The Image of God Refers to External, Visible Form

The view that “Image of God” refers to external, visible form was predominate beginning in the 1940s due to Gunkel’s commentary on Genesis and an article by Humbert. The four basic arguments for this interpretation are:

1. “Image of God” is a translation of the prepositional phrase בְּצֶלֶם (betselem) (preposition[ב, b] appended to the Hebrew noun [צֶלֶם, tselem]. [צֶלֶם, tselem] occurs in 2 Kgs 11:18; Num 33:52; Ezek 7:20; 16:17 for idols, statues, and figurines). In view of the visual referent of (צֶלֶם, tselem), Genesis 1:26 may have informed readers that human form was similar to the deity’s own form (Humbert, 153–175; Gunkel).

2. In Genesis 5:1–3, Seth was born “according to the image” of his father, Adam. The phrase used in this instance is (כְּצֶלֶם, ketselem). The Hebrew preposition differs from the phrase in Gen 1:26, having the preposition (כ, k) instead of (ב, b). These two prepositions, used with (צֶלֶם, tselem), are interchangeable. The two prepositions (ב, b, “in”; כ, k, “according to”) are interchanged with the noun (צֶלֶם, tselem) and the other noun used in Gen 1:26 (“likeness,” דְּמוּת, demuth).

It is argued that the meaning of (צֶלֶם, tselem) is to be informed by (דְּמוּת, demuth), “likeness.” The latter refers to visual likeness or shape, so the former must as well (Ezek 1:10; 1:22; 10:22; Dan 10:16). This argument presumes a synonymy between the two nouns:

3. Physical resemblance has something to do with the image in Gen 5:1–3, since the language concerns the physical offspring of Adam. The expression in Gen 1:26 could be viewed in the same way (Gunkel, Genesis, 112).

4. Humanity’s creation in the image of God may be described in those terms as a basis for the Israelite rejection of making images of their God. Making a graven image is prohibited because humanity already is such an image (Exod 20:4; the word is not [צֶלֶם, tselem] in this passage).

This view began to lose consensus with the publication of an article by Clines. (צֶלֶם, tselem) is not always used to speak of a physical object. It can be used metaphorically, to speak of nonconcrete objects or attributes (Psa 39:6; 73:20). The most explicit Semitic parallels (for example, Akkadian tsalmu) are also used metaphorically (Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 74–75; Bray, “The Significance of God’s Image in Man”). In the case of Psa 73:20, a vague notion of “shape” is still present, though not in concrete terms. (צֶלֶם, tselem) may speak of some type of “representation” of God without saying that the thing represented (God) must also be concrete or physical (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, 150). This is parallel with John 4:24, which affirms that God has no body, an idea suggested in Isa 31:3 as well.

Anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament also do not argue for understanding God as concrete. Anthropomorphism uses embodied humanity as an analogy toward understanding God. Assuming Yahweh has a physical form requires an explanation for why humanity was created with genders that have absolute physical differences. Rather than enforcing the idea that God inherently possesses physical form, when Yahweh appears to men in human form, there is no suggestion that this form is anything but a temporary manifestation (Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 72).

Yahweh occasionally assumes a human form in the Old Testament (Gen 18; Exod 24:9–18; Deut 4:12; Ezek 1:26). He is not depicted in human terms because He has a body, but because He is a person. In Israelite thinking, it was impossible to think clearly about personhood without thoughts of embodiment. The Hebrew Bible describes a person in terms of the fusion of material flesh and immaterial inner life (Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual).

Recent scholarship has noted logical weaknesses in the idea that “likeness” (דְּמוּת, demuth) requires “image” (צֶלֶם, tselem) to be understood in visual terms. Since the terms are not always paired, it cannot be said that one is necessary to communicate the other. It also suggests that their meanings are not completely synonymous.

Clines argued that variation between the prepositions and nouns might have deliberate intent and communicate something about the meaning of the image of God: “When the reference is to the image of God and not to Adam’s image (Gen 5:3), the preposition with צֶלֶם (tselem) is always בְּ (b). This could be accidental, but we suggest that it is not. Genesis 5:1 and 5:3 do not speak of the transmission of the divine image (for it belongs to man as such, and so cannot be transmitted …) … but of Seth’s likeness to Adam.… Adam was made ‘in the likeness’ (which is the same thing as ‘according to the likeness’) of God. Thus verse 1 has בדמות (bdmwt), and not בצלם (btslm). Seth is not Adam’s image, but only like Adam’s shape; so verse 3 has not בצלמו (btslmw), but כצלמו (ktslmw). Thus, Genesis 1:26 is not to be interpreted by Gen 5:1, 3, but vice versa” (Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” 78n117).

There does not appear to be any secure exegetical link between Gen 1:26 and Exod 20:4. The vocabulary differs, and the commandment fails to ground the prohibition in the narrative about humankind’s creation.