THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN - Tyndale House

92 TYNDALE BULLETIN
distinction between םֶלֶצ and תּ ומּד ְ is based ultimately on
the insertion of καί by the LXX between the two terms
κατ ͗ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καί ὁμοίωσιν. This apparently insignificant
addition, which was carried over into the Vulgate
as ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, encouraged exegetes to
assign different content to the two terms, a procedure which
can hardly be substantiated by the Hebrew text, especially
in view of the omission of תּ ומּד ְ in other statements about
the divine image. Even the LXX and Vulgate may not have
intended the two terms to be understood separately; it is very
possible that they form a hendiadys. 176
In suggesting here that a difference in meaning can be
established between the words םֶלֶצ and תּ ומּד ְ we are by no
means asserting that they have quite different contents and
refer to different elements in the image. Rather we are suggesting
that the תּ ומּד ְ refers entirely to the םֶלֶצ; it has no referential
meaning in itself, but only specifies the kind of image,
namely a representational image. 177 We are at a loss to discover
from the text in what the likeness as distinct from the image may
consist, and we can only assume that it has a force applicable to
all the meanings of the image. The representational image in
the Ancient Near East is intended to portray the characters of
the god whose image it is; thus, for example, a fertility god
may be represented by a bull. So in Genesis 1, man is not a
mere cipher, chosen at random by God to be His representative,
but to some extent also expresses, as the image, the character
of God. The precise elements in the nature of God expressed
by man may, however, not be determined by examining the
term 'likeness', but only by concentrating attention upon the
term 'image'. Genesis 1:26 speaks of man's likeness to God only
in the senses in which an image is like the one it images.
4. The image of God, when applied to a living person, is
understood almost exclusively of the king. As in Mesopotamia,
so also in Egypt, if a god is spoken of at all as being imaged in
living human form, there is only one person who can be
regarded as the image of the god, namely the king. He is already
believed on other grounds to be closest of all men to the realm
of the divine, if he is not already, as in Egypt, a member of it.
176 K. L. Schmidt, Eranos—Jahrbuch 15 (1947f.) 154f.
177 So G. von Rad, Genesis 56.