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).
