THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN - Tyndale House

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN 97
draws out the permanent implication of the first. Somewhat
closer in form to 1:28 is 1:16f. 'God made the two great
lights. . . . And God set them in the firmament of the heavens
to give light on the earth and to rule over the day and night
and to divide between light and darkness.' We cannot speak
here of an initial act and its consequences, as though the
making preceded the setting, which in turn brought about the
giving of light and the ruling. Rather the act of creation of the
sun and moon includes within itself the purpose which they
are to serve. Their giving of light is not the same thing as their
being set in the firmament, yet their being set there cannot be
fully defined without reference to their function as luminaries.
In the same way, though man's rulership over the animals is
not itself the image of God, no definition of the image is complete
which does not refer to this function of rulership.
This conclusion can be confirmed on more general grounds.
It is very likely that the Ancient Near Eastern description of the
king, especially in Egypt, as the image of God, formed part of
the background to the phrase in Genesis 1:26. Ancient Near
Eastern understanding of divine images has seemed very clearly
to lie behind Genesis 1:26, and we further suggest that the idea
of the king as the living image of God is a further element in the
background of man as the image of God. We cannot specify
the means by which this Ancient Near Eastern terminology was
utilized, especially as Genesis 1 offers us no clues to its dating,
but for our purpose of assessing the theological significance of
the image of God in man in the Old Testament, the mechanics
by which this term came to be used are of comparatively little
importance; what is important is that Ancient Near Eastern
court-style, in which the king is described as the image of God,
enables us to appreciate the category of the terminology used
about man in Genesis 1. Man is here described in royal terms, 188
not only in the command to have dominion, but in the image
of God phrase itself. The term 'image of God' in itself indicates
the regal character of man, it seems to us, just as it does in
Egypt, where only the king is image of God, and where his
rulership is often specifically associated with his being the image.
Hence the command to have dominion (Gn. 1:26, 28) does not
advertise some function of man which may or may not devolve
from his being the image; he has dominion only because he is the
188 Cf. I. Engnell, VTS 3 (1957) 112ff.; H. Wildberger, TZ 21 (1965) 256-259.