The CBE Scroll

Comment by Paula

November 6, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

It seems to me that “the image of God” applies to the human race as a whole. Each individual is a member of that race and therefore made in God’s image. It is what distinguishes us from all other life forms. In other words, we are made in God’s image because we are human, not because of what we may do or say. It is an intrinsic quality.

The Bible even speaks of evildoers as made in the image of God (James 3:9). Yet not all are made in the image of Christ:

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. (Romans 8:29 TNIV)

I think the reasons theologians struggle with things like this is because it isn’t spelled out in black and white. But the Bible is “living and active”, so the study of it requires both the heart and the mind. Yet just in the scriptures I mentioned a decent case can be made for defining “the image of God” as simply “to be human”.

Comment by Ryan

November 7, 2006 @ 2:54 am

I would recommend Henri Nouwen’s Adam. It may raise more questions, but since I have a mentally and physically handicapped Uncle, I found his account of Adam’s life very satisfying. I also think, it depends on your tradition. I think for Evangelicals it is harder, particularly the more “literal” you exegete the Bible. two cents plus :)

Comment by Liz

November 8, 2006 @ 12:09 am

Another way to look at the word “image” is reflection – as in “Christ is the image of the unseen God.” An image-bearer doesn’t have to try and resemble the original. It is up to the original to be seen in the other person. So I would imagine that God’s image can be seen and known through various ways and in different people. How God is revealed in one human being may not necessarily be the same way as in another person.

As regards being “made” in the image of God, perhaps it means the potential to be like God in all the aspects of character.

Comment by Paula

November 8, 2006 @ 12:00 pm

Please reference http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/ for more information about Henri Nouwen, a mystic.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

November 8, 2006 @ 3:07 pm

Like those who have commented, I think it means to be human too. I think it involves our ability to have an intimate relationship with God as well as image God in this world.

Comment by Left Right Out

November 9, 2006 @ 1:53 pm

I am a support worker for the severely intellectually disabled and I see God in them all the time.

The way they are served, the way they serve each other, the ways that they show affection, the smile they give you when you change the diaper and make them more comfortable, how my heart catches when entirely unrelated people call each other “family.” How they struggle with being trapped inside their heads. The pain and suffering they endure without knowing why. The determination they show in doing every day things that take them five times as long as everyone else. No, they’re not perfect or adorable all the time. I have been hit, had things thrown at me, been screamed at, etc. But most of my clients are not trapped in the pretensions of the world, and are always willing to show that they need other people. And we were created to need other people, and to need God. And I believe my clients already have God.

One man told me that my clients pose an “interesting issue” because some people would say that you have to be able to understand specific principles to be a Christian. I was so surprised that I snapped at him that if anyone was going straight to heaven it was my guys. And I truly believe it. They are in His image because God loved them so He made them. God understands exactly who they are and what miracles they are.

Comment by Mindy

November 17, 2006 @ 11:04 am

Another thing we haven’t mentioned is the effect of the fall on that original perfect image God stamped on humanity at creation. Sin and the broken world that develops out of it does not eradicate the image of God, but it does marr it. As all human beings are broken in various ways, no human being can fully reflect that image to the extent that Adam and Eve could in the garden. That means that just as we are equally bearers of the divine image, we are all equally broken before God–which is why we must respect and serve one another in humility.

Comment by EM

February 5, 2008 @ 12:40 am

This is a tough question (and that’s an understatement). It is closely related to the word ‘person’ and the question of whether there is anything unique/special about being ‘human.’ What exactly did God do when he breathed into Adam the breath of life and the first man became a living soul? If there were aliens or super-robots that were rational, volitional, moral, social, and spiritual, would they be ‘persons?’ Would they reflect the divine nature?

The word ‘broken’ comes to mind here. The definition we started with certainly has something to say about what being an image-bearer means. It doesn’t say everything about it though. The words are just a symbol of a far greater reality.

The rational, volitional, moral, social, and spiritual likeness to God found in human beings by virtue of creation.

It is just a rough description of how we understand what imago dei looks like in us. We cannot be rational, volitional, moral, social, or spiritual unless God is those things. And, indeed he is all of those things, perfectly so.

Now, if humans had remained in innocence and obedience to God, the rational, volitional, moral, social, and spiritual facets of humans would never be impaired. There would be no comas, no mental illness, no extra chromosomes, no psychopaths, no brain injuries.

The point is that we are all impaired by the fall to some degree (creation groans – longing for redemption). That doesn’t mean that any of us have less of the image of God than others – just that none of us reflect his image as fully as we were intended to. Even my detractors would probably admit that I bear all of these characteristics, though all are marred at some level in me too.

We do not have to be all of these maximally to bear God’s image. Any mixture of them will suffice. The comatose patient is still a spiritual being. She has a spirit. The person with a brain injury is still a volitional person despite not processing the moral consequences of his actions the way most of us do. A child with Down’s Syndrome is very social and usually quite loving. The psychopath is quite rational, generally speaking.

The image of God is everywhere, if we only appreciate it. And, the flaws we see in ourselves should inspire us to long for eternity and the full restoration of glorified creatures to our Creator. The brokenness of us should compel worship of the perfection of our Abba and awe that he would love us.

Comment by fjs

February 5, 2008 @ 9:21 am

I think we are most fully God’s image as the whole church in Christ. We each bear God’s image individually to one degree or other… even those with serious impairments. I think that image is more clear in God’s people as a whole community found in Christ as we are in relation with one another and the world. So even our relationship to the brokenness and imperfection reveals something about God to the world. I am thinking of Henri Nouwen and the l’Arche community. While each person was considered to be loved and cherished by God… the relation between caregivers and the cared-for revealed the dignity and humanity that more fully imaged God.

I don’t think we can image God completely alone. Even in Genesis… God said, let us make them in our image and likeness.

Comment by fjs

February 5, 2008 @ 10:26 am

Scott McKnight has written on the topics of imaging God as a community. They are Embracing Grace and his latest, A Community Called Atonement.

In my opinion, he is a very thoughtful theologian and biblical scholar.