Created in the image of God
I've been trying to write the first section of my project today, focusing on humanity as created in the image of God and looking at the way that theologians over the years have interpreted what it means to be in the image of God. Here is a summary and some of my thoughts on proposals by W. Sibley Towner in 'Clones of God: Genesis 1:26-28 and the Image of God in the Hebrew Bible' published in Interpretation, October 2005 pages 341-356.
'Can it be that all of us alike - the saints, the sinners, the able, the differently abled, Christians, jihadits, atheists - are in some limited way "clones of Go", who, to those who have eyes to see, display God's likeness? Of course, to speak of a "limited clone" is to use an oxymoron. "Clone" is incorrect. But "image" is exactly the startling theomorphic and indubitably powerful claim of the Bible. Not only angels or demi-gods, not only pharaoh and Caesar, but also every peasant, pauper and person possess the gift of God's image.' (341-2)
W. Sibley Towner identifies some 11 proposals regarding the meaning of image of God in human beings - some of which include: the image being manifested in our ability to make moral decisions, to the unique human capacity for self transcendence, to the image consisting precisely in the division of humankind into male and female.
As an OT scholar, he identifies seven exegetical issues raised by the foundational texts. Many of these I found quite helpful.
1. Location in the text: 'from its position in the overall order of creation on God's sixth and final working day, after the creation of all other land animals, it appears that for the Priestly narrators, humankind is God's crowning work.' (344)
2. Plural subject. According to WST the plural "Let us" (Gen 1:26a, see also Gen 3:22, 11:7) are not a specific reference to the triune God, nor is it a plural of majesty. Rather he argues that 'critical scholarship has settled on the notion of the Divine Council as the best explanation for this unexpected use of the plural by the Creator.'(344) He concludes that the implication of this is that 'whatever it is in human beings that mirrors God mirror the divine realm as a whole.' (344) [I am chasing up his primary sources here, but I was not completely convinced by this point]
3. Adam as a collective concept: He argues that there is a collective sense that inheres in the form of the noun (adam in hebrew rather than the more usual word for man ish). He argues that Gen 1:26-28 conveys a collective sense, particularly given the plural imperative in 1:26b 'let them have dominion' and the remark in v 27c 'male and female he created them'. (345)
4. Significance of male and female - 'The disclosure that both male and female are included in adam have implications that extend in two directions. Intrinsic to both the divine prototype and the human counterpart are fellowship and relationship, though sexuality is not intrinsic in both.
5. Semantics of image (selem) and likeness (demut) - he notes that image is most often used to refer to physical representation, although not in Ps 39:6 and 73:20 where image seems to be a mere semblance of a person. He questions whether the tendency towards physical resemblance in most uses of the term should tilt us towards viewing image as a physical resemblance or whether the two uses in the Psalter are to help us to see that' the imago dei is not a physical thing at all, but some other kind of semblance?'. He notes that likeness generally means resemble, liken, although is more abstract than selem and 'can refer to similarities other than visual ones'. He concludes here that the linkage of image and likeness seems to draw together the physical and a mirror or reflection, such that: 'For those who have eyes to see, something about us is reminiscent of God and the heavenly beings!' (347).
6. Connection with 'dominion' in Gen 1:26b - the third-person imperative 'let them have dominion' defines the role of the newly created adam. 'clearly it means that God is conferring a kingly status upon adam and invites humankind to rule over the rest of the living creatures as God's viceroy.' (347). The syntax demonstrates that the force of the sentence is that we are in God's image so that we can have dominion, not that the image of God consists in having dominion.
7. Sexuality - the text raises the question of the relationship of human sexuality to the divine image - God created adam in the binary form of male and female. WST argues that the text 'strongly implies that sexuality is conferred n humankind as a separate blessing (1:28 and 9:7), as a kind of seperate implementing action.'(348) He goes on 'if we see the image of the divine in the maleness and femaleness of humankind, it is not in their sexual conjunction per se ... "image" is manifested in their very plurality and consequent fellowship.' (347-48)
In the final section, WST addresses some systematic issues, having concluded that Barth's approach, in seeing the image of God expressed precisely in the division of humanity into male and female and its relational emphasis as being the 'best track of any toward understanding and making good contemporary theological use of imago dei.' (349). He argues that Gen 1:26-27 and Gen 5:1-2 and 9:6 point human relationships in three directions:
1 Humans are related to God and the proper response is worship and obedience
2 Humans are related to each other, beginning with the fellowship of male and female, expressed in love and loyalty (possibly sexually)
3 Humans relate to animals, plants and the created world, and have dominion and stewardship over it.
Thus he concludes: 'All biblical anthropology turns out to be theological anthropology, which means that a human is defined by his or her relationship with God and God's other creatures.
The image inhering in use does not make us divine or somehow absorb us into the wholly other God. Primarily, being in the image of God refers to our status as God's friends and partners, created by him and in relationship with him, given the task of ruling over the rest of his creation (351).
The image is not smashed or defaced in the fall so as to change human nature: 'The problem with these antithetical juxtapositions of Gen 3 with Gen 1 is that nothing in either Genesis text suggests that a basic change in human nature, a new anthropology, as it were, could or did occur in the Garden.' (351). Indeed he speaks of the image of God as being an inalienable gift.
'If "image" is an innate propensity toward relationship, that capacity would, in the priestly view, presumably always be resent from childhood to maturity as a fundamental element of biblical anthropology.' (352). Thus we can speak of being conformed to the likeness of Christ and a sense of development in the life of the Christian as they more fully live out who they are made to be as humanity in relationship with God.
The concept of 'image of God' presents a high view of humanity, for they alone are the ones who are not only created by God but also invited into a personal relationship with him, a relationship that enables them to exercise rule on earth (354).
Overall I found much of what WST said helpful and insightful, particularly the recognition that the syntax of Gen 1 pushes towards an understanding of image as a relational concept and hat dominion over the earth and other creatures is an expression of that image rather than consisting of the image itself.
Particularly challenging is the role that the fall plays in our understanding of humanity. I'm still processing what the fall means. I think the implications of WST's presentation is that that the image is not defaced or destroyed because our capacity for relationship to God still exists.
'Can it be that all of us alike - the saints, the sinners, the able, the differently abled, Christians, jihadits, atheists - are in some limited way "clones of Go", who, to those who have eyes to see, display God's likeness? Of course, to speak of a "limited clone" is to use an oxymoron. "Clone" is incorrect. But "image" is exactly the startling theomorphic and indubitably powerful claim of the Bible. Not only angels or demi-gods, not only pharaoh and Caesar, but also every peasant, pauper and person possess the gift of God's image.' (341-2)
W. Sibley Towner identifies some 11 proposals regarding the meaning of image of God in human beings - some of which include: the image being manifested in our ability to make moral decisions, to the unique human capacity for self transcendence, to the image consisting precisely in the division of humankind into male and female.
As an OT scholar, he identifies seven exegetical issues raised by the foundational texts. Many of these I found quite helpful.
1. Location in the text: 'from its position in the overall order of creation on God's sixth and final working day, after the creation of all other land animals, it appears that for the Priestly narrators, humankind is God's crowning work.' (344)
2. Plural subject. According to WST the plural "Let us" (Gen 1:26a, see also Gen 3:22, 11:7) are not a specific reference to the triune God, nor is it a plural of majesty. Rather he argues that 'critical scholarship has settled on the notion of the Divine Council as the best explanation for this unexpected use of the plural by the Creator.'(344) He concludes that the implication of this is that 'whatever it is in human beings that mirrors God mirror the divine realm as a whole.' (344) [I am chasing up his primary sources here, but I was not completely convinced by this point]
3. Adam as a collective concept: He argues that there is a collective sense that inheres in the form of the noun (adam in hebrew rather than the more usual word for man ish). He argues that Gen 1:26-28 conveys a collective sense, particularly given the plural imperative in 1:26b 'let them have dominion' and the remark in v 27c 'male and female he created them'. (345)
4. Significance of male and female - 'The disclosure that both male and female are included in adam have implications that extend in two directions. Intrinsic to both the divine prototype and the human counterpart are fellowship and relationship, though sexuality is not intrinsic in both.
5. Semantics of image (selem) and likeness (demut) - he notes that image is most often used to refer to physical representation, although not in Ps 39:6 and 73:20 where image seems to be a mere semblance of a person. He questions whether the tendency towards physical resemblance in most uses of the term should tilt us towards viewing image as a physical resemblance or whether the two uses in the Psalter are to help us to see that' the imago dei is not a physical thing at all, but some other kind of semblance?'. He notes that likeness generally means resemble, liken, although is more abstract than selem and 'can refer to similarities other than visual ones'. He concludes here that the linkage of image and likeness seems to draw together the physical and a mirror or reflection, such that: 'For those who have eyes to see, something about us is reminiscent of God and the heavenly beings!' (347).
6. Connection with 'dominion' in Gen 1:26b - the third-person imperative 'let them have dominion' defines the role of the newly created adam. 'clearly it means that God is conferring a kingly status upon adam and invites humankind to rule over the rest of the living creatures as God's viceroy.' (347). The syntax demonstrates that the force of the sentence is that we are in God's image so that we can have dominion, not that the image of God consists in having dominion.
7. Sexuality - the text raises the question of the relationship of human sexuality to the divine image - God created adam in the binary form of male and female. WST argues that the text 'strongly implies that sexuality is conferred n humankind as a separate blessing (1:28 and 9:7), as a kind of seperate implementing action.'(348) He goes on 'if we see the image of the divine in the maleness and femaleness of humankind, it is not in their sexual conjunction per se ... "image" is manifested in their very plurality and consequent fellowship.' (347-48)
In the final section, WST addresses some systematic issues, having concluded that Barth's approach, in seeing the image of God expressed precisely in the division of humanity into male and female and its relational emphasis as being the 'best track of any toward understanding and making good contemporary theological use of imago dei.' (349). He argues that Gen 1:26-27 and Gen 5:1-2 and 9:6 point human relationships in three directions:
1 Humans are related to God and the proper response is worship and obedience
2 Humans are related to each other, beginning with the fellowship of male and female, expressed in love and loyalty (possibly sexually)
3 Humans relate to animals, plants and the created world, and have dominion and stewardship over it.
Thus he concludes: 'All biblical anthropology turns out to be theological anthropology, which means that a human is defined by his or her relationship with God and God's other creatures.
The image inhering in use does not make us divine or somehow absorb us into the wholly other God. Primarily, being in the image of God refers to our status as God's friends and partners, created by him and in relationship with him, given the task of ruling over the rest of his creation (351).
The image is not smashed or defaced in the fall so as to change human nature: 'The problem with these antithetical juxtapositions of Gen 3 with Gen 1 is that nothing in either Genesis text suggests that a basic change in human nature, a new anthropology, as it were, could or did occur in the Garden.' (351). Indeed he speaks of the image of God as being an inalienable gift.
'If "image" is an innate propensity toward relationship, that capacity would, in the priestly view, presumably always be resent from childhood to maturity as a fundamental element of biblical anthropology.' (352). Thus we can speak of being conformed to the likeness of Christ and a sense of development in the life of the Christian as they more fully live out who they are made to be as humanity in relationship with God.
The concept of 'image of God' presents a high view of humanity, for they alone are the ones who are not only created by God but also invited into a personal relationship with him, a relationship that enables them to exercise rule on earth (354).
Overall I found much of what WST said helpful and insightful, particularly the recognition that the syntax of Gen 1 pushes towards an understanding of image as a relational concept and hat dominion over the earth and other creatures is an expression of that image rather than consisting of the image itself.
Particularly challenging is the role that the fall plays in our understanding of humanity. I'm still processing what the fall means. I think the implications of WST's presentation is that that the image is not defaced or destroyed because our capacity for relationship to God still exists.
posted by Mandy at
Thursday, August 03, 2006
3 Comments:
Gen 9 gives some textual support for image not being lost at the fall.
By
byron smith, at Friday, August 04, 2006 4:04:00 pm
Some wise words from a man called Towner - there's a first time for everything!
By
Andrew, at Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:33:00 pm
Hey Mandy, I realise you posed this a while ago and may have now already finished this chapter, but thought you might like to look here for a fascinating (and fairly lengthy) post from a very thoughtful guy with his soteriological/christological/eschatological take on the imago Dei.
By
byron smith, at Friday, August 18, 2006 9:56:00 am
Post a Comment
<< Home