the theology of: THE IMAGE OF GOD

YouAre_blog_imageTheology

For this first topic in the YOU ARE... series, we’ve been focusing a lot of our attention on the Christian conviction that human beings are created in the IMAGE of God. In the history of the church, there have been many approaches to understanding the image of God. And each of these approaches has implications for life and ministry. To consider the debate broadly, there are two major understandings of the image of God in man. Anthony Hoekema described these as the Structural view and the Functional view. The Structural view would understand the image of God in more physical terms. As human beings, we have natural capacities that enable us to interact with God in His world. The Functional view focuses on what we are in our moral nature. Our capacity to be righteous, holy, just and loving all reflect the character of God. So, how we function in relationship to His character and calling on our lives is the measure of the image of God in us. These issues boil down to this essential question: “Is the Image of God in human beings constituted by what they are, or by what they do?” While this might seem like splitting theological hairs, it is my goal to show that both approaches (if held wrongly) can have adverse affects on how we see our own lives, and the lives of others.

First, let’s consider the Functional view. There is no doubt that much of what it means to be the image of God in this world is functional. Human beings act as sign posts pointing on to the character of God. They are given the enormous responsibility of reflecting His character to the world. Granted, this was marred at the fall. But the vision of the Scriptures is not merely a marred image in man. It also holds forth hope of recovery. This is where the functional view is seen with clarity (and why many theologians focus much of their thinking here). Paul believes that Christians are being transformed into the image of Christ. That this is their very destiny as believers.

Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Certainly, this verse means that we will (with Christ) bear glorified bodies one day. But Paul’s conviction is not confined to the resurrection. He believes that the image of God is being formed in us now. This is seen clearly in both Colossians and Ephesians.

Colossians 3:9-10 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Ephesians 4:20-24 But that is not the way you learned Christ! — 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Here, we see that the old self carries with it certain “practices” and “deceitful desires.” But the new self is characterized by an increase in righteousness and holiness. In other words, what we do. This is a functional view of sanctification. We are becoming something morally. The way Paul speaks about this growth in holiness and righteousness is with reference to the likeness of God, or renewal in His image. So, if the recovery, and renewal of the image and likeness of God in us is about what we do then certainly, this is a large part of how the image of God is to be understood from the beginning.

The reason that we cannot let go of the functional view of God’s image in man is because to do so would negate the potential in each believer. If the image of God is only about physicality and natural capacities, then a person can never increase in likeness to Christ, and grow in their ability to reflect God’s glorious character. If we neglect the functional nature of the image of God, we therefore will neglect the renewal in Christ that the Scriptures both envision and entreat. No, we must hold firmly to the functional reality of the image of God, realizing that God’s work in us is a transformational work. As we behold Christ in the gospel, we are moving from one degree of glory to another (2 Corinthians 3:18). Or to put it another way, we are gradually reflecting more and more of the glory of God in true righteousness and holiness.

But we also must consider the Structural view of the image of God in man. Remember, the structural view focuses on what we are by nature, not by action. This is about what we are as human beings, without reference to our actions or decisions. For this reason, there is great dignity in every human life. For instance, in Genesis 9 (following the horrible effects of the fall, and the flood) God prohibits murder with a very specific ground to the prohibition…

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

The context of Genesis 9 shows that following the flood, mankind was still considered desperately wicked (see Genesis 8:21). God was not referencing the functional aspect of the image of God in man (reflecting His righteousness and holiness), but the structural aspect. Man is not to be killed because he is by nature the image of God. He bears the mark and stamp of God’s likeness in what he is.

At this point, we can fall into another error by thinking that God’s image is strictly physical. But the scriptures teach us that God is spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17), and so our physical frame cannot be the sum and substance of God’s image. Louis Berkhof gave us perhaps the best understanding of the structural aspect of God's image in man, who said, “We need not look for the image in the material substance of the body; it is found rather in the body as the fit instrument for the self-expression of the soul.” In other words, There is a unity about body and soul, material and immaterial in man that is vital to the image of God. To snuff out life is to snuff out what God intended on this earth to bear His glory. It is not our prerogative to assail His glory in man.

Just as there was a downfall to neglecting the image as a functional reality in mankind. So there is a great danger in neglecting the structural understanding of God’s image. If we say that God’s image is merely functional, then the value and dignity of life is threatened at more points than we’d like to admit. The cause of the unborn is trampled to the ground because they are not able to functionally reflect the glory of God. They cannot act and grow in holiness and righteousness. Moreover, the mentally handicapped, elderly, or even young children who cannot yet function in moral categories are all put at risk.

No, we stand for life precisely because we understand what all human life is: a sovereignly granted demonstration of the glory, authority and wisdom of God on earth. We do not take unto ourselves the divine right to declare which lives are valuable, and which are worthless. God has already declared the dignity of mankind - all mankind - by stamping His own image on them. Each human life, and every human life, is precious in God’s sight. At every age human beings have worth. At every stage of development they are to be protected and valued. In all their capacity and potential, human beings are to be seen as divine emblems of God’s majesty as Creator and Lord of all. God’s image is on them. In what they do, and in what they are.

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post have been disabled.