Imago Dei R (for Relational)

I think I was often taught that the ‘image of God’ in humans was equivalent to humans having a ‘soul.’ I think this connection comes from Gen 2.7 where God ‘breathes into Adam the breath of life and he became a living being’ (i.e., ‘soul’). This idea merges this passage with Genesis 1.26-27. Two problems with this: all other animals are called ‘living beings’ or ‘souls’ (Gen. 2.18) and nowhere does it say God breathes into the woman the ‘breath of life’ in Genesis 2…there must be another way these two stories are related. If an association is drawn between the stories on relational terms (God created them 'male and female'...God saw it was 'not good for man to be alone'), there seems to be a better connection!

The other issue I have come across is that I think there is often a faulty understanding of what a ‘soul’ is…a ‘soul’ is not something, as though it is a 'thing' you possess as a human being…it is someone, who you are as a human being! So let’s go to the unerring Wikipedia to see what it says of the ‘Image of God’…interesting. Substantive…Relational…Functional…what do you think?

I think more in terms of the first and second options…the functional notion seems to be an inference and only rightly understood in light of the relational. As for the substantive…I had difficulty with this, but reading again the difference some theologians make between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ helps here. My friend Tim, who commented on the previous post, blogged on the ‘image of God’ and spoke on this distinction and also exegetically located the concept of the ‘image of God’ with the notion of parentage (cf. Gen 1.26-27 in comparison with Gen. 5.1b-3). This links the ‘image of God’ with the command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen. 1.28a). The ‘image of God,’ in this light, is familial somehow…touché, Tim! And family is a specific way of speaking about relationship (could we call the Triune God a ‘family’ of sorts? At least we can use familial terms: Father, Son…)

Now, we get to Gen 1.28b: ‘fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over…’ Those who see the ‘image of God’ in functional terms generally point to this as the exegetical and theological link. However, doesn’t the idea of ‘dominion’ (or ‘stewardship’) imply an existent idea of relation? Put differently, is there a way I can ‘relate’ to the rest of the created order other than by proper ‘dominion’ or ‘stewardship’? Or, dominion/stewardship is a particular way of relating to creation.

Scot McKnight uses the term ‘Eikon’ to refer to the ‘image of God’ in humans. ‘To be an Eikon means…to be in union with God as Eikons…to be in communion with other Eikons…to participate with God in his creating, his ruling, his speaking, his naming, his ordering, his variety and beauty, his location, his partnering, and his resting…Thus, an Eikon is God-oriented, self-oriented, other-oriented, and cosmos-oriented…one designed to love God, self, and others and to represent God by participating in God’s rule in this world. We are now back to perichoresis…To be an Eikon means to be in relationship.’[1] And when humans fall, what happens? A breakdown in these relations: with God, with neighbor [including esp. spouse(s) and those closest to the erring one(s)], with self, and with creation…all this happens in Gen. 3. A question here: does the ‘fall’ mar/damage the ‘image of God’ in humanity, the ‘likeness of God’ in humanity (if they are to be distinguished) or both?

Reference:
[1] Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement, 21.