The Image of God in Man
Introduction
The purpose of this critique is to offer an objective and critical evaluation of Bishop Barrington C. Hibbert’s article “The Image of God in Man: A Critique of the Substantive View”. The author argues that it is essential to comprehend what it means for man to be made in God’s image as the bible teaches us. The comprehension of the notion of the Image of God is perceived in a historical and exegetical conversation to create a vivid connotation as it rests in Gen 1:7-26. This article aims to comprehend what it necessitates to be made in God’s image. The author explores three extensive outlooks of the image of God through traditional views of the substantive, the relational, and functional perspectives.
Brief Summary
The exceptional nature and function of human beings within the Christian theology context has been commonly comprehended via an explanatory structure. The structure seeks to express an explanation of the created character of humans, fit by the assertion that humans are in some sense different from the rest of the created things by being made in God’s image (Hibbert, 2004). This God’s image or imago Dei concept takes its primary motivation from the Genesis creation story (Gen 1:27). From this scriptural assertion of God’s image present in man, a great deal of conversation and theological explanation has arisen regarding what exactly comprises the God’s image, and further, how the God’s image should be interpreted within the broader framework of Christian theology as a whole. But at the core of this complicated conversation regarding the imago Dei rests a shared compromise that human beings replicate the divine reality in a manner that is discrete from the rest of the creation. Customarily, the imago Dei particularity was comprehended to mean that man distinctively possesses rationality, intentionality, and brainpower. These were capabilities perceived to be universally held by human beings over and against animals (Peterson, 2016). This God’s image view termed as “substantive” notion, has mostly governed the Christian theology history, and most theologians until Reformation comprehended the Imago Dei as logic and human brainpower, wherein the divine image was reproduced.
Critical Interactions
Hibbert (2004) highlight that advocates of the substantive view supposed God’s image as some specific feature or quality within the making of the human. Some trusted that the trait might be bodily make-up due to the literal comprehension of the ‘image’ which can imply a statue or form. Maybe the most outstanding problem to substantive view rests in a growing admiration of the embodied character of humans as opposed to hypothetical, dualistic comprehension of human personality which would position God’s image in a theoretical ‘mind’ utterly secluded from the body. Linked to this objection is the rising awareness of the human beings’ nature in connection to our evolutionary history, which the substantive view is perceived not accurately to capture (Van Huyssteen, 2006).
The relational view advocates trusted that Imago Dei as encountering the relationships. This perception has been prominent amongst new orthodox and existential theologians. For instance, Karl Barth contended that humans are made for relationships with God and with other humans. Barth suggested that imago Dei is his capability to have a bond and his authentic relationship with God and others(Peterson, 2016). The functional view supporters trusted that imago Dei is connected to what humans do or accomplish. It claimed that God’s image is not in an individual’s make or attributes but an individual’s responsibilities (Elwell, 2001). This notion stresses more on man’s capability and commitment to exercising dominion over the creation as God’s image-bearer since God has control over all creation. This notion is prominent amongst the reformed theologians since they highlighted the cultural mandate of man to rule over and pacify the earth.
Hibbert (2004) argue that Though the relational view highlights the significance of a bond between man and God, and man and man to justify the instructions to love God and humans (Matt 22:36-40), it does not acknowledge that relationships are outcomes of human-made in God’s image. This view fails to tackle the central question of what makes humans have relationships. Also, the functional view captures the crucial function of a man who is to rule and control the world (Erickson, 2013). But the creation story precisely recognizes that the control over the creation is an outcome of imago Dei, not God’s image itself. The substantive view provides a detailed biblical view. It clarifies the significance of manifesting imago Dei. God’s image in man has elements like physical, moral, mental, spiritual, and relational(Peterson, 2016). The physical does not imply the body, but the capability lies ‘to see’. It is crucial to know the consequences of this doctrine. A detailed comprehension of the imago Dei doctrine is vital for a Christian to sincerely follow God and disregard false viewpoints of anthropologies of this earth(Hibbert, 2004). Both male and female have God’s image equally, hence treating females inferior to males are unacceptable. Killing another man is a sin to God and calls for capital punishment (Gen.9: 6). Likewise, abusing man is a sin to God (James 3:9). So, any concept that asserts that one race is superior to another is unbiblical. Even people with disability and mentally ill deserve complete protection and respect since they carry the imago Dei.
Conclusion
The author in the article claims that the substantive view on imago Dei is undoubtedly able to offer an acceptable theological explanation of the imago Dei. It is useful to note that no evidence exists for a noteworthy difference between ‘image’ and ‘resemblance’ and how these words are utilized in the scripture together. The terms are synonymous to replicate a similar truth.
References
Elwell, W. A. (Ed.). (2001). Evangelical dictionary of theology. 2nd Edition. Baker Academic.
Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian theology. 3rd Edition, Baker Academic.
Hibbert, Barrington C. (2004). The Image of God in Man: A Critique of the Substantive View. Retrieved from http://www.cjcpassaic.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Image-of-God-in-Man.pdf: Bishop
Peterson, R. S. (2016). Imago Dei as human identity: a theological interpretation. Eisenbrauns.
Van Huyssteen, J. W. (2006). Alone in the world? Human uniqueness in science and theology; the Gifford lectures, the University of Edinburgh, spring 2004. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.