Much has been made of the important theological idea of the Imago Dei (Latin for “image of God”).
See: Gen. 1:26–27, Gen. 5:1–3, Gen. 9:6.
There has been plenty of work discussing it in…
Psychological terms (e.g., the capacity to think, to reason, and to be rational and even to be self-conscious), in…
Relational terms (e.g., the capacity to love, hate, relate, and “feel” for others in profoundly relational ways), in…
Spiritual terms (e.g., the capacity to contemplate the existence of God, and to connect with God in prayer — and to perceive Spiritual or metaphysical realities), in…
Moral terms (e.g., to perceive and express the difference between good and evil, and to respond to both of these by punishing evil and celebrating/advocating for good), and…
In terms of Personhood (e.g., the possession of a mind, will, and emotions that are unique to each individual enabling self-expression, etc.).
But these ideas come at the theological question/discussion of “What is Imago Dei?” in terms that seem more philosophical than theological to me (though I don’t think they are inaccurate or without value). What about coming at the question more, say, exegetically (especially in Genesis 1 & 2)? I think there is another aspect of the Imago Dei that is worth much more consideration and dialogue, and even helps to understand some of God’s original intent for the human race, as well as some Christological issues more clearly. Think of Imago Dei in Functional terms. That is, consider how God speaks about the function of humanity within the creation just after he says, “Let us make humanity in our image and after our likeness” in Gen. 1:26a:
And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and 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 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen. 1:26a-28)
Yes, just after God’s creation of humanity in His own image, he says…
- And let them have dominion…over all (Gen. 1:26b)
- Fill the earth… subdue it… have dominion over it (Gen. 1:28)
In other words, it is my sense that these ideas illustrate what God means by giving the human race his “image.” Functionally speaking, they are to represent God’s rule over the creation. They are to function as his co-regents in the creation. Of course, as the story goes, they failed in this vocation — though the theme repeats itself elsewhere with other people in Scripture (cf. Gen. 9:1-3). It seems that, on a functional level, God’s original intent is to have the created order superintended by an image-bearing vice-regent who rules wholly on God’s terms. Perhaps this gives insight into Jesus’ own self-perception in his “preamble” to the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18 —
“All authority in heaven and on earth has been handed over to me”
And could this also be a central idea in the New Testament theology of Imago Dei with reference to Jesus in Col. 1:15 and Heb. 1:3? In both of these texts, there is imagery of ruling and reigning just after references to Jesus being God’s image in the world (e.g., “first born over all creation” in Colossians, and “sat down at the right hand of the majesty” in Hebrews). In other words, isn’t there much to be made of the functional aspect of Imago Dei? Doesn’t it seem highly reasonable — even central — just based on the way the texts related to this theme unfold, to understand “God’s image in humans” to refer to our function in this world? And doesn’t it seem reasonable in terms of our Christology to think of Imago Dei as God’s way of saying who gets to rule the world?
What does this say about how we can better help each other understand how God’s image is being “re-paired” in humanity through Jesus (yes, I meant to hyphenate that)?
Further reading: Rev. 11:15, Is. 9:6, Is. 42:1
I would absolutely love to dialogue with you more about this aspect of Imago Dei in the comments, and see if you think (as I do) that is one of the most helpful ways of explaining this amazing biblical idea that humans are made in God’s image.
Oh! Great conversation starter… let me mull over this a bit… thanks, Kenny!
Okay, have a chance to respond a bit more. First, I love what you are doing here, Kenny, because it is a very important part of biblical theology. It’s also very similar to the argument that Beale makes in his book The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God as well as the JETS article “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation.” The JETS article is essentially a shorter version of the book and is, in my opinion, a must read.
A stand out quote from the JETS article is as follows:
Thus, this concept of dominion and filling or spreading is a concept that, via a biblical theological approach, is teased out throughout the OT and into the NT. You simply have to read Beale on this (another great work is by James Hamilton called God’s Indwelling Presence, which is similar).
So I’m loving what you are saying here… interestingly, most of the exegetes that I’ve read concerning the Genesis verses regarding Imago Dei tend to acknowledge that there’s not a lot of concrete explanation in Scripture regarding what it actually means!
Luke – I have the Beale book (actually my wife has it, uhem, and it was part of her PhD work, but I have not read it (yet!!!). I absolutely love the quote from the JETS article you cited here. Had not read that either. Some of these questions (and answers) for me have arisen out of my study of Christology, and especially “second Adam” stuff. All of these roads lead to the same place from my perspective, if we’re doing Biblical theology (as you noted). For me, the functional aspect of Imago Dei is essential to understanding what it means. I also wholly agree with Beale in the quote you supplied that the way in which the boundaries of the garden were to be expanded in Adam & Eve’s vocation was primarily through image-bearing offspring. This would have enabled them to “go into all the world and make disciples of the nations, teaching them to obey God as King.” This provokes other questions which would be interesting. Namely, might there have been some folks outside of the garden-park who didn’t know God at the same time God ‘created’ the first couple “in his image?” Using the functional view, this may be possible — though uncomfortable for a good chunk of the evangelical world to contemplate. It is something I want to think theologically about MUCH more.
In the Ancient Near Eastern context the image was in some sense the god or person’s presence. Humanity was to be the presence of god on earth and Jesus (and subsequently his followers) are to be God’s presence on earth. “Co-regents” captures it quite well I think.
This has big implications for green/ecology issues I think. Which is the new thing that we need to be in dialogue with I think.