“And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth.”—Gen. v. 3.
Many are the efforts made to alter the meaning of the word, “Let Us make man in Our image and after Our likeness,” (Gen. i. 26) by a different translation; especially by making it to read *“in”*instead of “after” our likeness. This new reading is Dr. Böhl’s main support. With this translation his system stands or falls.
According to him, man is not the bearer of the divine image, but by a divine act he was set in it, as a plant is set in the sun. As long as the plant stood in the dark, its shape and flowers are invisible; carried into the light its beauty becomes apparent. In like manner, man was without luster until God put him in the shining glory of His image, and then he appeared beautiful. Of course, this idea requires the translation: “Let Us create man inOur image.” (Gen. i. 26)
Let us explain the difference: Gen. i. 26 in the Hebrew has two different prepositions. The one standing before “likeness” (כֵּ) is invariably used in comparisons; while the other before “image” is mostly used to denote that one thing is found in another. Hence the translation, “In our image and after our likeness,” has apparently much in its favor. This translation (altho we believe it to be incorrect; for our reasons see the next article) does not alter the meaning, if rightly interpreted.
And what is that right interpretation? Not that of Dr. Böhl; for, according to him, the newly created man did not stand in the midst of that image, but only in its reflection and radiation. The plant is not set in the sun, but in the sun-rays. No; if Adam stood in the midst of God’s image, then he was wholly encompassed by it.
Let us illustrate. There are wooden images covered with paper on which is printed a head or bust, colored to imitate marble or
bronze. The wood may be said to be *in the image,*covered by it from all sides. Again, the sculptor actually chisels the image, in his mind, or posing as a model, about the marbleuntil it encloses the whole black. In like manner it may be said that Adam, upon his first awakening to consciousness, was enclosed by God’s image; not externally, and he only its reflection, but its ectype penetrating his whole being.
The correctness of this exegesis appears from Gen. v. 1-3, the contents of which, tho often overlooked, settle this matter. Here Scripture brings Adam’s creation in direct connection with his own begetting a son after his own likeness. We read: “In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made He him; male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.”
In both instances the Hebrew word *zelem,*image, is used. Hence to obtain a clear and correct understanding of the statement, “to be created in the image and after the likeness of God,” Scripture invites us to let the child’s resemblance to the father assist us. And the father’s likeness lies in the child’s being, is part of it, and does not merely beam from the father upon the child externally. Even in his absence or after his death the resemblance of features continues.
Hence to beget a child in our image and after our likeness means to give existence to a being bearing our image and resemblance, altho as a person distinct from us. From which it must follow that when Scripture says, regarding Adam, that God created him in His image and after His likeness, using the same words “image” (zelem) and “likeness” (demoeth), it can not mean that the divine image shone upon him, so that he stood and walked in its light; but that God so created him that his whole being, person, and state reflected the divine image, since he carried it in himself.
It is remarkable that the prepositions used in Gen. i. 26 appear also in this passage, but *in a reversed order.*Rendering the preposition “כ” “in,” as in Gen. i. 26, it reads: “He begat a son inhis likeness and after his image.” And this is conclusive. It shows how utterly unfair it is to deduce a different meaning from the use of different prepositions. Even if we translate “ëĔ by “in”—“in the image of God”—the sense is the same; in both, the image is not a
reflection falling upon man, indicating his state only, but also his form, both state and being.
However, before we proceed, let Dr. Böhl speak for himself. For we might possibly have wrongly understood him; it is therefore reasonable that his own words be laid before our readers.
We take these citations from his work; entitled, “Von der Incarnation des Gottlichen Wortes”; a dogmatic, highly important book, wherein he deals the Vermittellungs theologians blows that have filled our hearts with joy, partly because God is honored thereby, and also because of the consolation offered to broken hearts. Hence it does not enter our minds to belittle the labor of Dr. Böhl. We only contend that his presentation of the image of God is not the true one. We point, therefore, to the important and exceedingly clear sentences of pages 28 and 29: