In this first part on the Image of God in Man we will discuss selem and demut.
Introduction
The image of God in man is fundamentally important if man is to gain a clearer conceptualization of who he is, who he is in relation to His Creator, and his purpose. Thus, there are multiple reasons why the study and Biblical comprehension of the image of God in man is vital. One of the reasons is because it can develop a more concrete and clear understanding of the inherent value of man in God’s eyes. Another is that people are created for eternity. There is a ghost in the machine. God has placed a soul in every person. Additionally, the study of the image of God in man primarily demonstrates that man was uniquely created for relationship with his Creator. Therefore, selem and demut will be looked at, followed by a section on humans in the image of God, and the final part will discuss implications of the image of God in man. Some of the implications manifest in the sanctity of life, assuredness of eternal existence beyond the present life either in heaven or hell, care for humans and the environment, man made for community and fellowship with God, and the purpose of man.
Selem and Demut
In attempting to determine what the image of God in man is, it is essential to first look at two key terms related to it. The two most commonly associated with the discussion on the image of God in man, which first appears in Genesis 1:26, are selem and demut. Theissen seems to think that there is no need to explore the terms in the search for a difference because he does not believe there is any significant difference.[1] Similarly, Reno says, “We need not follow Origen’s strategy of parsing image and likeness, however. In the main, the Christian tradition has treated these two terms as synonyms denoting our distinctive nature as human beings.”[2] However, other commentators believe otherwise. On selem, Kilner states, “Image” is the most common translation of the Hebrew word tselem and the Greek word eikon, which appears in various biblical passages addressing humanity’s creation in the image of God. Eikon also is the primary New Testament term for Christ as God’s “image.”[3] And demut would refer to “likeness.” Apparently, according to Kilner, “Tselem also can refer to idols in the Bible (e.g., Num. 33:52; 2 Kgs. 11:18), but it can be used in a more descriptive way without such negative connotations in different contexts.”[4] In whatever way one may understand selem, Walvoord says that it should be understood as figurative in Genesis 1:27 because God does not have a human form.[5] In relation to demut, Lorberbaum says, “This word carries two meanings. According to the first, it connotes the reflection of one object in any other; that is, that both objects share the same structure or contour. According to the second, the term demut connotes the form of an object, and hence may refer to the object itself.”[6]
Loberbaum, in an interesting examination on tannaitic theosophy, appears to side with it as an explanation for what the image of God in man may be. He notes a number of things. The first is that, in regard to zelem, “the tannaim, who followed the dominant Biblical tradition, man is not composed of different substances, such as body and soul, flesh and spirit. Even if these substances inhere in the human being, they saw no fundamental dichotomy between them.”[7] Another is that the image of God is rooted in a theomorphic perception of man, not an anthropomorphic perception of God.[8] Also, the terms “image,” “likeness,” and “icon,” in tannaitic literature refers to “a particular kind of relationship between an object (a prototype) and its image or likeness.”[9] And finally, the view of the image was prevalent in the ancient world and it could be cautiously stated that they did not conceptualize a separation between the object and its image.[10]
In considering whether or not the terms “image” and “likeness” could potentially be used or understood interchangeably, Hamilton discusses some possibilities. For the first possibility, he says, “The Hebrew word for ‘likeness’ is translated in the Septuagint not by the usual homoiosis, but by eikon, normally the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word for ‘image.’” He then says, for a second possibility, that “likeness” modifies “image.” The final option is that “likeness” amplifies “image.”[11] While showing no preference for any of the three, he does state, “Whatever the best explanation may be on this technical matter, it is plain to see that humankind is set apart from the rest of creation and indeed placed on a pedestal.”[12]
Now that the terms selem and demut in relation to the image of God in man have been discussed, next attention will be turned to an examination of what exactly the image of God in man is.
To continue the topic of the image of God in man, the next post in the series will cover the theme of Humans in the Image of God.
[1]. Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1979), 154. [2]. R. R. Reno, Genesis. Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible Series. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2010), 65. [3]. John F. Kilner, Dignity and Destiny: Humanity in the Image of God. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary Series. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 50. [4]. Ibid., 50. [5]. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament. (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 1985), 29. [6]. Yair Lorberbaum, In God's Image: Myth, Theology, and Law in Classical Judaism. (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 166. [7]. Ibid., 4. [8]. Loberbaum, 6. [9]. Ibid. [10]. Ibid. [11]. Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 27. [12]. Ibid., 28.
Comentarios