Bible Forum
Imago Dei
I have been thinking and writing about the Creation of humanity as portrayed in Genesis 1:26-31. I am interested particularly in hearing your thoughts about what it means to be created in the image of God. There is not much data in the text itself. Genesis seems more interested in describing the function of being created in God image: dominion of earth, i.e., serving as God's representatives to the rest of creation.
I am also intrigued that the image of God remains in humanity in the post-Genesis 3 reality (see 5:3 and 9:6). Most Christian theologians assert that part of the image is lost because of sin. Yet, our text makes no such claim. What do we make of this?
We discussed a few posts back a need for a missional holiness. Is it possible to read Gen 1:26-31 as the starting place for this? God creates humanity - male and female - in his own image. The human community is then commissioned to rule together on behalf of God as a reflection of the Creator. Is this not a missional holiness?
posted by Brian Russell @ 4:30 PM
8 Comments:
This to me is another example of where the New Testament and especially later Christian tradition have appropriated a scriptural story with new and extended valences. This observation leads to two thoughts on my part:
1) I don't think that implies we must discuss the image of God only in Genesis terms. I would agree with you that the image of God in Genesis largely relates to humanity's dominion over God's creation. But James 3 and 1 Corinthians 11 seem to use it as a quasi-basis for a certain "intrinsic value" in a fellow human--they have extended the connotations. Then we move into Augustine and the later "fathers" and we have moral image, rational image (right term?), governmental image (rt?), etc... In my opinion these later valences are not illegitimate just because they are later in the tradition. Indeed, I think we can affirm them as more orthodox constructs than that of Genesis' original meaning.
2. But they are contructs of a pre-modern psychology nonetheless, and they are open for redescription in our worldview terms if we want to (we don't have to). Assuming that you all know how I am using the word, it is "mythical" language (clarity, clarity: it is not false in the popular sense of myth and I am not talking about the historicity of Adam... read on, please). Language of the moral, natural, and economic image is the "mythical" language medieval theologians used to describe the current state of humanity vis-a-vis the consequences of Adam's sin.
I hope everyone knows what I am saying. We can continue to use this language if we wish, particularly if we recognize that it is more expressive than explanatory. No doubt contemporary theologians could re-present these truths in new but related psychological/cosmological "myths" that would also be more expressive than explanatory (again, myth here being understood by its more accurate and sophisticated definition).
Idle thoughts...
I whipped out that post without taking the time for the extra effort to be really, really clear or even a little more picture-oriented so that I communicated well--sorry. Let me try real quick so I don't sound like I'm dismissing ideas like you just presented.
On a basic level, I can refer to a house by saying, "I say a word" or "Ich sage einen Wort" or "Yo hablo una palabra." The content is basically the same even though the form of the statement is different. In my opinion, paradigms function at best to do the same thing--to describe and "capture" reality in a way that is useful for the person who has the paradigm. So when our theology classes tell the story of Adam, we speak of several different "images" that were in Adam: moral, natural, economic, etc... What we are saying by these "images" are theological truths relating to various aspects of humanity that are at varying degrees of separation from God and particularly from human perfection such as Adam had. My claim is that because this is just one what of telling the Genesis story (one that itself differs from the way the story took form in Genesis or Paul), contemporary theologians might tell the story with new twists for our current categories. The best case scenario would be variations that cohere with all the ones that have gone before and yet extend in terms that address us.
That may not be one bit clearer (maybe my thought isn't clear!)--sorry.
does the image of God ever change?
brian mentioned in his post "Most Christian theologians assert that part of the image is lost because of sin. Yet, our text makes no such claim. What do we make of this?" is this image only portrayed by humanity? or should the image of God always stay the same?
I love the direction of Brian's original post using the Genesis account as a missional holiness "prime mover" (since we long to find the "source" of our currently held motivation and position).
I'm motivated by two related ideas:
1) That it is our job to pick up the "earth manager" mantle of Adam... only our job post-fall is more difficult. I believe the job of "naming" every species or mountain or star we discover in the universe is part of the Adam Mantle... and perhaps even naming children is a part of that role. Humans have the innate urge to name. Or is it mostly just men?
2) I'm facinated by the fact that the Bible begins and ends ON EARTH which is created/re-created as a state of PERFECTION for the PLANET and HIS PEOPLE as they exisit in the PRESENCE OF GOD. I look back to Genesis only because I look forward to Revelation.
-DD
PS - By the way, I always accidentally type Brian Russell's name as "Brain" and then have to retype it? Freudian slip?
The question that always plagues me is:
Does the image of God actually get better in the end that at the beginning? Is our image of God not only restored but transformed onto a higher plane than before (though possible the height to which it was intended to end up)?
Excellent discussion as always. Ken, I appreciate your pushing me beyond the OT. I do not want in any way to devalue later contributions to our understanding of the OT. Yet, at the same time, before I move even into the NT, I want the OT to serve as a "baseline" against which I can read other interpretations. The more I reflect on Genesis 1-11 the more I am impressed on this section's importance for us in understanding the rest of Scripture. The Church has lost the richness of this section in its fixation on these texts as "myths" or in apologetic efforts to "save" these chapters from liberals. When I read Genesis 1:26-31 I am profoundly impressed by our Creator's original intentions for humanity to serve as His representatives on earth in community with one another.
Just Jay, thank you for your clearly worded contribution.
Nate, as far as I can tell, the Bible only speaks of humanity in God's image. Genesis 1-11 and Psalm 8 are the principal texts for the discussion.
David, in my current thinking on this, in the post-Fall reality, the focus of humanity's representative function becomes missiological in its truest sense. We remain obligated to care and nurture of the earth, but now redeemed persons are obligated to represent the character and interests of God to other humans who have not yet been redeemed.
(BTW - whenever someone misspells my name as Brain, I simply say, "Thanks." 8^) )
John, you raise a question that I am unsure of the answer. I think that Gen 1-2 portrays a relatively "perfect" world, i.e., sinless but not complete. What I mean by this is that even in Gen 1-2 further work is required - how else do we understand humanity's vocation to dominion? Perhaps the "New Creation" will be the same way?
Interesting thinking, John & Brian, on the "incompleteness" of original creation and the "higher level" of the final heaven on earth.
I wonder if the biggest difference is this: more voices in the choir!
There's an interesting issue that we've been chatting about on my side of the blog world... the whole issue of sin as it relates to Eve and Adam's choice to eat the fruit. The whole idea of consequence doesn't quite kick in until Adam eats of the fruit... which makes Elmo wonder - is Eve created any less in the image of God (which Gen 1:27 would argue against)? And if not, then what's the signifiance of Adam choosing to sin versus Eve? Only after his choice are the eyes of both of them opened.
Anyway...
Post a Comment
<< Home