When I was in my early teens, I was amused by The Bloodhound Gang’s rather juvenile song ‘The Bad Touch’ (1999), featuring the well-known lyric:
You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals,
so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.
Without a doubt this is at the cruder end of ethical thinking in the Western world. But its message does highlight a serious point. If we consider the different opinions that are held on ethical matters such as slavery, sexuality, abortion, we will see different kinds of anthropology (doctrine of humanity) at play. The things we deem appropriate or inappropriate to do with human bodies show what we think of the value and dignity of human persons. It’s one thing if we are nothing but animals, it’s another thing if we are also made in the image of God.
Made in God’s Image
Genesis 1:26–28 provides material towards a biblical answer to the question of what it means to be human and how to rightly treat human beings. This chapter shows us that human beings are a special order of the animal kingdom that is bestowed with special dignity, made for relationship with the Creator, with consequent obligations and duties. It is a crucial building block for a well-developed Christian anthropology and its attendant ethic.
The most noteworthy feature of the creation of mankind is that we were made in accordance with God’s image. I have argued elsewhere that the image we are made in accordance with is the pre-incarnate Christ, and that humanity’s bearing of that image designates them as God’s representative rulers over the rest of creation.[1] Although the narrative itself does not explicitly spell out what it means to bear the image of God, it clearly sets humanity apart from the animals and somewhere closer to God, preparing the reader for the blessings and commands which follow. The wording of the narrative contains a few other suggestions which imply a divine–human relationship that is closer and more personal than that between the animals and God.
Further Indications of the Uniqueness of Humanity
The fact that the creation of man stands as a second act of creation within the sixth day also serves to set humanity apart. There is a command to create the land animals, then another to create humanity. This indicates that human beings are not simply another of the land animals.
The command pronounced in each of the days of creation is altered in the creation of humanity. Previously, each of the commands had been expressed in what is called the ‘jussive’ mood of a verb, as in: “let there be…” When we arrive at the creation of humanity, this shifts to a ‘cohortative’: “let us make…” This shift indicates a more personal involvement in human creation, which is further strengthened by the patterning of the image of God within this spoken action.
The blessing and command given to the first man and woman is spoken to them, rather than simply over them as is done for the animals, implying a direct relationship between God and humanity (compare Gen. 1:22 with Gen. 1:28). The commands given to the unique human creatures demonstrate their role of rulership as God’s image bearers. The commands to “exercise dominion” and “subdue” in chapter 1 verses 26 and 28 indicate that they are placed over the other creatures.
Human beings are clearly one of the animals in the sense of being physical, earthly creatures, who eat and procreate as other mammals do. But Genesis 1 includes this range of features highlighting that we are different from as well as set above the animals, made specially for knowing and serving our Maker.
Why Does This Matter?
Anthropology shapes ethics; what we believe about humans determines how we believe they should be treated. Our nature as divine image-bearers comes with unique privileges, duties, and responsibilities. Genesis 1 (and 2 and 3) supplies us with an important starting point for the development of biblical ethics, much like we see Jesus and the apostles doing:
- Matthew 19:4–6: Jesus points to the union of man and woman in marriage as grounds for its permanence.
- Romans 1:26–27: Paul’s use of the “males” (arsenes) and “females” (thēleiai) echoes Genesis 1:27 to show that homosexual practice is discordant with God’s created order.[2]
- Ephesians 4:20–24 and Colossians 3:9–10: language allusive of Genesis 1 instructs Christians to live according to the new humanity, which is created to be “like God in true righteousness and holiness”.
- Ephesians 5:31–32: Paul presents the husband–wife union as a relationship that was designed to reflect the more ultimate relationship between Christ and the church.
- James 3:9: the nature of humans as divine image-bearers is used to accentuate how bad it is to curse another person.
As we reflect on the anthropology of our culture and the anthropology of our Bible, we can begin to do the same thing. We can develop a clearly articulated ethic that speaks to our world and tells it what it means for us to be human: made by God, for God, and to be pleasing to God.
Our intrinsic and inviolable nature determines how we should act. An ethic shaped by the early chapters of Genesis will affect our relationships with other humans and with the created world.
To those with less power than ourselves, we should accord special care, respect, and protection because they are not merely animals (which also require humane treatment) but beings who share the role of God’s representative rulers over the rest of creation. This reality should undermine the practices of slavery and abortion, and obliges us to care for those who are poor or vulnerable.
With regards to the environment, our role as God’s rulers over creation entails responsible stewardship of the world we share with God’s lesser creatures, not to mention respectful treatment of the earth’s creatures as God’s representative rulers (see Psalm 104).
And with regards to sex, The Bloodhound Gang was wrong. We are much more than mammals. We are not free to indulge whatever whims and urges we can get away with. Our capacity as sexual beings comes with strings attached; it is made to honour the Creator we represent by reflecting the archetypes given in creation and—taking Paul’s cue in Ephesians 5:22–33—even redemption. As such, sexual relationships ought to display characteristics that accord with these greater realities: sexual binarism and complementary differentness, held together by loving, mutual, and covenantal commitment to one another.
Genesis 1 reveals humankind as both one of the animals, yet distinctly above them by virtue of a special relationship with the Creator. This anthropology speaks to the sharpest disputes of modern ethics concerning what may or may not be done with human bodies. Humans are more than mammals; and better than brainy beasts. We are made with divine dignity and regal responsibility, and on that basis we have too much self-worth to merely reflect what we see on the Discovery Channel—we must reflect our God.
[1] See Christopher S. Northcott, “‘King of kings’ in Other Words: Colossians 1:15a as a Designation of Authority Rather Than Revelation”, Tyndale Bulletin 69:2 (2018), 205–224, available online here.
[2] See International Standard Version or Christian Standard Version footnotes.
