Você está na página 1de 18

THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN: THE TRIUNE MIRROR

Jonathan Hewett

THEO525 B15 201020

March 10, 2010


iii

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION: Significance of the Imago Dei.........................................................................1

RELEVANT TEXTS......................................................................................................................2

THREE VIEWS OF “IMAGE” ANTHROPOLOGY.....................................................................3

The Substantive View..................................................................................................................4

The Relational View....................................................................................................................5

The Functional View....................................................................................................................7

A SYNTHESIS: THE TRIUNE MIRROR......................................................................................8

THE FALL AND ITS EFFECT ON THE MIRROR....................................................................12

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................13

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................15
1

INTRODUCTION: Significance of the Imago Dei

“What shall we say but that man bears about with him a stamp of immortality which can never

be effaced?” John Calvin1

The honor of bearing the image of God, the imago Dei, was entrusted to Adam and Eve in the

Garden of Eden by their Creator. As the progenitors of humanity, Adam and Eve were true

“originals” crafted by a Master Artist. In Genesis 1:26, God speaks with a perichoretic “us”

saying, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” This elevation above all

other created things, this “image-bearing,” indicates inalienable dignity and value within human

life.2 Any comprehensive statement regarding the nature of humanity must weigh the impact of

the imago Dei.

The only humans who have truly tasted the uncorrupted image and likeness were Adam and Eve

and Jesus.3 Defining a biblical anthropology must take into consideration the Fall of Adam and

Eve into sin and the subsequent damage to the imago Dei within all their many, many children.

Further, the loci of the image, the transmission of the image and the relationship fostered by the

image are matters generating volumes of theological thought through centuries of time.

Three views of the nature of the image of God in man are presented by theologian Millard J.

Erickson in his systematic Christian Theology. Responding to these three views and suggesting

a synthesis, labeled here as the “Triune Mirror,” is the task of this paper. Embracing a

Trinitarian view of God and realizing the reflective nature of the image imparted to Man at

Creation, the Triune Mirror position embraces the substantive, relational and functional schools

1
. Jean Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos
Research Systems, Inc., 1997), under "1:par. v 5."
2
. Paul Sands, “The Imago Dei as Vocation,” Evangelical Quarterly 82 no. 1: 39-40, Academic Search
Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).
3
. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1983), 518.
2

of thought described by Erickson. It also provides a rich comparative model for the theology of

God as a Trinity and as One.

RELEVANT TEXTS

The biblical passages pertaining to the image of God are not extensive. Genesis 1:26-28

introduces the concept: “26Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the

cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God

created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created

them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth

and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every

living thing that moves on the earth.” The concept of “likeness” recurs in Genesis in 5:1 with the

use of the same Hebrew word, ‘demuth,’ to describe Adam’s creation and in 5:3, Adam passes

‘demuth’ to his son, Seth. In Genesis 9:6, a prohibition against murder offers the reasoning of

“image,” or in Hebrew ‘selem,’ as imparting value to human life. Because humans are the

‘selem’ of God, they should not be murdered. No other explicit references to the image are

found in the Old Testament, though two books of the Apocrypha contain references.4

In the New Testament, Paul and James make ontological use of the image for instruction.

In 1 Corinthians 11:7, Paul bases his instruction for head coverings on man’s creation in the

image of God, using the Greek word ‘eikon.’ In James 3:9, as part of his instruction regarding

the use of the tongue, the apostle instructs that men who are made in God’s image should not be

cursed. Certainly there is a suggestion of the concept of the image and likeness in Paul’s words

on Mars Hill, recorded in Acts 17:28: “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also

some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’”
4
. Ibid., 519.
3

The New Testament has several passages that teach that believers in Christ are made

over, becoming more of the image of God by salvation’s benefit. Romans 8:29 says, “For whom

He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the

firstborn among many brethren.” Other passages include 2 Corinthians 3:18, Ephesians 4:23-24,

and Colossians 3:10.5

THREE VIEWS OF “IMAGE” ANTHROPOLOGY

Theological views of the nature of man tend to elevate human existence. Conversely,

“…reductive theories abound that claim human beings are nothing more than the product of

biological and social evolution, of genes and the environment, of instincts and social

conditioning, of the wiring of the brain and the chemistry of hormones and neurotransmitters.”6

This is a position of pure physicalism and arguments against this position include humanity’s

evident possession of free will, universal concern for morality, appreciation of beauty and

insatiable search for truth. Human life cannot be reduced to the merely material.7

A view of Man encompassing the material and immaterial is needed. Theologians have

begun their reasoning with the imago Dei and through the centuries have produced worthy

systems. Erickson presents three positions: the substantive, the relational and the functional.

Various theologians may use different terminology, but these three positions are generally

identifiable. Each position has its defenders and detractors. Erickson himself chooses the

substantive view, writing, “The image is something in the very nature of humans, in the way in

which they were made.”8


5
. Ibid., 520.
6
. Stephen M. Barr, “More Than Machines,” Commonweal 136 no. 20: 16, Academic Search Complete,
EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).
7
. Ibid., 16.
8
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 532.
4

The Substantive View

The Substantive view of the image of God within humanity places the image within the

nature of man, whether physically or psychologically-spiritually. Advocates of the physical

nature of the image have historically not been in a majority but have been persistent.

(notwithstanding the Geisler position elaborated below) Some advocates have metaphorically

viewed the fact that humans walk upright as depicting God’s own uprightness, or righteousness.9

More common is the opinion that the image of God rests within the human capacity for

reason. In 1873, systematic theologian Charles Hodge expressed a substantive view when he

wrote:

“While, therefore, the Scriptures make the original moral perfection of man the most
prominent element of that likeness to God in which he was created, it is no less true that
they recognize man as a child of God in virtue of his rational nature. He is the image of
God, and bears and rejects the divine likeness among the inhabitants of the earth, because
he is a spirit, an intelligent, voluntary agent; and as such he is rightfully invested with
universal dominion.”10

Both Plato and Aristotle influenced this perception.11 Erickson notes the differing value

placed on reason through different historical eras. For example, during the Enlightenment as

rationality was valued, so it came to be valued within theology. The church fathers Origen and

Irenaeus, separated the words “image” and “likeness” and proposed that the image came with life

and the likeness came later, supernaturally. Medieval and Catholic scholars built upon this

duality, teaching that the image remained after the Fall of Man but the likeness was ruined.

Martin Luther and John Calvin corrected the separation of image and likeness, correctly

interpreting the two words as Hebrew parallelism. Both Luther and Calvin felt that all of the

image of God had been damaged in the Fall and that only fragments remain within humanity.

9
. Ibid., 521.
10
. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 2:98.
[italics added]
11
. Sands, “The Imago Dei as Vocation,” 32.
5

Throughout this timeline, all these theologians agree on the locus of the image, it is resident

within humanity, an inherent quality.12

A more recent summary of substantive views is found in Dr. Norman Geisler’s 2003

Systematic Theology, in which he identifies the imago Dei as an intellectual likeness and a moral

likeness. Humans resemble God, reproduce for God, represent God, reign for God and are

responsible to God.13 Geisler specifically includes the physical body in the image and supports

his position with six reasons: 1. Mind and body are a unity; 2. Matter is good and reflects God’s

glory; 3. Both male and female (different bodies) are in God’s image; 4. Killing a body is wrong

because it is included in God’s image; 5. Christ was bodily incarnated (He is referenced in

Scripture as the image of God four times); and, 6. Resurrection of the body points to it being a

part of the image.14

The Relational View

The relational imago Dei rejects an intrinsic, inherent quality and focuses on the image of

God experientially.15 As man experiences relationships with God and man, he exercises the

image of a Trinitarian God Who also always has existed within relationship. “Humanity is made

for personal and endless fellowship with God, involving rational understanding (Gen. 1:28-29),

moral obedience (2:16-17), and religious communion (3:3).”16 When God created humans, He

created them male and female. This is a unique feature resting only upon human creation and it

12
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 522-23.
13
. Dr. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, 451.
14
. Ibid., 452.
15
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 520.
16
. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., s.v. “Image of God.”
6

is embedded within Genesis 1:27, firmly stating that God created Man and created them male

and female. This phraseology is definitional within the relational view of the imago Dei.17

The primary advocates for the relational view are Emil Brunner and Karl Barth.

Brunner, a Swiss Reformed theologian influential throughout the 20th century and, with Barth, a

pioneer of neo-orthodoxy18, distinguished between the formal image of God, that is the qualities

distinguishing humans from animals, such as rationality and free will; and the material image of

God, which he saw as an act of response entering into relationship with God. According to

Brunner, the formal image is retained within all humanity, but only the redeemed experience the

material image. They become mirrors, reflecting God’s image.19

Karl Barth, a German Reformed theologian of powerful influence and author of the

thirteen-volume Church Dogmatics20, went through stages of development in his thinking on the

imago Dei during his decades of writing and teaching. His third stage was the most unique.

Barth held that vertical and horizontal relationships both pictured the image of God. “The image

is not something a human is or does. Rather, the image is related to the fact that God willed into

existence a being that, like himself, can be a partner.”21 According to Barth, humanity exists as

two people, male and female, reflecting the Divine Us.

Barth’s most valuable observation is that we learn about humanity best by studying

Christ because He truly lived as a human was intended to live. Barth observed that Jesus lived

for other people, acknowledged their humanity, helped them and interacted with them with joy.

In other words, Jesus lived relationally.22


17
. Paul Niskanen, “The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of Man in the Image of God,” Journal of Biblical
Literature 128 no. 3: 431, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).
18
. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., s.v. “Heinrich Emil Brunner.”
19
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 524.
20
. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., s.v. “Karl Barth.”
21
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 525.
22
. Ibid., 526.
7

One problem with the relational view is the question of universality. Does the image

reside in humans who resist, neglect or rebel against God? What about the human enables the

relationship?23 Additionally, Barth and Brunner were both invested in existential philosophy and

critics of the relational view see existentialism externally introduced into their theology.24 Some

theologians also criticize a “forced” Trinitarian interpretation of the plural pronouns in Genesis

1:26-28 and an over-interpretation of the differentiation of male and female in verse 27.25

The Functional View

According to Erickson, the functional view of the image of God in Man is growing in

popularity.26 The functionalist considers the image to be something that a human does, namely

the dual functions mentioned in Genesis 1, to exercise dominion over the created world and to

procreate. “Human dominion over creation is a “finger pointing” to the image of God.”27

As divine image-holders, humans are the statues of God, with a purposefully unidentified nature

and a purposefully revealed function, that being to represent God’s rule over the created world.28

The divine tasks given to humankind confer purpose and dignity and places men and women

under obligation to God. The dignity is apparent in texts such as Psalm 8:5-8, “You made him

ruler over the works of your hands…”

Author and professor Dr. Paul Sands supports this view because it is based in historical-

critical biblical scholarship, resisting external anthropologies. It subsumes the legitimate insights

23
. Ibid., 530.
24
. Ibid., 527.
25
. Sands, “The Imago Dei as Vocation,” 35-36.
26
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 527.
27
. Niskanen, “The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of Man in the Image of God,” 430.
28
. Sands, “The Imago Dei as Vocation,” 37.
8

of the other views, accepting the rationality, free will and relational aspects of humanity. The

functional view also points toward missional activity grounding the imago Dei in fulfilling work.

“Human beings find themselves as they lose themselves in service to God.”29

Historically, the Remonstrants and Socinians held the functional position.30 The

Racovian Catechism of the Socinians contains the functional view but rejects a Trinitarian view

of God, narrowing the imago Dei to the image of God as Lord, with dominion as Man’s singular

reflection of God.31 Within Reformed circles, the functional view is used to discuss the cultural

mandate, that is making use of their ability to learn about creation, predicting or even controlling

natural events, as part of man’s dominion.32

One problem with the functional view is that there is a lack in Genesis 1 of a clear

equation of the image of God and dominion. One critic notes the separate phrases “Let us make

man…” and “Let them rule..” and points out that dominion required a second statement from

God, with the result that the functional view may take a result of the image and raise it to become

the image itself.33

A SYNTHESIS: THE TRIUNE MIRROR

“…The human race are a bright mirror of the Creator’s works…” said Calvin.34 As

humans were created in God’s image, did they receive a Trinitarian nature, mirroring the very

nature of God? If there were support for such a view, would there be an ontological basis for

humans, male and female, to exist in the image substantively, relate to God and each other
29
. Ibid., 39.
30
. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 97.
31
. Erickson, Christian Theology, 528.
32
. Ibid., 529.
33
. Ibid., 531.
34
. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, par. v 3.
9

through the image and function with purpose as God’s representatives? Surely proposing

another view follows securely in a long line of new ideas or variations on theological themes. In

Paul Niskanen’s article “The Poetics of Adam,” he refers to Claus Westerman, Phyllis Trible,

and James Barr and he reacts to Phyllis Bird strenuously.35 Wading into muddy waters, another

position, called here the Triune Mirror, could perhaps be instructive and stimulating. Besides,

“…theologians today seek to comprehend the image within a framework that is unsatisfactorily

narrow.”36

Is there any support for a Trinitarian conversation in the Genesis 1:26-28 account of

creation? Exegetically, there is no textual support for a Trinitarian “we” in Genesis. As the

biblical record has retreated to the very beginning of humanity, there would not have been any

etymology for “Trinity” nor any prior revelation upon which to refer. However, theological

“instinct” accurately reads a Trinitarian suggestion in the words.37 Thomas Smail reasonably

asserts:

“If the God of the New Testament is the same as the God of the Old Testament and if that
God at the climax of his self-revelation has shown himself to be Father, Son and Holy
Spirit who are what they are in virtue of their inter-relating, then it is not only legitimate
but necessary to understand an Old Testament text like Genesis 1 in that Trinitarian
context..”38

After hundreds of years of prophetic utterance and self-disclosure, God is understood as being

Three-in-One in New Testament theology. Suggestions in the Old Testament of God’s plurality

of personality and essence can be found in the usage of the plural form of God’s name, Elohim,

and in the use of the plural pronouns in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7.39 Interpreting Scripture with

35
. Niskanen, “The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of Man in the Image of God,” 418-19.
36
. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., s.v. “Image of God.” 593.
37
. Thomas A. Smail, “In the Image of the Triune God,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 5, no.
1 (2003), 24, dx.doi.org/10.1111/1463-1652.00092 (accessed March 3, 2010).
38
. Ibid., 24.
39
. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., s.v. “Doctrine of God.” 503.
10

Scripture, John chapter 1 is the Christological creation account. Read alongside Genesis 1,

significant support for a Trinitarian God speaking creation into existence is discovered.40 As a

Trinitarian God endows humanity with His own image, how difficult is it to consider this image

to be tripartite?

Is there any support for a tripartite view of man? Plato divided soul and body and

Aristotle divided the soul into an animal soul (organic) and a rational soul (intellectual). Origen

emphasized body, soul and spirit as the proper hermeneutic for interpreting all Scripture.

Tertullian and Augustine accepted Aristotle’s division of the soul but remained dichotomous in

their understanding.41 “Generally, the Eastern church believed that man was trichotomous—

consisting of three parts—body, soul, and spirit. Originally, the Greek and Alexandrian church

Fathers held this view, including men like Origen and Clement of Alexandria. The Western

church, on the other hand, generally held to the dichotomous position: man is body and soul.

Men like Augustine and Anselm held to this view.”42

Because of a variety of terms in Scripture, descriptions of “heart, mind, soul and

strength,” “soul and spirit,” and the interchangeability of “heart” from reference to reference, it is

difficult to speak certainly about the elemental nature of man. G. C. Berkouwer, author of Man:

Image of God, is quoted by Geisler, when commenting on the unity of man, as saying, “…within

this basic unity there is a tri-dimensionality, because a human being is self-conscious, world-

conscious, and God-conscious. He can look inward, outward, and upward. But he is, nonetheless,

one person, with one individual human nature (Berkouwer, MIG, chapter 7).”43

40
. Smail, “In the Image of the Triune God,” 24.
41
. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., s.v. “Trichotomy.” 1218.
42
. Paul P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997), 306.
43
. Dr. Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology, 452.
11
The Triune Mirror as a Christian anthropology suggests that “being in the image of God

is to be understood as a mirroring of the Father, a mirroring of the Son and a mirroring of the

Holy Spirit…”44 Connecting the three essences of humanity to the three views presented by

Erickson aligns as follows: God the Father, mirrored in Man as substantive rationality, free will

and morality; God the Son, mirrored in Man as relational, expressing joy in caring for others and

in doing the will of the Father; and God the Holy Spirit fulfilling a functional role, leading

Christians to exercise dominion and to be fruitful for the Kingdom.

Erickson chooses the position of the substantive image of God. Interestingly, his

summary statements incorporate relational views (#6 p. 532, #3 p. 534) and functional views (#4

p. 535). The image resides in all humanity structurally but is defined, fulfilled and

comprehended with relational and functional terms. Arbitrarily removing these terms reduces

the image. In other words, the imago Dei may be inherent within a man’s rationality and

morality, but it is unnecessary to be moral outside of a relationship with God. Functional

operation in exercising dominion and procreation does not diminish the substantive nature of the

image, it serves to reveal it to the world. An unnecessary atomization is avoided with the Triune

Mirror.

Thomas Smail, author of “In the Image of the Triune God,” assigns certain functions to

God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Father initiates, the Son responds and the Spirit

fulfills. The fullest expression of God’s image in Mankind is found, Smail contends, when

humans initiate, respond and fulfill. “As human beings made in the imago Dei, we are so

fashioned that in our relationships with other people and the world, we also initiate, respond and

fulfill and so mirror the distinctive functioning of the Divine Persons.”45

44
. Smail, “In the Image of the Triune God,” 22.
45
. Ibid., 27.
12
“But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being

transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” 2

Corinthians 3:18 mentions the image again and expects that those humans who are Christians

would find an increasingly transformative power in reflecting the glory of God. The Triune

Mirror view embraces multiple functions and relationships for the experience of humanity in the

image of God and preserves the inherent, substantive aspect.

THE FALL AND ITS EFFECT ON THE MIRROR

But what of those people who are not Christian and are not concerned with reflecting

God’s glory? The image of God is spoken of after the Fall and the Flood, for example, in

Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of

God He made man.” So the image was not lost. But the mirror of reflection badly needs

cleaning.

“When we sin we are either inhibited in our ability to initiate, respond or fulfill and so
cease to reflect the divine freedom, or we initiate, respond and fulfill in ways that mirror
something other than the divine love and that give our lives an idolatrous focus on the
creation rather than a worshipful focus on the Creator.”46

A perversion of the mandate to fill the world has resulted in humans filling the world with

wickedness.47 Taking the gift of God that is all of His image, mankind has replaced God as the

object of glory and substituted Self. Using the rational, relational and power-driven aspects of

the image of God in a Self that does not acknowledge God results in ruin and eternal separation.

The Triune Mirror can be restored to its originally righteous condition through Christ.

Ephesians 4:24 counsels Mankind to “put on the new man which was created according to God,

46
. Ibid.
47
. Sands, “The Imago Dei as Vocation,” 38.
13
in true righteousness and holiness.” Colossians 3:10 echoes Genesis 1:26 challenging human

beings to “put on the new man” which is the image of the Creator.48

CONCLUSION

Archeology has exposed a common practice in the Roman world of the first century.

Unwanted or disabled babies were routinely discarded by their parents. “Defective” newborns

were abandoned in dumping grounds outside the city. Early Christians rejected this practice and

were effective in letting their position be known. Justin Martyr wrote a letter in 155 A.D. to the

emperor equating such abandonments with murder. These early Christians had come to their

cross cultural belief because they saw “the least of the human family as the image of God, as

Christ who must be welcomed…”49

The nature, locus, and teaching of the imago Dei for Christians can have a transformative

effect. The Triune Mirror offers a view that is sufficiently expansive toward the Being that

humans are attempting to mirror. While not explicit, sound biblical interpretations are not

violated by the position. Further study would certainly be necessary, particularly with regard to

the interrelation of the sexes within the Triune Mirror. Dr. Stanley Grenz’s The Social God and

the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei would be profitable reading for

more structure beneath the idea of a Triune God creating tripartite reflectors.

The New Testament expresses a “conviction that God’s life and character have been

perfectly reflected in the human life of Jesus. In him the mirror of our humanity loses its

distortions and regains its proper focus on God, so that in Christ the image is restored and

through him can be restored in us as well.”50


48
. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 305.
49
. Mike Aquilina, “A Culture Exposed,” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity 21 no. 1: 24-25,
Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).
50
. Smail, “In the Image of the Triune God,” 23.
14
15

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aquilina, Mike. “A Culture Exposed.” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity 21 no. 1: 24-
25, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).

Barr, Stephen M. “More Than Machines.” Commonweal 136 no. 20: 16-20, Academic Search
Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).

Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Vol. 1. Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Dr. Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Bloomington, Minnesota: Bethany House
Publishers, 2003.

Enns, Paul P. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1997.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic,
1983.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
1997.

Niskanen, Paul. “The Poetics of Adam: The Creation of Man in the Image of God.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 128 no. 3: 417-36, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed
March 1, 2010).

Sands, Paul. “The Imago Dei as Vocation.” Evangelical Quarterly 82 no. 1: 28-41, Academic
Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2010).

Smail, Thomas A. “In the Image of the Triune God.” International Journal of Systematic
Theology 5, no. 1 (2003), 22-32, dx.doi.org/10.1111/1463-1652.00092 (accessed March
3, 2010).

Você também pode gostar