relationships and the image of god
In the beginning...God said,
"Let us make human beings in
Our image, according Our likeness."
"Let us make human beings in
Our image, according Our likeness."
Before getting started, we need to have a preliminary discussion regarding the Biblical text. You have to ask yourself the question, "Is this myth or is it history?" Many of you probably approach this text from the perspective of literal truth; thus, you would say it is historical fact. Others may approach it from a metaphorical standpoint; thus, you would say that it did not necessarily happen in this way? Despite different answers to this question, I think we can get along because we can agree that whether this is a literal or metaphorical account of creation, some level of truth lies behind the text. Regardless of how we were created, God guided our creation—our creation in the image of God.
This passage, as many of you know, amazes me. I think these verses are the basis for our identities as human beings, the Gospel, and our redemption. For the purpose of this post, I will only focus on the identity aspect. To start, we need to understand our creation in the image of God from a Hebrew perspective, considering the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. How would an Israelite/Hebrew/Jew living during the times that the Hebrew Bible was written have understood the concept of being created in the image of God? Some big name Hebrew scholars, like Claus Westermann and Walter Brueggemann, believe that the Hebrew people equated creation in the image of God with a statue that a king would put in a city to represent his presence. The king could be in multiple cities because the statues represented him. As these statues represent the king's presence in a city, so do we represent God's presence on earth. We are the representatives of God.
This already has huge ramifications for us. In our art, ethics, politics, spirituality, and relationships we represent God's art, ethics, politics, spirituality, and relationships. But what do God's relationships look like? Now we must read these same verses through a Christian lens, allowing this lens to expand the Hebraic understanding of creation in the image of God.
If we look at our creation through a sesus plenior view—a fancy word for "fuller sense," meaning we look at the entire Biblical text—and the history of theology, we can read "image of God" as pertaining to the triune God. Some Patristic theologians, such as Tertullian, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, solidified the language for God's triune nature: three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, in one substance. Therefore, the relationship between these three persons in the one substance can tell us something about our relationships.
Much debate has occurred and occurs regarding the relationship between the three persons of the triune God. I know little about all the different views, but I want to present the view that I find most helpful to our discussion. We can understand the relationship between the three persons as a societal, communal relationship. In other words, each person brings to the table what he has to offer so that the three do not lack in anything and neither has an advantage over the other. This interpretation harmonizes with the concept of perichoresis that some of the guys above developed: what one person of the trinty has the other persons in the trinity also have, and when one person acts the other two act simultaneously in the same act.
If we are to be the representatives of God on earth, then our relationships should represent those of God. If the relationship between the persons of the trinity is as described above, then our relationships with one another should be societal and communal. In other words, our relationships should include those people in our communities, and in these relationships we support one another in any and all endeavors. This is a huge task for people in our individualist, "I'm fine on my own" society because we not only should rely on one another, but we need to rely on one another. In fact, I contend that only in meaningful, intimate relationships that represent the image of God can we truly begin to represent God's presence on earth in other avenues.
I get into this more in the fourth part of this series, but our creation in the image of God shows that we are contingent. In other words we depend on other people in order to exist, live, live fully, and enjoy God's presence. Of course, we depend ultimately on God, but our creation in God's image shows that we are also contingent upon one another. We were created to be in relationships where we support and help one another in all that we do. We are not autonomous beings making autonomous decisions outside of tradition, history, past experiences, and relationships. Rather, we are contingent beings created in the image of God who make decisions influenced by our tradition, history, past experience, and relationships.
Only in such relationships are we truly representing our triune God on earth. peace
table of contents
relationships and the kingdom of heaven
This passage, as many of you know, amazes me. I think these verses are the basis for our identities as human beings, the Gospel, and our redemption. For the purpose of this post, I will only focus on the identity aspect. To start, we need to understand our creation in the image of God from a Hebrew perspective, considering the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. How would an Israelite/Hebrew/Jew living during the times that the Hebrew Bible was written have understood the concept of being created in the image of God? Some big name Hebrew scholars, like Claus Westermann and Walter Brueggemann, believe that the Hebrew people equated creation in the image of God with a statue that a king would put in a city to represent his presence. The king could be in multiple cities because the statues represented him. As these statues represent the king's presence in a city, so do we represent God's presence on earth. We are the representatives of God.
This already has huge ramifications for us. In our art, ethics, politics, spirituality, and relationships we represent God's art, ethics, politics, spirituality, and relationships. But what do God's relationships look like? Now we must read these same verses through a Christian lens, allowing this lens to expand the Hebraic understanding of creation in the image of God.
If we look at our creation through a sesus plenior view—a fancy word for "fuller sense," meaning we look at the entire Biblical text—and the history of theology, we can read "image of God" as pertaining to the triune God. Some Patristic theologians, such as Tertullian, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, solidified the language for God's triune nature: three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, in one substance. Therefore, the relationship between these three persons in the one substance can tell us something about our relationships.
Much debate has occurred and occurs regarding the relationship between the three persons of the triune God. I know little about all the different views, but I want to present the view that I find most helpful to our discussion. We can understand the relationship between the three persons as a societal, communal relationship. In other words, each person brings to the table what he has to offer so that the three do not lack in anything and neither has an advantage over the other. This interpretation harmonizes with the concept of perichoresis that some of the guys above developed: what one person of the trinty has the other persons in the trinity also have, and when one person acts the other two act simultaneously in the same act.
If we are to be the representatives of God on earth, then our relationships should represent those of God. If the relationship between the persons of the trinity is as described above, then our relationships with one another should be societal and communal. In other words, our relationships should include those people in our communities, and in these relationships we support one another in any and all endeavors. This is a huge task for people in our individualist, "I'm fine on my own" society because we not only should rely on one another, but we need to rely on one another. In fact, I contend that only in meaningful, intimate relationships that represent the image of God can we truly begin to represent God's presence on earth in other avenues.
I get into this more in the fourth part of this series, but our creation in the image of God shows that we are contingent. In other words we depend on other people in order to exist, live, live fully, and enjoy God's presence. Of course, we depend ultimately on God, but our creation in God's image shows that we are also contingent upon one another. We were created to be in relationships where we support and help one another in all that we do. We are not autonomous beings making autonomous decisions outside of tradition, history, past experiences, and relationships. Rather, we are contingent beings created in the image of God who make decisions influenced by our tradition, history, past experience, and relationships.
Only in such relationships are we truly representing our triune God on earth. peace
table of contents
relationships and the kingdom of heaven
Comments
I just got done reading a Richard Middleton article on the topic. He argues against Barth's relationality and suggests that against the backdrop of competing pagan creation texts such as the Ugaritic, Persian, et.all the creation texts especially Genesis 2 are trying to suggest that imago dei was essentially to be understood as a "royal" figure which if composed in exile comes out to be something like the priesthood of all believers and consequently a fairly straightforward attack on the social systems of the entire near-eastern Palestinian world. As a Boydian I have always opted for the essentially relational reading, but Middleton has me thinking.
Good stuff,
Carney
that is interesting. it would be cool to do a study on the near-eastern Palestinian relationships, beyond the predominate patriarchalism, and see how the creation account criticizes this. that would be really interesting. let me know if you look into any of that. good comment.
harris