Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

(even partially) lost. This must lead to the conclusion that the image of God
does not denote man in his moral excellence. After all, man lost this perfection
in Paradise, but the image, however perverted, is still just as much intact,
as it ever was!
2. The claim has been made that the image consists of rationality (John
1:9). However, man in the core of his being goes deeper than rationality. Man
is first and foremost heart. It would be passing strange, therefore, to equate
the image of God with what appears to be more of a “surface phenomenon.”
3. Scripture indicates in Genesis 1:26, 27 that man as the image of God
has dominion over creation. This has led some to espouse the view that the
image of God is to be identified with dominion. This would imply that man is
a “representative,” an “ambassador” of the Lord,” with “diplomatic immunity.”
His words are God’s words, and his acts are God’s acts. In (so) speaking
and acting man takes dominion on behalf of God. However, rather than
equating image with dominion, it is preferable to say that the image makes
the dominion possible.
4. It appears that Scripture identifies image with man in terms of the
“spirituality” that was breathed into him in Genesis 2:7, that is, the “nonmaterial”
side of his being. Willy-nilly man mirrors God in the way he is and
operates. In the core of his make-up man is “heart.” From this originate his
three functions of thinking, willing and feeling. In both his being and his
functions, man has two dimensions. He is incurably moral. He always does
and must approach his world in terms of “good” and “bad.” Further, he is also
incurably social. He is by definition involved in the “one and the many”
spheres and in the “authority structures.” Against the backdrop of his being,
his functions and his dimensions he now expresses himself in word and in
deed. He acts, interacts and reacts, creatively and imaginatively. All this is
part of his spirituality, and in all of it he is the “spittin” image of God.
This leaves us with only one conclusion. To curse a human is to curse
the image of God! God cannot take that “lying down.” Apart from the fact
that man as God’s official deputy and credentialed ambassador (See Manton,
297) has “diplomatic immunity,” God’s honor is at stake!
When the diagnosis of the tongue is properly understood, it cannot but
be concluded that the indictment is directed to both the teachers and the
members of the Church. After all, they have the tongue in common. In the
light of the larger context, however, that warns aspiring teachers to stampede
the office, and so to “rush into riches,” it is appropriate to apply it first to prospective
and present teachers. It would be amiss, however, not to apply it in
the same breath to the members of the congregation!
604