Research Genesis 1:26-28 KJV. Analyze the etymology, theology, and the spiritual implications of the text. Report in sermon format. Focus on the concept of "the image of God."
Introduction: The Liturgy of Creation and the Divine Pause
The opening chapter of the book of Genesis serves as the majestic prologue to the entire biblical drama, functioning not merely as a biological taxonomy or a geological survey, but as a liturgical text that establishes the sovereignty of God over the cosmos. For twenty-five verses, the narrative rhythm is defined by the divine fiat—the authoritative command "Let there be"—followed by the immediate, obedient response of creation. Light pierces the primordial darkness, waters separate to reveal the dry land, and the earth brings forth vegetation and swarming life in a cascade of creative power. This cadence of sovereign ease reflects a God who creates without struggle, contrasting sharply with the chaotic and violent cosmogonies of the Ancient Near East, where gods wrestle with sea monsters to forge the world.
However, as the narrative arrives at the sixth day, the rhythm breaks. The creative cadence halts. There is a "divine pause," a moment of deliberation within the Godhead that signals a shift from the creation of environments and lower life forms to the creation of the narrative’s focal point. The text does not simply proceed with "Let there be man," as it did with light or vegetation. Instead, it shifts to a plural, self-reflective cohortative: "Let us make man in our image". This semantic shift indicates that what follows is not merely another creature in the sequence of biology, but a creature that stands in a unique, unmediated relationship with the Creator.
This treatise provides an exhaustive theological and homiletical analysis of Genesis 1:26–28, utilizing the King James Version (KJV) as the primary textual basis while engaging with the full breadth of original language scholarship. It explores the etymological depths of the Hebrew text, the theological controversies surrounding the "Image of God" (Imago Dei), and the profound spiritual implications for human dignity, gender, stewardship, and redemption. It operates on the premise that the Imago Dei is not merely a static attribute possessed by humanity, but a dynamic vocation and status that defines human existence, ethics, and destiny. The analysis is structured to guide the expositor through the dense theological forests of the text, emerging with clear applications for the life of the church and the engagement of the world.
I. The Divine Deliberation: The Plurality of the Creator
The Shift to the Plural Cohortative
The introduction of humanity is preceded by the phrase, "Let us make man" (na’aseh adam). This plural formulation has arrested the attention of biblical scholars and theologians for millennia, serving as the first exegetical hurdle in understanding the Imago Dei. The text departs from the singular imperative used in previous creative acts ("Let there be"), inviting the reader to witness an internal conversation within the divine realm. This "Let us" suggests that the creation of humanity required a specific concentration of the divine will and a mobilization of the divine nature that was distinct from the creation of stars or stones.
Theories of the "Us": Navigating the Options
Historical and critical scholarship has proposed several interpretations for this plurality, each carrying significant theological weight. An analysis of these options reveals the richness of the biblical doctrine of God.
1. The Mythological Interpretation
Some critical scholars suggest this plurality is a remnant of polytheistic thought, where a chief god addresses a pantheon of lesser deities. However, the strict monotheism of the Hebrew Bible and the polemical nature of Genesis 1—which systematically demythologizes the sun, moon, and sea monsters—renders this unlikely. The author of Genesis 1 is intent on showing that Yahweh has no rivals; the sun is not a god but a "light," and the sea monsters are mere creatures.
2. The Angelic Interpretation (The Divine Council)
A prevalent view in Jewish exegesis and modern critical scholarship is that God is addressing the heavenly host or the "Divine Council" (cf. 1 Kings 22:19; Isaiah 6). In this view, God consults with the angels before creating humanity, perhaps to announce His intention or to enlist their witness. While the Divine Council is a legitimate biblical category, the text of Genesis 1:27 explicitly states that "God created man in His own image." There is no biblical evidence that humans are created in the image of angels, nor that angels participated in the act of creation. If the "us" included angels, one would expect the text to say man was made in the image of "God and the angels," but the singular suffix in verse 27 ("in His own image") rules this out.
3. The Plural of Majesty
This view suggests the plural is a grammatical device denoting fullness, power, or majesty (similar to the "Royal We" used by monarchs). While common in later linguistic periods, scholars note that the "plural of majesty" is not a standard grammatical feature of Biblical Hebrew in the time of Genesis's composition. It is likely an anachronistic reading imposed on the ancient text.
4. The Plural of Deliberation/Self-Encouragement
This view interprets the language as God speaking to Himself, a soliloquy of determination. It signifies that the creation of man requires a unique engagement of the divine will. It is a "plural of self-exhortation," common in Hebrew poetry where a speaker addresses their own soul or will. This highlights the solemnity of the act: God pauses to summon His full powers for the masterpiece of creation.
5. The Trinitarian Adumbration
From the Patristic era through the Reformation to modern dogmatics, Christian theology has read this as an adumbration—a foreshadowing—of the Trinity. While the text of Genesis does not explicate Trinitarian doctrine in a Nicene sense, the New Testament’s identification of Christ as the agent of creation (Colossians 1:16) and the presence of the Spirit hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:2) allows for a sensu plenior (fuller sense) reading. The Father, Son, and Spirit confer in the creation of a being who will reflect their own relational nature. The "Us" is not a committee of diverse beings (God and angels) but a communion of one Being. This view harmonizes with the New Testament revelation that God is love (1 John 4:8), and love requires a plurality of persons. A solitary monad cannot be love in essence, for love requires an object. The Triune God had love within Himself before the world began, and He creates man to share in this relational reality.
Homiletical Insight: The Relational God
Regardless of the precise technical identification of the "Us," the theological implication is clear: God is not a solitary monad dwelling in frozen isolation. There is plurality, communication, and relationship within the Godhead. Consequently, the creature made in this image is created from relationship for relationship. Loneliness is antithetical to the human constitution because it is antithetical to the Divine nature. To be human is to be in communion. The "Let us" of creation necessitates the "one another" of the church.
II. The Lexical Foundation: Tselem and Demuth
The heart of biblical anthropology beats within two Hebrew words found in Genesis 1:26: tselem ("image") and demuth ("likeness"). An exhaustive analysis of these terms is required to dismantle cultural misconceptions and reconstruct a biblical worldview of human identity.
A. Tselem: The Concrete Representation
The Hebrew word tselem (צֶלֶם) is derived from a root meaning "to carve" or "to cut". It possesses a concrete, almost tactile quality. In the majority of its occurrences in the Old Testament, tselem refers to physical idols or statues—three-dimensional representations of deities.
The Shadow Connection: Some etymologists trace the root to tsal (shadow), suggesting that an image is a "shadow" of the original—an outline that indicates the presence of the substance. Just as a shadow has no independent existence but testifies to the reality of the object casting it, so humanity has no independent existence apart from God but testifies to His reality.
B. Demuth: The Abstract Similarity
The word demuth (דְּמוּת) comes from the root damah, meaning "to be like" or "to resemble". While tselem speaks to representation and form, demuth speaks to similarity and content. It acts as a modifier to tselem. It prevents the interpretation that humans are God, clarifying that they are merely like God. Demuth introduces the concept of analogy—there is a correspondence between God and man, but not an identity. It safeguards the Creator-creature distinction. Humans are not divine; they are god-like.
C. Synonyms or Distinct Categories?
The history of interpretation often bifurcates these terms.
Irenaeus and the Early Church: Irenaeus famously distinguished them, suggesting tselem (image) was the natural reason and free will retained after the Fall, while demuth (likeness) was the supernatural gift of holiness lost by sin and restored by the Spirit. This distinction became standard in Medieval and Roman Catholic theology, influencing the doctrine of the donum superadditum (superadded gift).
Table 1: Semantic Analysis of Tselem and Demuth
| Term | Hebrew Root | Literal Meaning | Theological Nuance | ANE Parallel |
| Tselem | Tsal (cut/shadow) | Statue, Idol, Form | Representation, Representative Presence | Cultic Statues, Royal Monuments |
| Demuth | Damah (to be like) | Likeness, Similitude | Resemblance, Analogy, Correspondence | Abstract Comparison |
III. The Locus of the Image: Historical Perspectives
Throughout the history of the church, theologians have attempted to locate the "site" of the image. Where exactly does this image reside? Is it in the mind, the soul, the body, or the relationships? The answers generally fall into three categories: Substantive, Relational, and Functional. A thorough report must navigate these views to arrive at a holistic understanding.
1. The Substantive View (Structural/Ontological)
This is the classical view, dominant from the Patristic era through the Medieval period and into the Reformation. It locates the image in specific ontological characteristics or qualities that humans possess and animals do not.
Rationality and Will: For Augustine and Aquinas, the image of God was primarily the human intellect (reason) and the will. Since God is Mind (Logos), the human capacity for abstract thought, logic, and moral reasoning is the reflection of the divine nature. Augustine developed a "psychological analogy" of the Trinity, seeing the triad of memory, understanding, and will in the human soul as a reflection of the Father, Son, and Spirit.
2. The Relational View
Associated with the Neo-Orthodox theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner in the 20th century, this view shifts the locus of the image from what man is (substance) to what man does in relationship.
I-Thou: Barth argued that the "image" is found in the capacity for "I-Thou" confrontation. Just as God is a Trinity of persons in relationship, humans are created to be in relationship with God and with one another. The image is not a possession but an event; it happens when we look into the face of another.
3. The Functional View (Royal/Representative)
This view has gained ascendancy in modern biblical scholarship, driven by research into the Ancient Near East (ANE). It focuses on the mandate of Genesis 1:26—"and let them have dominion."
Vice-Regency: In the Ancient Near East, the image of the god was the king. The king ruled as the representative of the deity. Genesis 1 "democratizes" this royal ideology. It is not just the Pharaoh who is the image of God; it is Adam—humanity as a species. The image is a job description: to be God's vice-regent.
Critique: This view is powerful but can become purely pragmatic. If one loses the ability to rule (e.g., a quadriplegic), do they lose the image? The function must flow from the being.
The Holistic Conclusion
A robust report on the Imago Dei must integrate all three views. They are not mutually exclusive but complementary. We are substantively created with reason and soul (Substantive), enabling us to relate to God and neighbor (Relational), for the purpose of functioning as God’s stewards on earth (Functional). We are the image, we reflect the image, and we enact the image. The structure (reason/will) supports the relationship (love), which empowers the function (dominion).
Table 2: Three Views of the Imago Dei
| View | Focus | Key Proponents | Strengths | Weaknesses |
| Substantive | Ontology (Reason, Will, Soul) | Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin | Highlights human uniqueness, reason, and moral capacity. | Can undervalue the body; risks marginalizing the disabled/infants. |
| Relational | Communion (I-Thou, Male/Female) | Barth, Brunner | Reflects Trinitarian nature; emphasizes love and community. | Can imply the isolated/lonely lose the image; lacks ontological grounding. |
| Functional | Office (Dominion, Stewardship) | Modern Biblical Scholars, ANE Specialists | Connects Gen 1:26 to 1:28; emphasizes earthly responsibility. | Can become pragmatic; risks linking dignity to utility/productivity. |
IV. The Royal Mandate: Dominion and Stewardship
The immediate consequence of being created in the Imago Dei is the granting of authority. Genesis 1:28 issues two imperative verbs that have generated significant ecological and ethical debate: radah ("have dominion") and kabash ("subdue"). These commands form the "Cultural Mandate," the divine commission for humanity to develop civilization and culture.
A. Radah: The Rule of the Shepherd-King
The verb radah (רָדָה) typically denotes ruling or governing. Critics have accused this text of licensing environmental exploitation—the "Lynn White Thesis"—blaming Judeo-Christian theology for the ecological crisis by positing that nature exists solely for man's use. A closer lexical analysis refutes this.
Lexical Nuance: While radah can refer to kingly rule, biblical kingship is not despotic; it is covenantal and modeled after God’s rule. In Ezekiel 34:4, the shepherds of Israel are condemned for ruling (radah) with "force and cruelty." The implication is that proper radah is the opposite of harshness—it is nurturing. It is the rule of the shepherd who cares for the weak, feeds the flock, and maintains order for the benefit of the sheep.
B. Kabash: Taming the Potential
The verb kabash (כָּבַשׁ) is stronger, meaning to "subdue," "bring into bondage," or "tread down". It is a military term used for conquering land (Joshua 18:1). This seemingly harsh word must be understood in the context of an "untamed" creation.
The Resistance of Creation: This word implies that the earth is not static; it has wildness. It requires work to be made fruitful. It implies agriculture, architecture, and civilization. The earth is like a raw field that must be plowed to produce bread, or stone that must be cut to build a home.
Benevolent Subjugation: Kabash does not mean "destroy" or "rape." It means to harness potential. Just as a musician "subdues" a piano to produce music, or an artist "subdues" paint to create art, humanity is called to work the raw materials of creation to bring about order and beauty. It is the call to develop science, art, and technology for the glory of God and the good of creation.
The Theological Correction: Post-Fall, kabash often turns into exploitation. But in the original design, it was the necessary labor of turning the whole earth into a Garden Temple. The "subduing" was to make the world a place where God's glory could dwell.
C. The Ecological Application
The "dominion" mandate is a call to royal priesthood. Humans are the priests of creation, offering up the praise of the earth to God. The environmental crisis is a failure of the Imago Dei—an abdication of our rule or a twisting of it into tyranny. Christians, as the restored image, should be the forefront of environmental stewardship, not because the earth is a god (pantheism), but because it is the King's garden and we are the gardeners. To trash the garden is to insult the King.
V. The Social Image: Male and Female
Genesis 1:27 presents a poetic triplet that serves as the climax of the creation narrative:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
This text explicitly links the Imago Dei with human sexuality and gender differentiation. It suggests that the fullness of the image is not found in the male alone, nor in the female alone, but in the wholeness of humanity as male and female.
The Rejection of Androgyny
The text does not present the original human as an androgynous being who is later split. From the moment of the Imago Dei declaration, humanity is "male and female" (zakar and neqebah). This binary is essential to the definition of humanity. To be human is to be sexed. The difference is not an accident or a result of the Fall; it is a "very good" part of God's design.
The Social Trinity and Human Community
If the "Let us make" implies a sociality within God, then the "male and female" implies a sociality within humanity that reflects God. The difference between man and woman allows for a unity that is not uniformity. It allows for love, which requires an "other." A solitary human cannot fully image a Trinitarian God who is defined by the love between Father, Son, and Spirit. The union of male and female in marriage, and the broader cooperation of men and women in society, serves as a terrestrial mirror of the divine communion.
Equality and Dignity
The text is radically egalitarian for its time. In an ANE context where women were often property or second-class, Genesis 1 declares that both male and female are equally the direct creation of God and equally the bearers of the Divine Image. One is not the image of the other; both are the image of God. This establishes the ontological equality of the sexes while maintaining their distinctiveness. Men and women are "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7).
The Question of Singleness
Does this mean the single person is less of the image of God? No. The perfect Image of God is Jesus Christ, a single man. The "male and female" dynamic speaks to the collective image of humanity and the capacity for relationship. The single person images God by living in community, in friendship, and in the "household of God" (the Church). Celibacy, in the Christian tradition, is a way of foreshadowing the eternal state where "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" but are like the angels (Matt 22:30), pointing to the ultimate marriage between Christ and the Church.
VI. The Historical Trajectory: Lost, Retained, or Restored?
The doctrine of the Imago Dei has been the subject of intense debate regarding the effects of the Fall (Genesis 3). If humans sinned, do they still bear the image? This question is crucial for anthropology and soteriology.
1. The Lutheran Pessimism (The Relic)
Martin Luther, emphasizing the radical depravity of man, argued that the original image was essentially "original righteousness"—the perfect knowledge and love of God. When Adam fell, this image was lost. What remains is a "relic" or a distorted shadow. For Luther, the image is almost entirely obliterated and can only be restored through regeneration in Christ. This view underscores the desperate need for grace but risks devaluing the natural human.
2. The Calvinistic Distinction (The Mirror)
John Calvin took a slightly more nuanced view. He agreed that the spiritual image (holiness) was destroyed, but the natural image (reason, will) remained, though "fearfully deformed." He used the metaphor of a mirror: the mirror is cracked and covered in grime, reflecting a distorted image, but it is still a mirror. The structure of the human remains, but the function is corrupted. This allows for "common grace"—the idea that fallen humans can still produce art, science, and civil order.
3. The Wesleyan Synthesis (Threefold Image)
John Wesley provided a helpful taxonomy that bridges these views, distinguishing three aspects of the image, which serves as a useful homiletical framework:
The Natural Image: Understanding, will, and liberty. This was retained after the Fall. We are still rational, free agents. We are still "man" and not "beast".
4. The Biblical Evidence for Retention
Despite the Fall, Scripture continues to refer to fallen humanity as being in the image of God. This is the "inviolable" nature of the image.
Genesis 9:6: Capital punishment is instituted because man is made in God's image. To kill a human is to attack God's effigy. This confirms the image is present post-Fall.
James 3:9: We are warned not to curse men "who are made in the likeness of God."
Conclusion: The image is defaced but not erased. It is a "marred masterpiece." The coin is dirty, but the King's face is still stamped on it.
Table 3: The Image and the Fall
| Aspect of Image | Status After Fall | Theological Implication |
| Ontological (Being) | Retained | Human life remains sacred; homicide is a capital offense. |
| Functional (Doing) | Distorted | Dominion becomes exploitation; stewardship becomes abuse. |
| Moral (Loving) | Lost | Humans need regeneration to love God and neighbor truly. |
VII. The Christological Fulfillment: The True Image
Christian theology cannot read Genesis 1 in isolation from the New Testament. The trajectory of the Imago Dei leads inevitably to Jesus Christ. The "First Adam" was a type of the "Second Adam."
Christ as the Eikon
The New Testament applies the title "Image of God" (Eikon tou Theou) supremely to Jesus.
Colossians 1:15: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."
Hebrews 1:3: He is "the express image of his person" (charakter tes hypostaseos - the exact imprint of His nature).
2 Corinthians 4:4: Christ is the "image of God."
Jesus is what Adam was intended to be. He is the perfect human who exercises perfect dominion (calming the storm, riding the donkey), maintains perfect relationship with the Father, and exhibits perfect holiness. Where Adam failed, Christ succeeded. He is the archetype of humanity. When we look at Jesus, we see not only God; we see true Man.
Salvation as Conformity
Salvation, then, is not merely the forgiveness of sins; it is the restoration of the Imago Dei. It is a "re-creation."
Colossians 3:10: We have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge "after the image of him that created him."
2 Corinthians 3:18: We are being "transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord."
Romans 8:29: We are predestined to be "conformed to the image of his Son."
The Christian life is the process of the Holy Spirit sculpting the believer back into the shape of Jesus Christ. The "Moral Image" that Wesley spoke of is being rebuilt. The believer becomes more human, not less, as they become more like Christ.
VIII. Ethical and Homiletical Implications
The doctrine of the Imago Dei is not dry academic theory; it is the ground of human dignity and the driver of Christian ethics. The following implications provide the "so what?" for the sermon or report.
A. The Sanctity of Human Life
If every human being is a sacred icon of the Creator, then human life possesses intrinsic, infinite value.
Bioethics: This theology undergirds the Christian stance against abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics. To destroy a human life is to destroy a temple of the Holy Spirit. As Genesis 9:6 establishes, the blood of man is sacred because the image of God is upon him. The fetus in the womb, having human DNA and potential, is an image-bearer in development. To terminate it is to attack God's image.
B. "No Ordinary People"
C.S. Lewis captured the ethical weight of this doctrine in his famous sermon The Weight of Glory. He argued that if we truly understood the Imago Dei, we would be tempted to bow down to the dullest person we meet. "There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal."
Social Interaction: This changes how the believer treats the cashier, the beggar, the refugee, and the enemy. We are interacting with "immortals"—beings of such terrifying dignity that their destiny is either eternal splendor or eternal horror. We cannot view people as means to an end; they are ends in themselves. Racism, classism, and snobbery are heresies against the Imago Dei.
C. The Evangelistic Imperative
Evangelism is not just "soul-winning"; it is the search for the lost coin that bears the King's image. The coin may be dirty, buried in the mud of sin, but the image is stamped on it. The value remains. We preach the Gospel not just to save souls from hell, but to restore the glory of God in the human creature. We desire to see the mirror polished so it can reflect the Creator once again. The urgency of evangelism is driven by the tragedy of the lost image.
D. Work and Vocation
The "Cultural Mandate" (Gen 1:28) dignifies all legitimate work. The farmer, the scientist, the artist, and the homemaker are all fulfilling the command to "subdue" and "rule." Work is not a result of the Fall; it is part of the original design.
Work as Worship: When a human works with integrity and creativity, they are mirroring God the Worker. There is no "secular/sacred" divide; all work done for God's glory is sacred service. This transforms the drudgery of the 9-to-5 into a priestly duty.
Conclusion: The Doxological Human
Genesis 1:26–28 is the Magna Carta of humanity. It answers the primal question, "Who am I?" with the thunderous affirmation: "You are the representative of the King." It lifts humanity out of the mud of mere biology and crowns them with glory and honor (Psalm 8).
The study of the Imago Dei begins in the council of the Trinity ("Let us make"), moves through the dust of the earth and the breath of life, survives the tragedy of the Fall, and finds its resolution in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. It calls the believer to a life of profound dignity, radical respect for the "other," responsible care for the cosmos, and a relentless pursuit of holiness.
For the church today, this doctrine is a bulwark against the dehumanizing forces of modern culture—forces that view humans as mere consumers, data points, or accidents of evolution. It reminds us that every face we see is a reflection of the Divine Face. To be human is to be a living statue of God in the temple of creation. It is a high calling, a heavy responsibility, and—through the grace of the True Image, Jesus Christ—a glorious destiny.
As the report concludes, the reader is left with the challenge of the text: to live as one stamped with the King's seal, to treat others as sacred icons, and to steward the world as a garden of the Lord. The "Image of God" is not just a theological concept; it is the definition of our existence and the goal of our redemption.
The Idolatrous Context: In the Ancient Near East (ANE), a king would place a tselem (statue) of himself in a distant territory to signify his rule and presence. Similarly, pagans created tsalmay (images) of their gods. These statues were believed to localize the presence of the deity. The radical claim of Genesis 1 is that the true "statue" of the invisible God is not carved from wood or stone, but is the living, breathing human being. God forbids the making of carved images (Exodus 20:4) not only because He is Spirit, but because He has already made an image for Himself: us. To make an idol is to insult the image God has already created. It is an attempt to replace the living image (man) with a dead image (idol).
The Reformation and Modern Scholarship: Luther and Calvin, followed by modern linguists, rejected this sharp distinction. They argued that the phrase "in our image, after our likeness" is a hendiadys—a figure of speech using two words to express a single complex idea. The prepositions interchange in Genesis 1:26, 1:27, 5:1, and 9:6, suggesting the terms are functionally synonymous in this context. The repetition serves to intensify the meaning, not to divide the human soul into parts.
The Synthesis: While they function synonymously to define the Imago Dei, the nuances remain. Tselem emphasizes that we represent God (we are His statues/ambassadors); Demuth emphasizes that we resemble God (we share attributes like reason, love, and morality). We represent Him because we resemble Him.
The Soul/Spirit: This view emphasizes the spiritual nature of humanity. The possession of an immortal soul allows for communion with the eternal God. It asserts that humans have a "God-shaped vacuum" or a capacity for the infinite that other creatures lack.
Critique: While true that humans possess reason, this view runs the risk of intellectualism. If the image is defined solely by high cognitive function, it implies that those with diminished cognitive capacities (infants, the intellectually disabled, the senile) possess "less" of the image of God. This has dangerous bioethical implications. Furthermore, the Bible rarely locates the image in abstract reason but rather in the whole person.
Male and Female: Barth placed immense weight on the phrase "male and female he created them" (Gen 1:27). The differentiation of the sexes and their subsequent unity is the primary creaturely reflection of the internal differentiation and unity of the Godhead. We image God when we engage in community. A solitary human is not fully the image of God.
Critique: While profoundly biblical, if the image is only relationship, does the hermit or the socially isolated person cease to bear the image? The relationship must be grounded in an ontological capacity. We relate because we are created with the capacity to do so.
Representative Rule: To be in the image of God is to function as His steward on earth. It is to extend the order of the Garden into the chaos of the world. The image is effective; it does something. As a statue made a god manifest on Earth, so the human is to represent and act on behalf of God among the other living creatures.
The Context of Image: Since humans rule as the "image of God," their rule must reflect God's character. God's rule in Genesis 1 is creative, life-giving, and ordering. He blesses the birds and fish (Gen 1:22) before He creates man to rule them. Therefore, human dominion over the earth must be benevolent, fostering life and flourishing, not exploitation. It is a "servant-kingship".
The Political Image: The capacity to govern and steward the earth. This was retained but corrupted; our rule often becomes tyranny. We still rule, but often ruinously. The Moral Image: Righteousness and true holiness (love). This was lost at the Fall. Humans are born devoid of the love of God and the pure love of neighbor. The goal of salvation (Sanctification) is the restoration of this Moral Image. Salvation is not just getting to heaven; it is the "recovery of the image".
Human Rights: The concept of "human rights" is historically rooted in this biblical claim. We do not have rights because the state grants them (for the state can take them away) or because we are useful to the economy (utilitarianism); we have rights because we bear the divine insignia. This provides a transcendent anchor for dignity that secularism cannot provide.
The Sponge Illustration: Humanity is like a sponge soaked in crude oil. The sponge (the structure/image) is still there, created for a purpose, but it is permeated with sin (oil). God does not throw the sponge away; He cleanses it. We must see the sponge beneath the oil in our neighbors and seek their cleansing.
No comments:
Post a Comment