The Image of GOD in Man

 INTRODUCTION

            What is man? Answering this basic question requires a prior understanding of the biblical doctrine of the image of God in humanity, and Christian theologians have wrestled with the task of formulating this doctrine for thousands of years. This paper will argue that man images God and is thus like him. Poor exegesis and uncritical philosophical-theological integration have often exacerbated these problems. This paper will argue that the image of God in man has been defined too narrowly than the biblical data will allow.

Evaluation of St. Irenaeus (C.130-C.200) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

            The problems with the rationality view as presented by Irenaeus and Thomas are many; two major criticisms will suffice for our purposes. First, if only the likeness was lost at the fall and not the image, reason remains untarnished, thereby allowing man to work his way to God apart from supernatural grace. The Bible is clear, however, that no one seeks God on her own (Rom 3:11, Ps 14:1-3) and that the wisdom of the world is insufficient for true knowledge of the gospel (1Cor 1:21). Rather, the Bible indicates that the extent of the fall was radical, not nominal, affecting the inner (Jer 17:9) and outer persons (2Cor 4:16) as well as the natural creation itself (Rom 3:10–18, 8:18–25). Thus, Thomas’ natural theology does not square with the clear teaching of Scripture. Second, the exegetical distinction between image and likeness is hardly defensible.  As our Biblical study has shown these two words are used virtually as synonyms. Their usage in the OT itself bears out this conclusion. For now, it will be sufficient to note that most scholars interpret the second term to be either synonymous with the first or epexegetically to it.  

            Anthony A. Hoekema in his book “Created in God’s Image” in the Chapter History Survey, We find Irenaeus saying that though man was created in the image of God, he lost the similitude or likeness to God in the Fall. Christ, however, showed us in his own person what the image of God truly was. Furthermore, Christ also restores the likeness of God in those who belong to him by making them one with God the Father.

         We appreciate the distinction Thomas makes between the image of God as still retained by man after the Fall and the image as it is spoiled by sin and restored in those who are the recipients of divine grace. We may also appreciate Thomas's insistence that apart from the grace of God humans today cannot properly image God—can neither know, love, nor serve God as they ought. We must, however, object to Aquinas's understanding of the image of God on some points.

Evaluation of Luther (1520-1575)

            Because of Luther’s commitment to Scripture as the normative source for theology, one is tempted to avoid a critique. But church history is of any benefit in theological formulation, it is certainly not infallible. Luther was right to interpret the image from the standpoint of the NT, because it is only in Christ, the very Image of God (Col 15:1; Heb 1:3),

that the image is clearly seen and through him is restored (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).  He was also right to break free from the exegetical distinction his Medieval forerunners.

            One question must be asked of Luther, however. If the image is solely original righteousness, in what sense does the image remain? Luther himself answers the question by stating that the image of God remained intact in fallen human (only the likeness is lost) and what is unitary view of the Image of God Luther held that all aspects of the Image of God in humans have been corrupted, what is left is a relic or remnant of the image -note certain qualities but fragments, as it were, of all of what constitutes the likeness of God. For either 1) original righteousness is lost, thus the image, or 2) the image remains in some degree, along with original righteousness.

valuation of Calvin John Calvin (1509–1564)

            Like Luther, Calvin is to be praised for his excellent exegetical work. His reading of Genesis 1:26 is essentially correct, as well as his integration of the NT texts. He is right to place the imago dei in the context of the doctrines of sin and salvation. Calvin is inconsistent when he speaks about the image of God in fallen man and he says that the image of God is destroyed, obliterated or blotted out by sin and other times she says image is totally destroyed. Calvin holds that man dominion over the earth is not part of the image of God. Yet as we have seen this dominion is present as a aspect of the image of God.

Erickson, Christian Theology, 512. Erickson writes that far from establishing a connection between the two, the text itself actually distinguishes the two. But we are not claiming that the image of God in man consists in his having dominion, for we have already seen that to seek the image of God in a certain faculty, activity, or relationship is wrong-headed. Rather, we are contending that by virtue of his bearing the image of God, man is like him in a multiplicity of ways, one of which includes his dominion over the creation.

This ambiguity in his writings raises questions about the Reformed conception of the image.  Second, in making the image ontological rather than functional, Calvin altogether rejected any association of the image with dominion. While Scripture nowhere specifically equates one with the other, the Genesis account does at least establish a connection between the two, even if it does not expound on its content.

Karl Barth (1886–1968)

            Barth correctly noted the close association of image with relationship in the Genesis account and rightly looked to Jesus to determine the nature of the image. But while we will see that a close reading of the Hebrew of Genesis 1 supports male-female relationship as a part of image, he was undoubtedly wrong to reduce the image to relationship alone. Moreover, if image is closely associated with relationship in Genesis, it is also relatively closely associated with dominion as well, a notion Barth rejects.

            The above are relatively minor objections to Barth’s theology of the image, but Hoekema has leveled a far more serious charge against the father of Neo-Orthodoxy. In his own words: The image of God is surely more than a mere capacity [for relationship and encounter]. Are not Satan and the demons also beings in encounter with each other and with

God?” Moreover, Hoekema writes that Barth fails to sufficiently reckon with the severity of the Fall and the biblical teaching that the image is in need of restoration. Thus, Barth’s definition of the image is somewhat narrow; does not relate coherently to the doctrines on man.

 

          Hoekema in his book (created in the Image of God) has mentioned that since the image of God has been perverted through man's fall into sin, it needs to be renewed. This renewal or restoration of the image is what takes place in the redemptive process. Does this restoration mean that an image that was utterly and totally lost is now given back? No; it is better to say that the image of God that has become perverted, though not totally lost, is being rectified, is being set straight again. What happens in the redemptive process is that man who was using his God-imaging powers in wrong ways is now again enabled to use these powers in right ways.

 

 

In the NT: Image Renewed and sanctification

The OT teaches that man images God by being like him. By ruling over the earth in the context of relationship with God and others, man represents God on earth. The OT itself gives no clear indication that the condition of the image was affected by the fall ( Gen 5:1, 9:6).

We need not go as far as Luther, who argued that fallen man bears the image of Satan rather than that of God. But if the NT teaches anything about the image of God in man, it is that it has not remained unaffected by sin, and is thus in need of renewal. This is seen in passages like Eph 4:24, Col 3:10, and 2Cor 3:17. Both Col 3:10 and Eph 4:24 include commands to avoid what is contrary to the “old self/person” and put on what is proper to the “new self/person,” which is being renewed. This “new self” in Col 3:10 is explicitly said to be renewed according to the image of its Creator, but Eph 4:24 is less clear. Like the OT texts, these NT passages do not define the image. If anything, they assume the OT conception, adding only that it needs renewal and that, for the believer, such renewal is progressively taking place.

But while the NT assumes the OT conception of the image and informs us that sin has defaced it, this statement does not exhaust the NT teaching on the image. Just as in the OT, the NT nowhere defines the content of the image, but closely associates it with two things: 1) holiness and 2) knowledge. As seen above, in Eph 4:24 Paul argues that the “new self/person” is being renewed in accordance with the “righteousness and true holiness of  God”. This makes explicit what was implicit in the OT: it is expected that the one who images God and is thus like him will conform to the nature of the one he represents. As God

                   Hoekema has mentioned in his book (created in God’s Image) has mentioned that  Since the image of God has been perverted through man's fall into sin, it needs to be renewed. This renewal or restoration of the image is what takes place in the redemptive process. Does this restoration mean that an image that was utterly and totally lost is now given back? No; it is better to say that the image of God that has become perverted, though not totally lost, is being rectified, is being set straight again. What happens in the redemptive process is that man who was using his God-imaging powers in wrong ways is now again

is holy, just, merciful, and righteous, etc., so must be his earthly image ( Mic 6:8). There is thus a strong connection between the content of the image and the communicable attributes of God. As for knowledge, Col 3:10 almost mirrors Eph 4:24 but substitutes true knowledge of the Creator for righteousness and holiness (Col 1:15; cf. also John 1:3 Heb 1:2).

 

The NT: Renewed Image

          The renewal of image of God in described in New Testament in various ways. One of these we have looked at “taking off” and “putting on” of the new self. This new life means holding fast the word in an honest and good heart, bringing forth fruits and patience (Luke 8:15). The new life means being transformed by renewing the mind (Rom 12:2) and living by the spirit and producing the fruit of the spirit (Gal.5:16). It means living a new life of Love (Eph.5:2), walking in the truth (2 John 4), living not for the self but for Christ (2 Corinth 5:15). Being renewed in the image of God means further that we become more and more like God , that God becomes more and more visible in our words and deeds.  Because Christ is the perfect mage of God, becoming more like God also means becoming more like Christ. Gal.3:17 calls the putting on the new life of clothing ourselves with Christ (Rom: 13:14). To put on Christ means new existence as a new member of the Christ’s body ( 1 Corinth 12:12-13); believers therefore images God as one who belongs to the body of that Christ who is uniquely God’s image. Renewal of the image as we observe is not completed during the life time of the person. It is the process that continue as long as one live. We should never forget that the present life believers are genuinely new but not totally new but they are incomplete new person until rapture. Then only we shall God imaged perfectly by a glorified human kind.

Hoekema has mention that since the image of God has been perverted through man's fall into sin, it needs to be renewed. This renewal or restoration of the image is what takes place in the redemptive process. Does this restoration mean that an image that was utterly and totally lost is now given back? No; it is better to say that the image of God that has become perverted, though not totally lost, is being rectified, is being set straight again. What happens in the redemptive process is that man who was using his God-imaging powers in wrong ways is now again enabled to use these powers in right ways.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

            At the outset of this paper, it was stated that theologians have traditionally sought the image of God in one aspect of man: reason/free-will, original righteousness, or relationship/capacity for relationship. This was shown by surveying the thought of Irenaeus/Aquinas, Luther/Calvin, and Barth. It was also shown how alien philosophical assumptions and, sometimes, poor exegesis exacerbated the problem rather than aiding its solution. It was then argued that, while each contributed important insights to our understanding of the image–insights incorporated in the formulation presented in this paper–the approach employed by these theologians was wrong-headed. Their mistake lay in defining the image too narrowly. It was then argued that the image should be understood Godly, just as our doctrine of God is broad. That the phrase “in the image of God” is adverbial rather than adjectival supported this conclusion.  Theologians have made discussion of the Biblical notion of the  “image of the God”  is that this image has a corporate dimension and there is no human being who can fully bear of manifest all that involved in the image of God so that there is a sense that image is collectively possessed, The image of God as it is were parceled out among people of the earth. By looking at different individual and groups we get glimpse of different aspects of the full image of the God. If fallen human image-bearers represent Christ poorly, and redeemed image-bearers represent him with ongoing improvement, those glorified possess his image completely and perfectly. “Beloved, now we are the children of God; and it was not yet revealed what we shall be. But we know that if he is revealed, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1John 3:2; also Rom 8:29 and 1Cor 15:49).

 

                 Recall, Calvin’s statement, that the goal of regeneration is the restoration of the image of God in man.

 

                 At least one implication is inevitable: while Scripture plainly teaches that all man image God, it cannot be true that all men image him to the same degree. This does not, however, undermine the dignity and worth of human beings, for though the image is corrupted in sinful humanity, in at least two places Scripture grounds proper conduct toward fellow human beings on the defaced but remaining image (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9).