their very being. In Christ, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit ( 1 Corinthians 6:19) and we are to use them as instruments of righteousness ( Romans 6:12–13).Īdam and Eve were creaturely (creatures of God but not animals), as evidenced in their human body. God created Adam and Eve with bodies, and their bodies were part of His “very good” creation. This is not to say that the human body should not be highly valued. Perhaps the same may be considered for Moses and Elijah who were talking with Jesus at the transfiguration ( Matthew 17:1–3). It would be difficult to suggest that the disembodied souls under the throne in Revelation 6:9–11 have ceased to be image bearers on the basis that they are awaiting their resurrection bodies. Other Scriptures would suggest that a human body is not essential to image bearing. This is the glory that mankind was meant to reflect when we were created in God’s image. John tells us that Jesus became flesh to show us God’s glory ( John 1:14). It would appear that taking on a human body is part of what has given Jesus the ability to relate with human beings rather than it being an attribute of God as a display of His image. Scripture also reveals that God is Spirit ( John 4:24). It is the unique creation of mankind in the image of God that distinguishes us from all other creatures.Īt an appointed time in history, the Son of God stepped into His creation taking on the form of a man ( Philippians 2:7).
While unique in their own way, both humans and animals can have such features as eyes, noses, legs, and arms that point to our common Creator. Animals and humans have bodies that show aspects of common design.
The human body is something that makes the human creaturely, and not necessarily something that constitutes a distinction. Everything in the text of Genesis 1 and 2 denotes the intimate actions of God in creating mankind (both the first man and the first woman) compared to the general nature of creating everything else. It is only regarding the creation of mankind that God says, “Let us make man in our own image,” and God only directly breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life ( Genesis 1:26, 2:7). The language usage is profound and makes a significant point that the image of God distinction is made between mankind and all other creatures, not between the sub-categories of male and female. These sub-categories of mankind are “male” ( zakar זכר) and “female” ( neqebah נקבה). Depending on context, the word can mean “man,” “mankind,” or the name “Adam.” 3 The sub-categories of humanity are used with different words and the distinction is visible in both Hebrew and English. The Hebrew word for “man” in this text is adam ( אדם). 2 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him male and female He created them. The Hebrew language of verse 27 makes it clear that God’s image in mankind depicts humanity as distinct from animals. “The image of God in humanity is critical to our understanding of what makes us human.” 1 Genesis 1:26–28 is the key passage of Scripture whereby foundational teaching on the image of God begins. Read Part 1 of this series: “ Evolution and What the Image of God Is Not.”