Interpreting the Imago Dei (RJS)

Last updated on: May 13, 2014 at 6:17 am by RJS

Interpreting the Imago Dei (RJS) 2014-05-13T06:17:27-05:00 RJS

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

In Genesis 1 we read:

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

This is a familiar and foundational passage. The question of the imago Dei, the image of God is one that comes up fairly often in the conversation about evolutionary biology and Christian faith. If humankind has evolved in common descent with the other animals, cousins to apes and chimpanzees (and cats, rats, and rabbits as well) why even worry about the image of God? Evolutionary theory does away with human exceptionalism and thus with any rational concept of humans as the image of God – or so some will claim. All of those features we might identify as the image (consciousness, morality, altruism, reason, empathy, …) are found to some degree in animals as well, and a plausible case can be made for their natural evolution.

There are other reasons for interest in the imago Dei as well. Several weeks ago I put up a post The Problem of Joshua raising, but not answering, the question of how to understand the violent passages in portions of the Old Testament, especially in Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Samuel. After this post a reader sent me an e-mail suggesting some books worth considering as part of this conversation. One of these is J. Richard Middleton’s book The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1, and especially the chapter Created in the Image of a Violent God. Humans are created in the image of God – but what are we to make of conception of God that “seems to enshrine violence as the quintessential divine action?” How can we develop a biblically grounded understanding of what it means to be created in the image of God?

These are big questions – and over a series of posts (likely a long series) I would like to explore the concept of the imago Dei. Middleton’s book is a good place to start. Dr. J. Richard Middleton is Professor of Biblical Worldview and Exegesis at Northeastern Seminary in Rochester New York and has specialized in the Old Testament and in creation theology among other things. In the first chapter of his book Middleton lays out what he sees as the landscape for interpretation of the Imago Dei. This is an academic book – with plenty of footnotes – and the language at times reflects this academic nature. Yet it is interesting and (with the caveat that I’ve only just begun the book) quite readable even for the educated layperson like me.

Commentary on the meaning of the phrase “image of God” has a history that extends over more than 2000 years. The interpretation of the phrase has been shaped extensively by the situation of the interpreter in time and place. Middleton outlines three major streams of thought.

The substantialist view. This is the view at work when a person poses the question “In what way are humans like God and unlike animals?” This is probably the most common approach (and one I’ve used at times) from the early church and continuing today. There is a “substance,” some capacity, that makes humans distinct. Most often the difference was identified as reason,

This notion of the rational, substantial soul mirroring its divine archetype – which is part of the pervasive influence of Platonism on Christian theology – is nuanced or supplemented in the Latin West by notions such as conscience, spirituality, immortality, freedom, and personhood and by Augustine’s famous proposal of various intrapsychic trinitarian structures (particularly memory, intellect, and will), which correspond to the triune nature of God. In the Greek east the substantialist image was often understood dynamically, as the progressive conformity of the soul to God or a salvific partaking of the divine nature, a process typically called “divinization.” (p. 19-20)

Most of us have likely thought about the concept of the image of God in manner consistent with this dominant stream of thought.

The relational interpretation. The reformation brought a new perspective to the idea of the image of God. Both Luther and Calvin, but especially Luther, have seen the image as dynamically relational. It is “ethical conformity or obedient response to God.” Luther rejected the substantialist view, but Calvin held together both a substantialist and relational view. Modern relational views of the image of God, particularly those of Karl Barth, draw upon Martin Buber’s I and Thou.

Specifically, Barth postulated two sets of relationships, ontologically constitutive for humanness, both of which image the intradivine I-Thou relationship of the triune God. … He aptly summarizes his position as follows: “The relationship between the summoning I in God’s being and the summoned Thou is reflected both in the relationship of God to the man in whom he has created, and also in the relationship between the I and the Thou between male and female, in human existence itself.” (p. 22-23)

Although the substantialist view dominates modern day-to-day thought (leaving the scholars to the side for a moment), the relational interpretation also holds traction.

The functional view. The consensus view among Old Testament scholars – those who look at text in its ancient Near Eastern context – is function. The term behind image (selem) refers most often to “a localized, visible, corporeal representation of the divine.”

When the clues within the Genesis text are taken together with comparative studies of the ancient Near East, they lead to what we could call a functional – or even missional – interpretation of the image of God in Genesis 1:26-27 (in contradistinction to substantialist or relational interpretations). On this reading, the imago Dei designates the royal office or calling of human beings as God’s representatives and agents in the world, granted authorizing power to share in God’s rule or administration of the earth’s resources and creatures. (p. 27)

The function of humankind is to image the invisible God is his creation. Middleton blames Old Testament scholars (at least in part) for the failure of this view to become more fully understood among systematic theologians and the general Christian church. The view does appear in the thinking of those who hold to a Kuyperian view of reformed theology – but even here is generally not considered in the depth it deserves. Middleton’s purpose is to examine this view more carefully along with its theological and ethical implications.

Enough for now.

Which view of the image of God most nearly resembles yours?

Does evolution pose a problem for understanding humanity as created in the image of God?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail [at] att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

Creation

Previous Post

May 7, 2014

A Map for IKEA

Next Post

May 8, 2014 Resolving Your Remote Control

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Acts of the Apostles Adam Advent Anabaptism Angels Anglican Apologetics Atonement Baptism BCP Prayers Bible Biblical Studies Birds Blogging Bloglossary Bonhoeffer Books Calvinism Christianity Church Church History Coffee Colossians Commentary Recs Conversion Creation Creeds Culture Death Ecclesiastes Economics Education Embracing Grace Emergent Emerging Movement Eschatology Essays Ethics Eucharist Evangelicalism Family Fasting Fathers Fellowship of Differents Footsteps Tour Fun and Whimsical Gospel Grace Happiness Heaven Hell Holy Spirit Irenaeus James Jesus Jesus Creed Job Justification Kingdom of God Law Lectures Lent Liberalism Love and Marriage Mabanteneni Manhood Mary Miracles Missio Alliance MissioLife Missional Missional Jesus Movies and Film New Perspective Northern Seminary OneLife Origins Project Orthodox Parables Pastor's Spouse Pastoring and Leading Pastoring and Preaching Patristics Paul Paul-John Tour Pharisees Pietism Political Theology Prayer and Formation Preaching Problems for Faith Psalm 119 Psalms Public Issues Purgatory Religions Resurrection Revelation Romans Rule of JCreed Science and Faith Sermon on the Mount Sports Ten Commandments Theology Third Way Top Ten Lists Translations Uncategorized Universalism University Ministry Way Out Weekly Meanderings Wisdom Women and Ministry Work Worship Writing & Blogging Youth Ministry

Select a Month July 2021 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 0000

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

This shortest book in the Old Testament prophesies judgment on Edom for violence against Judah. How many verses does it contain?

Select your answer to see how you score.

21 verses 15 verses 30 verses 12 verses