Full text: https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=497
And God said: “Let Us make man in Our image and after Our likeness”. That’s what we are told in Genesis 1:26. What do these two expressions actually mean? Is there a difference between “image” and “likeness”? Or are these two words simply synonyms?
The Hebrew word translated as “image” is “tselem”, which is used 17 times in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word translated as “likeness” is “demuwth”, and this word is used 25 times in the Old Testament.
[Comment: Some scholarly works will transliterate these two words slightly differently, as for example “selem” and “demut”. Such differences are not of any significance.]
Another Hebrew word that also ties into this subject, though it is not used in this verse, is “mareh”, which is used 103 times in the Old Testament. This word is mostly translated as “appearance”. This word “mareh” is formed from a common Hebrew verb that means “to see”. So the noun “mareh” refers to “something we can see”. And “appearance” is a suitable translation for the Hebrew word “mareh”. It is also translated as “sight” and as “vision”. As a point of reference, this word “mareh” is used 15 times in Ezekiel chapter 1, where it is always translated as “appearance”.
Potentially we thus have three different Hebrew words, which are translated as follows:
1) “Tselem” = image.
2) “Demuwth” = likeness.
3) “Mareh” = appearance.
Do these three words all more or less refer to the same thing? Or are there differences in meanings between these words? This is a question that Hebrew scholars have argued over for centuries, voicing opinions, but without reaching any definitive conclusions.
I believe that the difficulty here does not lie in these Hebrew words themselves, as much as it does in the fact that none of the translators actually understand what information God intended to convey, when God used two of these three words in Genesis 1:26.
[Comment: We can ignore “mareh” here in our discussion, other than recognizing that there is in fact another Hebrew word that focuses explicitly on looks and on appearance, but which word God chose not to use in this verse. But for the meaning conveyed by our English word “likeness” God could readily have used this Hebrew word “mareh”. But God didn’t do that, implying that God wanted to convey something other than what we think of as “likeness” or “appearance”.]
It is primarily not a case of arguing over philological distinctions between “tselem” and “demuwth”, though I will point out a few technicalities. It is really a matter of realizing that in Genesis 1:26 God was speaking about two completely different things. That is why God used two completely unrelated words. And we need to identify those two “different things”.
But this is something the translators have not really understood. And so translators have mostly chosen the two English words “image” and “likeness”, with the implication that these words should be viewed as being largely synonymous. And unfortunately that is precisely how very many people view these two words “image” and “likeness” in this verse; they view them as if both words somehow refer to the same thing. But that is misleading!
The Hebrew word “tselem”, translated as “image”, refers to looks, to outward appearance, very much like the Hebrew word “mareh”. Regarding “tselem” the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) says: “The word basically refers to a representation, a likeness.” So “tselem” could equally correctly be translated as “likeness”. But this would make the word “demuwth” redundant, if “tselem” in this verse also refers to “likeness”.
This in turn already implies that “demuwth” must here surely refer to something other than “likeness”. God would not have said twice “in Our likeness”.
Anyway, the first statement in Genesis 1:26 thus tells us that in our outward appearance we human beings look like God. Outwardly God’s spirit body, invisible to human eyes, has the same form as the human body. That is what the statement “in Our image” means.
This should be the easier part to understand. But it should also set us up to expect the word “demuwth” to refer to something different from “image” or “likeness”.
The key to understanding this verse correctly is to recognize that the Hebrew word “demuwth”, translated as “likeness”, has in this verse nothing to do with looks or appearance. This Hebrew word “demuwth” tells us nothing whatsoever about what God looks like to other spirit beings who are able to see God (i.e. to the angels).
Hebrew scholars don’t understand the correct meaning with which God used the word “demuwth” in Genesis 1:26. For example, TWOT says the following for “demuwth”:
“The more important word of the two is ‘image’ but to avoid the implication that man is a precise copy of God, albeit in miniature, the less specific and more abstract demût was added. ... No distinction is to be sought between these two words (i.e. between “tselem” and “demuwth”) . They are totally interchangeable ... Man is the visible, corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God.” (TWOT on “demuwth”)
Some important things to notice about this quote from a scholarly work. First of all, these scholars do not really see a distinction between these two Hebrew words. They view them as synonymous. That’s why they say “they are totally interchangeable”. They also believe in a “bodiless” God. That is absurd! If God does not have “a spirit body”, then anything could be “in the image of God” ... a fish, a goat, the moon, etc.
I mention these things to show that we cannot extend any credibility at all to these scholars when it comes to theological explanations about God and God’s plan for mankind. Their theology is totally flawed.
However, this does not mean that they may not have a good understanding of many aspects of Hebrew grammar. Grammar is not theology. So let’s note a grammatical statement which has been made just in passing.
TWOT tells us that “demuwth” is “less specific and more abstract” than “tselem”................
....So to summarize:
Let’s understand that the expression “in the image of God” refers to us human beings looking like God in our outward appearance. Now God created Adam as a full grown adult man, and Eve as a full grown adult woman. So Adam was from the very start of his existence “in the image of God”. But all of us were born as babies. And for us coming to be in “the image of God” was a process that took 20 or more years. The expression “the image of God” refers to adult human beings. There is nothing immature about God, and a physically immature human being (e.g. a baby) is still in the process of coming to be “in the image of God”.
So the condition “in the image of God” is something that takes another 20+ years after birth to be fully achieved.
The Hebrew text for the expression “in the likeness of God” does not refer to our outward appearance or likeness. This expression refers to specific attributes of character and personality; and it requires us to receive access to God’s holy spirit. It then requires a lifetime of using God’s spirit to change our character and personality and disposition, etc. to be in full agreement with God in all these things. Only when we are resurrected by God will we have fully attained unto “the likeness of God”.
So let’s note that both expressions, “in the image of God” and “in the likeness of God”, refer to processes that take time; one process takes 20+ years and the other process takes an entire lifetime. For all of us who were born as babies (i.e. all people except for Adam and Eve) neither of these two expressions refers to attributes that we possess spontaneously at birth.
MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT “THE LIKENESS OF GOD”
The following articles on my website provide additional information about the term “the likeness of God”. In the Mistranslated Scriptures Articles section of my website there are three articles that discuss “the likeness of God”. Those three articles are:
A) Genesis 1:26 is discussed in the 150 Mistranslations in the Bible, Part 1. It is Scripture #7 in that article.
B) Romans 1:23 is discussed in Part 6 of the 150 Mistranslations article. It is Scripture #108 in that article.
C) Revelation 9:7 is discussed in Part 7 of the 150 Mistranslations article. It is Scripture #149 in that article.
When you look at those articles you will see that my understanding of this expression “the likeness of God” was still somewhat incomplete. I was on the right track. I basically thought that “the likeness of God” depended on us human beings having the spirit in man. But that is only half the picture.
The spirit in man is one key to making the state of being “in the likeness of God” possible. But the spirit in man is not enough for a human being to be “in the likeness of God”. Why did I come to that conclusion?
I realized that any person who has a mind that is “enmity against God” (Romans 8:7) cannot possibly be “in the likeness of God”! These two states are simply not compatible. Someone who is “in the likeness of God” cannot at the same time be “enmity against God”. The condition “in the likeness of God” refers to a specific type of character; and the condition of “enmity against God” also refers to a specific type of character. And these two types of character are opposites.
So I realized that the state of being “in the likeness of God” must be the end result of a process. That process has to overcome the initial state for every human being, the state of “enmity against God”.
So we human beings are absolutely required to have the spirit in man, in order to make that process possible. But without the addition of God’s holy spirit that process cannot really get going. Without the addition of God’s holy spirit that “enmity against God” cannot be fully overcome. It is only when a human mind has both, the spirit in man and the added holy spirit of God, that then the process of working towards coming to be “in the likeness of God” can actually proceed. Only then can the “enmity against God” be confronted and dealt with.
This understanding has led to the explanation I have provided in this present article. So when you see any of my earlier discussions of “the likeness of God”, realize that I wrote those articles when my understanding was on the right track, but still incomplete.
This present article expands on, and to some degree corrects the explanations provided in the earlier articles.
Anyway, as I said before, so I say again: don’t expect Hebrew scholars to agree with me regarding this explanation for “the likeness of God”.
Frank W Nelte