If “image” speaks of humanity’s relationship to creation as kings or vicegerents, “likeness” highlights humanity’s relationship to God as sons. Just as Seth is later described as the “likeness” of Adam (Gen. 5:3), so ’ādām is here called the “likeness” of God, pointing to the close, covenantal relationship shared between God and human beings. Adam, in other words, is God’s son.

Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, so that they will have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ (Genesis 1:26 LSB)
The concept of human identity is one that has undergone various changes throughout the centuries. In ancient Mesopotamia, for instance, it wasn’t uncommon to view human beings as mere slaves of the gods, helpful earth-dwelling creatures that could manage the menial work on behalf of the cosmic bigwigs. Aristotle later gave to the world the definition of the human being as a “rational animal.” But this, though slightly more dignifying, was equally insufficient in its own right as a full definition of the human person.
Contemporary reflections on the nature of human beings haven’t improved much. Today they fluctuate somewhere between pond scum and silly putty. Human beings are thought to be both the distant cousins of the green stuff living on the inside of your son’s fish tank, and also the kind of creatures that can alter the fundamental structure of their being with some lip gloss and high heels.
Whatever we are, we are apparently quite malleable. But malleability seems to be the only constant.
A Royal Calling: Image and Likeness

The words “image” and “likeness” in this text convey two related but distinct ideas. “Image,” as the term was widely understood in the ancient Near East, refers to humanity’s status as a living symbol of God’s rule and authority on the earth.
Like a statue representing a king’s claim to a certain territory, ’ādām (mankind) images God’s rule to the rest of creation. Hence the attention given in the following verses to the theme of dominion.
Read More
Related Posts:

The proposal of OVT-001 is no surprise—the PCUSA has allowed same-sex marriage since 2014. This is symptomatic of the denomination’s more fundamental rejection of Scriptural authority, which has resulted in conservative Presbyterian churches breaking away from the PCUSA and forming other denominations as early as 1936. The PCUSA has not gained the world in return for losing its soul, as the once-powerful denomination’s membership steadily declines.

An increasingly revisionist Presbyterian Church (USA) will take up legislation at its 226th General Assembly June 25–July 4 in Salt Lake City barring ordination of candidates who are not LGBTQ-affirming.
Designated OVT-001, the proposal, known as an overture in Presbyterian parlance, would change two sections of the PCUSA Book of Order. The first change alters section F-1.0403, “Unity in Diversity,” to read (changes in brackets):
“The unity of believers in Christ is reflected in the rich diversity of the Church’s membership. In Christ, by the power of the Spirit, God unites persons through baptism, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, sex, [gender identity, sexual orientation,] disability, geography, or theological conviction. There is therefore no place in the life of the Church for discrimination against any person. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shall guarantee full participation and representation in its worship, governance, and emerging life to all persons or groups within its membership. No member shall be denied participation or representation for any reason other than those stated in this Constitution.”
This addition of “gender identity, sexual orientation” may initially seem unproblematic in the first two sentences of this section. Christ can indeed unite diverse people to himself, including those who struggle with gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction. Implicit in the inclusion of the categories of gender identity and sexual orientation, however, is that there is nothing problematic about gender dysphoria and same-sex attraction.
This becomes clear in the rest of F-1.0403, which bars all discrimination against anyone in these categories (what the Rationale section of OVT-001 refers to as “protected classes”), especially regarding “worship, governance, and emerging life” in the PCUSA.
All humans are created in the image of God and must be treated with dignity and respect, this must not be denied. The imago Dei does not, however, mean that nobody may be denied a role in church governance for practicing transgenderism or homosexuality.
In 1 Timothy 3, the Apostle Paul writes that elders must be “above reproach” and deacons must be “blameless” (among many other qualifications). Earlier in the same epistle—and in multiple other epistles—Paul follows the Old Testament’s condemnation of practicing homosexuality, demonstrating along with Jude that it is no more licit under the New Covenant than it was under the Old. Given this, it seems reasonable to conclude that homosexual activity would be worthy of reproach and blame, disqualifying one from holding church office.
Read More
Related Posts:

This film might not depict anything visually distasteful, but it is not for the weak-hearted and is difficult to watch. It is honest about what this world is and does. I heard crying throughout the entire theater audience — it is beyond moving. At the end of the film, I wanted to clap, but it felt inappropriate. It was similar to watching “Schindler’s List.” What exactly are we celebrating by clapping for films like this? The heroism I suppose, but it doesn’t feel right. Silent repose seemed to be the most appropriate response.

“Sound of Freedom” follows the true story of Special Agent Tim Ballard who specialized in catching sex criminals, particularly in regard to the exploitation of children on the internet. But Tim is challenged early in the film by the seeming futility of catching criminals when real children’s lives are at stake. Years of looking at the darkest side of humanity has broken his heart to pieces, and the only way he can see to rebuild his humanity is by liberating the lost and forgotten victims of the sex trafficking network. He goes on a quest to South America to do just that.
Jim Caviezel plays Ballard. His classic no-frills acting approach is perfect for this role. Caviezel is best known for playing Jesus in Mel Gibson’s controversial “The Passion of the Christ.” He brings the same level of intensity and compassion from this role to Ballard’s story. In fact, Ballard’s mission to seek and save lost children is a distinctly Christian value based on the theological principle that each child is uniquely beloved by God. 
When Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me,” he was making a revolutionary claim. Children, the most vulnerable and dependent members of society, had a special place in his kingdom. They mattered to him in a way that no other religious founder has ever envisioned. The faith of a child was the type of faith Jesus wanted from his followers — one free from the pollution and cynicism of adulthood, one of total dependence on their Heavenly Father. 
These values aren’t universally understood and accepted. Ballard’s story is proof of that. According to the movie, the child sex industry brings in $150 billion dollars every year. This industry is powerful and is not nearly as niche as we would like to think it is. While its visible activists are milquetoast perverts we can easily jail, the invisible perpetrators are the ones who do the real damage — the cartels, drug lords, and even our own politicians enable the child sexual slavery that is more prominent now than ever before.
At the end of the film, Caviezel addresses the viewers and makes the point that this story isn’t about a movie production or even about Ballard. It’s about the children — lost, invisible children who suffer in the depths of hell every single day.
Read More
Related Posts: