The first biblical passage that speaks of man practically shouts that he is created in the image of God. Evangelical scholarship on the image of God has mainly concentrated on the Genesis texts, which has often led to speculation about the ontological identity of the image. However, there is a much richer reading which does not care so much to ask, “What is the image of God?” but “What does it mean to carry the image of God?” This reading draws from the witness of both the Old and New Testaments, discovering that the restoration of the image becomes a central theme in the New Testament, taking on eschatological significance.
Genesis introduces the idea of the imago Dei in the creation narrative. The six days of creation culminate in the creation of man. While the plants, fish, birds and beasts are all created “according to their kinds” (1:12, 21, 24), man alone is created in the image of God. “Let us create man in (בְ) our image (צלם), after (כְ) our likeness (דמות)” (1:26, ESV).
צלם is normally used to denote a physical image, especially of gods (Amos 5:26) but is also used figuratively in two Psalms describing mere dreams or semblances (39:7; 73:20). דמות denotes a likeness or resemblance. Even though the Reformers and the majority of Medieval scholars held that ‘image’ and ‘likeness refer to separate features, it has become accepted almost without exception by modern commentators that the terms are interchangeable and used synonymously.
Syntactically the בְ preposition may interpreted as a בְ of essence or norm. If it is the former, it indicates that man is the image (cf. Exod 6:3), while the latter indicates that man is merely a copy of the “image.” The second preposition is a כְ of norm. In 5:3 the preposit...
... middle of paper ...
... Ibid., 311.
Stephen R. Holmes, “Image of God,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Kevin Vanhoozer ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 319.
Hoekema, Created, 22. “Then the best way to learn what the image of God is is not to contrast man with animals, as has often been done, and then to find the divine image to consist in those qualities, abilities, and gifts that man has in distinction from the animals. Rather, we must learn to know what the image of God is by looking at Jesus Christ. What must therefore be at the center of the image of God is not characteristics like the ability to make decisions, but rather that which was central in the life of Christ: love for God and for man… For no man ever loved as Christ loved.”
Douglas John Hall, Imaging God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 84.
Douglas John Hall, Imaging God, 85.
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Bible. Eds. Dom Bernand Orchard, Rev. R. V. Fuller. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966. Print.
The crucifixion of Christ is one of the central defining moments in human history. The revelation of God in the cruciform Christ is the central defining image for Christians. This is at the very heart of the case being made by Michael Gorman in Inhabiting the Cruciform God. Gorman, examining Paul's soteriology, makes the argument that for Paul justification is centered on theosis. Gorman thesis centers around defending his definition of this theosis in Paul's writings. Gorman writes, “Theosis is tranformative participation in the kenotic, cruciform character of God through Spirit-enable conformity to the incarnate, crucified, and resurrected/glorified Christ.”1 The following will examine Gorman's defense of this thesis focusing especially
God, God is able to relate to man. Nothing else was made in the image
In the first chapter of God Behaving Badly, David Lamb argues that God is unfairly given a bad reputation. He claims these negative perceptions are fueled by pop culture and lead many to believe the lie that the God of the Old Testament is angry, sexist, racist, violent, legalistic, rigid, and distant. These negative perceptions, in turn, affect our faith. Ultimately, Lamb seeks to demonstrate that historical context disproves the presumptuous aforementioned. In addition, he defends his position by citing patterns of descriptions that characterize God throughout the Old Testament. “Our image of God will directly affect how we either pursue or avoid God. If we believe that the God of the Old Testament is really harsh, unfair and cruel, we won’t want anything to do with him” (Lamb 22). Clearly, they way Christians choose to see God will shape their relationship with Him.
"EXPLORING THEOLOGY 1 & 2." EXPLORING THEOLOGY 1 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
2 Corinthians 3:18 states, “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” God transforms Christians into His likeness. Genesis 1:27 reveals that, in the Garden, we were completely in His likeness: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” To the artist, in the image of God means something different than what is often taught in Sunday schools. According to Sayers, “Is it his immortal soul, his rationality, his self-consciousness, his free will, or what, that gives him a claim to this rather startling distinction? . . . Looking at man, he sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to see what he says about the original upon which the ‘image’ of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, ‘God created’. The characteristic common to God and man is that: the desire and the ability to make things” (Sayers 17). The artist, like God, creates something out of nothing. But, there is an important distinction between something beautiful and poetic and something shoddy and cheap.
Martens, E. A. God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981. Print.
...pse." In Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, edited by W. Klaasen and G.F. Snyder, 23-37. New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1962.
Cosby, Michael R. Interpreting Biblical Literature: An Introduction to Biblical Studies. Grantham: Stony Run, 2009. 120-25. Print.
From the very beginning of the book, Fee and Stuart seek to explain the importance of proper biblical interpretation. The authors provide hermeneutical approaches for the study of the different ...
N.T Wright (2008) stated that “When we read the scriptures as Christians, we read it precisely as people of the new covenant and of the new creation” (p.281). In this statement, the author reveals a paradigm of scriptural interpretation that exists for him as a Christian, theologian, and profession and Bishop. When one surveys the entirety of modern Christendom, one finds a variety of methods and perspectives on biblical interpretation, and indeed on the how one defines the meaning in the parables of Jesus. Capon (2002) and Snodgrass (2008) offer differing perspectives on how one should approach the scriptures and how the true sense of meaning should be extracted. This paper will serve as a brief examination of the methodologies presented by these two authors. Let us begin, with an
The relationship between God and his creations humans can be said to be a very complex relationship. Genesis shows us many examples of God's interaction with humans and human's interaction with each other. From the creation of Adam and Eve and all the events that follow afterwards, I shall show what the relationship tells us about the nature of God and mankind.
Thus, an effort is made to highlight how Bible interpretation – through its publication – has developed in the history of Christianity.
One may ask what exactly does it mean to be made in God’s image. For someone not familiar with the Christian religion may find this as confusing. Living in God’s image does not exactly mean living as if you are God, which would blasphemy, but instead use our attributes that God has given us that are similar to His own. Christians are aware that God’s image is holy, merciful, benevolent, just, independent, and also rational since he has the ability to reason. Thus since humans were created in God’s image, we all encompass these characteristics.
Thiselton, A. C. (1980). The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philosophical description. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, xix.