I was having a discussion on Facebook the other day about
Monergism vs. Synergism and one of my friends astutely pointed out that the
notion of God’s Image may have considerable bearing on the issue. I’m sure where
I’m going with this isn’t quite where he was itching but I’m glad for
opportunity to think more deeply on the issue. I think it’s important to
clarify what the bible actually means by God’s Image and then explore ideas of
“justification”. I’ll tackle the biblical idea of God’s Image in the first
post, and then explore ideas of justification, faith, and works in the next.
What are we talking about when we speak of God’s Image? The
problem is that there are a few different understandings (or preconceptions) of
what God’s Image refers to in the passage of Genesis 1. 1) Some (not as many
these days) would take it as referring to the idea of man’s tripartite division
of body, soul, and spirit and mirroring the picture of Trinity in Genesis
1:1-3: God is present with his wind/spirit “hovering over the face of the deep”
and his word is present when God speaks. This is used in conjunction with God’s
apparent plurality in Gen. 1:26. However, I think it’s a stretch to see concept
of Trinity here but even if there was, a link between that and God’s Image is
tenuous. 2) Much more frequently, occurring very regularly among Christian
apologists, philosophers, and some commentators in varying degrees, God’s Image
is understood as referring to the mental and/or spiritual faculties that man
shares with his creator, e.g. man’s reason, personality, free will,
self-consciousness, and/or intelligence. However, these sorts of notions are
decidedly absent from the thoughts of Genesis 1 and have to be pulled from
somewhere else and inserted. Though such ideas may not be entirely absent from
Genesis 1, a sensitive exegesis of Genesis 1 should be looking elsewhere for
the conceptual framework for God’s Image.
I think a much better understanding of God’s Image is that
held by a majority of commentators in varying degrees (of the ones I have
access to: Walton, Wenham, Hamilton, Sarna, Waltke, Von Rad, Mathews,
Westermann, and Brueggeman; Speiser is too brief to mention anything).
Note:
1)
“Image” in the Ancient Near East (ANE) was used
of idols that were representatives of a god in physical form (not a
representative of physical appearance). Along similar lines, among people generally
it was only the king who was the image and likeness of a god. As such, the king
represented the patron deity of a city-state or nation and functioned as
vice-regents, being the administrator of a god’s rule, administering justice on
the god’s behalf and being the agent of it’s power and authority. This is seen
in an Egyptian context in Amon-Re’s speech to Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1386-1349
BC): “Thou art my beloved son, come forth from my limbs, my very own image,
which I have put upon the earth. I have permitted thee to rule upon the earth
in peace.” (Cited in Westermann, p. 153). This is precisely the context of
Genesis 1.26-27: “Let us make man in our image and likeness and let them have dominion…” And again in
1.28 the idea of procreative blessing is a function of having dominion –
rulership is the dominant created function of mankind. (See also II Sam. 7.12-16,
Ps. 2, Ps. 45, Ps. 89.19-29, Heb. 1.1-3, 2.5-10)
2)
“Image” and “likeness” is found again at Genesis
5.1, 3 with 5.3 being the only other verse in the bible where the two are
combined. Genesis 5.1 repeats the thought of 1.26 with “likeness” being sufficient
to convey “image and likeness”. But another nuance of “image and likeness” is
seen in 5.3 where Seth is a son in
the “likeness and image” of Adam. So the idea of sonship is carried in the
expression: not in a lineage or physical trait sense, but as how one behaves or
acts. (This is typical Semitic-speak: e.g. son of strength, son of death, son
of righteousness, son of devil, son of 90 years (Gen. 17.1), son of light,
etc.) Thus mankind is given the capacity to act like God in the ways necessary
to enact his rulership. This is not merely the assertion of power but includes
characteristics such as peace, justice, holiness, etc. Human faculties like
reason, conscience, self-awareness, etc. may be a derivative part of human
nature created for the given task, but do not denote “image” or “likeness”.
(Some commentators allow for these concepts as additional denotation.)
3)
This sets up the ultimate tragedy of The Fall. In
Genesis 2.16-17 man is commanded to not eat of the “tree of the knowledge of
good and evil”. In the bible “the knowledge of good and evil” (contrary to
common thought) refers to the ability or attribute of judging or discerning (2
Sam. 14.17, 19.35; 1 Kings 3.9-12; Dt. 1.39; Isa. 7.15-16) and so refers to
wisdom. Wisdom is possessed by God (Prov. 2.6-8, 8.15, 22-31) and is something
that man is to seek and attain (Prov. 3.13, 8.10-11). However, to seek it apart
from God is moral autonomy, seeking to understand independently or with respect
to oneself rather than with respect to God. Thus in the garden God placed the
ability for mankind to make judgments in and of himself and so place oneself
over against God and his authority. This is precisely what happened in the
fall. Man set his Creator-given rulership over against God’s rulership, thereby
siding with the serpent’s kingdom (cf. Gen. 3.15). The point is that mankind is
to learn to fear God, which is true wisdom according to Job 28.28, and fearing
God is precisely what absolutely no one does (Ps 36.1, cf. Rom. 3.18).
According to the flow of Genesis 5, it’s this “image” of rulership set against
God that is passed along even the “righteous lineage” from Adam to Seth and on
and on, cutting themselves off from life – “and he died” ad nauseam (cf. Gen.
2.17, 3.24).
4)
At the fall, this image/likeness is not lost per
se - in Gen. 9.6 human dignity is accorded precisely because of our God-given
function - but it is certainly corrupted (that is, not acting in accordance
with created function, e.g. Gen. 6.11). Though man does not act according to
created image after the fall, this does not mean that there is no sense in which fallen man acts as
God’s image. God still uses even man’s evil actions towards his purpose and
will (a major theme in Genesis culminating in Gen. 49…) despite the fact that
man refuses to “fear God”, i.e. “esteem him in honor”. Besides this, I think it
reasonable to suggest that there are many ways, even to the minutest levels,
where humanity “carries out God’s rulership” (stewardship?) even if done very
imperfectly. I suppose to some degree, if we were created to function a certain
way, that’s the way we’ll function whether we like it or not. Nevertheless,
what’s important is that we align our will with God’s, and that was compromised
at the fall.
No comments:
Post a Comment