Basic HTML Version
189
follows, after stating that the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man
surpasses that of all other species of animals: “Accordingly, by this term (‘image of God’) is
denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections
subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his
excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker. And though the primary seat of the divine image
was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body
in which some rays of glory did not shine.”[Inst. I. 15:3.] It included both natural endowments
and those spiritual qualities designated as original righteousness, that is, true knowledge,
righteousness, and holiness. The whole image was vitiated by sin, but only those spiritual
qualities were completely lost. The Socinians and some of the earlier Arminians taught that the
image of God consisted only in man’s dominion over the lower creation. Schleiermacher
rejected the idea of an original state of integrity and of original righteousness as a necessary
doctrine. Since, as he sees it, moral perfection or righteousness and holiness can only be the
result of development, he regards it as a contradiction in terms to speak of man as being
created in a state of righteousness and holiness. Hence the image of God in man can only be a
certain receptivity for the divine, a capacity to answer to the divine ideal, and to grow into God-
likeness. Such modern theologians as Martensen and Kaftan are quite in line with this idea.
B. SCRIPTURAL DATA RESPECTING THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN.
Scriptural teachings respecting the image of God in man warrant the following statements:
1. The words “image” and “likeness” are used synonymously and interchangeably, and
therefore do not refer to two different things. In Gen. 1:26 both words are used, but in the
twenty-seventh verse only the first. This is evidently considered sufficient to express the whole
idea. In Gen. 5:1 only the word “likeness” occurs, but in the third verse of that chapter both
terms are again found. Gen. 9:6 contains only the word “image” as a complete expression of
the idea. Turning to the New Testament, we find “image” and “glory” used in I Cor. 11:7,
“image” alone in Col. 3:10, and “likeness” only in Jas. 3:9. Evidently the two are used
interchangeably in Scripture. This naturally implies that man was created also in the likeness of
God, and that this likeness was not something with which he was endowed later on. The usual
opinion is that the word “likeness” was added to “image” to express the idea that the image
was most like, a perfect image. The idea is that by creation that which was archetypal in God
became ectypal in man. God was the original of which man was made a copy. This means, of
course, that man not only bears the image of God, but is His very image. This is clearly stated in
I Cor. 11:7, but does not mean that he cannot also be said to bear the image of God, cf. I Cor.
15:49. Some have considered the change of prepositions in Gen. 1:27, “in our image, after our
likeness,” as significant. Böhl even based on it the idea that we are created in the image as a