Page 56 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 13

is an emphasis that represents an eisegetical rea- Nebuchadnezzar’s placing of a gold statue (tse-
ding of Greek worldviews back into the Hebrew lem) in Babylon that was be treated as if it were
text. It is a cultural imposition of something ali- the king. Thus, recall that Daniel’s three com-
en onto the text (Blomberg, 2016, Boyd & Eddy, patriots would have died in the furnace for re-
2002, Cortez, 2010). Thus, despite the weight fusing to bow before the statue had it not been
of tradition, the substantive-structural view is for God’s miraculous deliverance (Dan 3:1-7).
seen as having questionable Biblical warrant in Humans made in the image of God are created
several contemporary theological contexts. For with a dominion mandate to “rule over” creati-
instance, Barth (1958) influentially rejected the on (Genesis 1:26ff). The rule of humanity over
substantive-structural views as reading into the creation is reflected in other passages tied to
text convenient anthropologies available to the our position in creation as well (Psalm 8). This
reader (Crouch, 2011). charge to rule over creation is a commission
Although sharing the imago Dei could be a to superintend for God as later Hebrew kings
great equalizer for human dignity, substantive- were to rule their people as a charge from God
structural views which emphasize capacities (Erickson, 2013). The notion that humanity is
like reason as the imago Dei risk doing the op- the image of God as an earthly representation
posite. Humans vary enormously in rational ca- of His royal authority has been described as
pacity with some so severely deficient relative “consensus” in Biblical interpretation since the
to the norm that some animals have demon- 1970’s (Lints, 2015).
strated higher levels of communicative abilities. Despite the current popularity of this view
If the imago Dei is the basis for human worth among exegetes it is not without dissenters. A
and dignity but humans vary significantly in the number of commentators have pointed out that
extent to which they possess the quality which there is little support in tradition for the func-
constitutes it, would that not make those with tional view (Kilner, 2015). While functionalist
such relative deficits lesser inferior exemplars advocates support their view mostly on exege-
of the divine image? Kilner (2015) reviews the tical grounds tied to particular Old Testament
remarkable positive contributions of the belief texts and criticize the alternative views for ana-
that humans are made in the imago Dei to hu- chronistically imposing alien understandings
man history but also a long and tragic history onto the horizon of the authors of those texts,
in which some understandings of the doctri- similar erroneous interpretative indictments
ne function destructively. He concludes: “…if have also been laid at the door of the functiona-
being in God’s image is indeed rooted in cur- lists. Some have claimed that because Genesis 1
rent human attributes-or in anything that can has humanity made in the image of God prior
vary among people because it is changeable due to dominion charge rulership cannot be what
to sin-history teaches an important lesson. The constitutes the image (Kilner, 2015). Cortez
idea that humanity is created in God’s image (2010) also sees the refusal to consider the ca-
will not just be a source of great liberation, it nonical development of the notion of the imago
will continue to invite terrible devastation” (p. Dei as a truncated way to understand the full
37). Biblical teaching about the concept. This later
criticism reflects divergence over proper her-
Functional. Another view favored by many meneutical methods and thus will carry force
contemporary Old Testament scholars holds only if one shares a hermeneutic that views the
that imago Dei is a function of humans that re- whole of Scripture as relevant for the interpre-
flects a function of God such as having domi- tation of any part of it (Osborne, 2007).
nion over creation. This view notes the ancient
Near Eastern practice of rulers establishing a Relational. The relational view holds that the
representation of themselves that stood as their imago Dei consists of the relationality present
image. To honor or dishonor the image was re- in humanity reflecting the inherent relationality
spectively to honor or dishonor the ruler (Bru- of the Trinitarian God. Such a view is conver-
eggemann, 1982). This practice can be seen in gent with social views of the Trinity advanced

54