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.
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.
This paper is written to discuss the many different ideas that have been discussed over the first half of Theology 104. This class went over many topics which gave me a much better understanding of Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. I will be addressing two topics of which I feel are very important to Christianity. First, I will be focusing on the question did Jesus claim to be God? This is one of the biggest challenges of the Bibles that come up quite often. Secondly, I will focus on character development.
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
So let’s look at them together, and later analyze them separately. In the book of (Genesis 1:26), God said… “And let us make God human beings in our image, to be like us.” The first chapter of Genesis recounts the story of creation and verse 26 talks about the creation and origin of Adam. Unlike the previous, parallel verse, there is a distinct difference in verse 26. Verse 26, talks
From its inception, the human race was built upon a singular perception, an outlook based in patriarchal ideals. God, a supreme creator, armored in precision, creates man in his own image. It is inside this divine state that Adam is born, shaped from the Earth, his journey unfolds. Awakening in the splendor of Eden, Adam immediately recognizes his bond with a higher power, asking fellow creatures in the garden to expound upon the glory of his maker, “Tell me how I may know Him, how adore, from whom that thus I move and live” (XIII. 280-281) Outward from the account of his birth, readers are instructed, led toward patriarchy, following the use of a distinguishing pronoun “Him”. Milton throughout the text renders a strict Christian theological perspective, showcasing a phallic authority that spawns from the dawn of creation.
New Revised Standard Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1989. Print. The. Russell, Eddie.
Martens, E. A. God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1981. Print.
God, God is able to relate to man. Nothing else was made in the image
of the Bible, Genesis, we are told we are 'made in the image of God'
...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.
In the beginning of the Bible in the Book of Genesis, it is revealed to use in 1:26-27 that God has created man in his image. The text verbatim states “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” From this distinct text we can clearly conclude that when ad created man and woman, they were destined to be in God’s image and carry his image throughout his creation. Today we can see that many of us do not live in God’s image due to society becoming more secularized as it progresses through the years, however as Christians we can verse this by living in God’s image in our chosen vocations, churches, and even in the secular world.
Answering these questions is the purpose of this essay. I begin by arguing that the Bible cannot be adequately understood independent of its historical context. I concede later that historical context alone however is insufficient, for the Bible is a living-breathing document as relevant to us today as it was the day it was scribed. I conclude we need both testimonies of God at work to fully appreciate how the Bible speaks to us.
Humans were created in God’s image. Because God is perfect and without error (infallible), we are a reflection of that. However, when Adam and Eve sinned against god, that infallibility was tainted....
Berkouwer’s take on the matter of imago Dei rest on “man’s inescapable relatedness to God.” Berkouwer claimed that “man must always be seen as he stands before the face of the Almighty, bound to God religiously in the totality of his existence. This relatedness to God, moreover, is not something added to man but is constitutive of his being.” For Berkouwer, the image of God relies heavily upon the notion of relationship and relatedness to others and to God as a result of becoming a new self through Christ redemptive work. Hoekema comments that: