Page 57 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 13

by Moltmann (1993/1981) and others. While it being created in God’s image involves. Creation
is recent view, it has some precedent in ancient in God’s image is God’s expressed intention that
Christian commentators who saw in the plu- people evidence the special connection they
ral/singular self-description of God as creator have with God through a meaningful reflection
in Genesis 1 possibly prefiguring of the Trinity of God” (p. 79). “Being in the image of God…”,
(Cortez, 2010). There is an interesting Hebrew he further explains, “…is about a destiny in
linguistic pattern in Genesis 1 that some view which God intends that humanity will mani-
as bearing on the relationality of the imago Dei. fest attributes resembling God’s, in appropriate
Kilner (2015) observes measure, to God’s glory” (p. 281).
Genesis 1:26 introduces the creation of huma- Similarly, Peterson (2016) found all the three
nity using a singular noun, adam, to which ver- influential views deficient as solitary definiti-
se 27 refers by using both a singular and a plu- ons. He offers a “canonical re-reading” of the
ral pronoun. In other words, there is a tension imago Dei as “identity” (p. 53). He considers
between the singularity and plurality of human- various uses of the term identity in the social
kind…. the Hebrew text indicates that in some sciences and focuses on identity as something
sense it is the single entity, humanity as a whole, fixed and unchanging. He asserts that the “…
that is associated with God’s image…. Genesis image of God is human identity and this iden-
1:27 does indeed associate “humankind”/adam tity is given by God to all humanity…” (p57).
with a plural pronoun as well as a singular pro- Just as the identity of the Trinitarian God is
noun. The author here suggests that the male understood only in the expanse of the canoni-
and female components of the whole (plural)- cal narrative so the knowledge that the imago
not just the whole itself represented by Adam Dei is human identity becomes understood
(singular)- are directly involved with the image- only through the expanse of the Scriptures as
of-God designation. (p. 86). a whole. For instance, the notion of the image
While admitting that Biblical scholars prefer the of God in Genesis 1, Peterson argues, is ambi-
functional view, MacDonald (2008) notes that guous as an isolated phrase but not in the con-
many systematic theologians prefer the relatio- text of the creation narrative. God first decides
nal because of its relevance to other theological to create a creature that will represent Him and
concerns or its fit with the canonical narrative. then humanity is made as that creature bearing
Critics of the relational view point to its relative His image. “The various powers and attributes
novelty. It also requires, perhaps anachronisti- belonging to humanity follow from God’s de-
cally, that one assume a proto-Trinitarian un- termination that humanity will be God’s image”
derstanding of God by the Genesis writer (Barr, (p. 69).
1968, Cortez, 2010). Peterson, like Kilner, repositions the common
functionalist claim that to be in the image
Other Views. While the three categories of views of God is to stand as representative for God.
discussed above represent the predominant Breoth take issue with the notion that this re-
positions in Christian attempts to understand presentation is subsumed by the rule over
the imago Dei, efforts at finding an alternati- creation. Rather the dominion function is just
ve have been increasing in recent years. Some one of the many ways that unfold in Scripture
positions that adopt a teleological view that de- in which the human imago Dei identity leads
emphasize the image of God as something that to humanity imitating God (p. 104). Thus, the
can be equated with current attributes humans imago Dei unfolds throughout the Canon in-
possess. Rather is to be found in those who will cluding the perfect imaging of God by Jesus
exhibit the image of Christ in the future (Kilner, whom His followers are called to imitate.
2015, Peterson, 2016). While such proposals circumvent some of the
Kilner (2015) rejects all three of the primary issues arising with the three major approa-
views of the imago Dei in favor of what McKirk- ches and invite connection with the whole of
land (2015) calls a “non-attributional view”. He the canonical narrative and numerous areas of
states that “actual likeness to God is not what theology, reviewers have raised concerns about

55