The ‘image of God’…the Imago Dei…what is it? The basis of the thought comes from Genesis 1.26-27 and is the crowning act of creation. What if I believe in the evolutionary process as God’s way of creating the world? How does that impact what I think about the Imago Dei (and how the ‘fall’ or the ‘original sin’ mars the ‘image’)? Where else in Scripture does the issue of the ‘image of God’ or ‘image’ show up and what is the significance behind the occurrences? The New Testament refers to Jesus as the ‘image of God’ and that part of his mission is to restore that in humanity. What have people and authorities of the Church in times past and present said about the ‘image of God’ and what it means?
Several big questions that people have written volumes on trying to answer. I won’t pretend that I will even come close to exhausting the issue, but wanted to share some of the things about the importance of this central theological issue and the perspectives on the ‘image of God’ from people or groups whose opinion I value.
To start off, it is important to remember that this (as are all doctrines) is not mutually exclusive from the rest of a given theology. It might be more closely connected to certain aspects of theology than to others, but it is all connected somehow. One’s view or emphasis of what it means for humans to be in the ‘image of God’ will have direct bearing (or vice versa) on the doctrine of God, doctrine of creation, theological anthropology, doctrine of the atonement, soteriology, and so on.
The other note I’ll make before getting more in depth in the coming threads is to be upfront on what I think is most important when addressing the Imago Dei. While I don’t think it can be summed up in one word or sentence, I do think that at the heart of what it means for humans to be made in the ‘image of God’ is the idea that we humans are relational, or social, beings. Most, if not all, other facets of the Imago Dei need to be seen in light of this fact. I say this because this appears to be the most important part in the doctrine of God…i.e., if God is Triune (understood as Christian orthodoxy teaches), then God is essentially relational. How else can one understand One Essence in Three Persons?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Strange how the Fathers rarely emphasized the point that the author of Genesis seems to hit - and Luke takes note of. "After his image/likeness" is used of God to Adam, and Adam his human children.
I think it's most natural sense, speaking as an exegete rather than a systematic theologian, is one of parentage. I've blogged in this point in the past.
Maybe you can help me understand why this angle has not been more explicit in the theological education I received. Whatchoo think, eh?
http://tdmiller.wordpress.com/2007/03/31/imago-dei/
Wow, Tim I really liked your blog on this topic and what you said here. I would venture a guess as to 'why this angle has not been more explicit in the theological education' as being the fact we were educated in a Western framework which tries to locate the 'image of God' as some 'thing' humans possess that animals, angels, and any other non-divine living beings 'possess' somehow. So we have located that in some expression or understanding of a 'soul' (though there are exegetical problems with that term if one tries to differentiate between humans and non-humans), or some types of categories that seem to separate us, if not in kind then in degree from the rest of creation (i.e., understanding, will, morality, emotions, etc.). I'll say more on this in a later post but wanted to answer at least partly of why the notion of parentage was essentially absent in our theological education. I guess they'd say the notion of 'parentage' is not what separates humans from the rest of the created order.
Interesting, however, as I think you imply, that the command to be fruitful and multiply comes in the wake of humans made in the divine image and the fact that Jesus (aka God's Son, definite notion of parentage) was also called the 'image of the invisible God.' This conveyance seems to strengthen the Adam/Christ typology in Paul and Irenaeus.
'If you've seen me, you've seen my father.' I can almost say this based on my appearance and that of my dad, but especially on the personality traits I exhibit...and Carrie would affirm, I am my father. So how does that fit into the mix here? Is the passing of the 'image' one of mere 'looks' and/or is it about what types of temperament, humor, expression, and thought is passed from parent to child? I hope some of these issues will come out in the next few posts.
Post a Comment