#839 God’s Image
June 11, 2023Dear Dr Craig,
Studying the literature on biblical anthropology for my undergraduate dissertation, I have recently started engaging with your work on the historical Adam, which I have very much enjoyed. One aspect which seems to get less attention from reviewers is your assessment of the image of God.
You criticise Middleton's functionalist view in that 'a thing’s having a necessary and inseparable purpose is just not the same thing as a thing’s definition.'
I'm not understanding what you mean by 'thing' here. The 'image?' If so, why could the definition of the image could not just be: The function of representing God in the role of earthly dominion.
Would appreciate clarity on this.
Cheers,
Thomas
United Kingdom
Dr. craig’s response
A
I’m grateful for your drawing attention to this often overlooked section of the book, Thomas! I’m using the word “thing” in the most general sense possible to refer to something. Synonyms might be a “being” or an “entity.” Nothing subtle is intended. I’m just talking about something.
In Genesis 1.26–27 being created in the image and likeness of God serves to differentiate man from all other earthly creatures. It serves to tell us what man is. The question then becomes, what does it mean to say that man is created in God’s image and likeness? Middleton says it means that man has been assigned the function of serving as God’s royal representative on Earth. My point is that while we can all agree that man does have that function, nonetheless specifying something’s function is not to give a definition of that thing. Middleton acknowledges the point, but says that in this case the function is necessary and inseparable from man and therefore does serve to define what man is. The criticism I’m making of Middleton’s reply is that something’s having a necessary and inseparable purpose is not the same as giving a definition of that thing. For example, an automobile has the necessary and inseparable purpose of transporting people. But that is hardly the definition of “automobile”! A horse-drawn carriage also meets that definition. Specifying something’s essential purpose tells you what the thing is for, but it doesn’t tell you what the thing is.
So in the case of God’s creation of man in His image and likeness, Middleton fails to show that man’s having the function that man admittedly has serves to define what a human being is. Yes, you could say that “the definition of the image could . . . just be: The function of representing God in the role of earthly dominion.” But we haven’t been given any reason to think that that is what “the image of God” means, other than the necessity and inseparability of this function from humanity. More is needed. Fortunately, Middleton has more to say, which I interact with in the book.
- William Lane Craig