The Substantive Interpretation and Eschatological Interpretation of Imago Dei

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them male and female.

Genesis 1: 26-27 (HCSB)

The phrase ‘God created man in His own image’ has been the core of how I value others and myself – equal in God’s eyes. Basing the interpretation of being made in God’s image only on the limited mention of the subject in the book of Genesis drives people to conclude the ideal views that,“All human beings participate in the image of God, regardless of gender or generation; only human beings are created in this image, thus they are distinguished from the nonhuman animals; and human life is to be valued because of God’s image” (Herzfeld 13). Unfortunately, these views do not define what it means to be made in the image of God. Thus in this paper I will outline and critique two interpretations of the image of God: the substantive interpretation which is adopted by the church fathers and reformers, and the eschatological interpretation – a more contemporary 20th century interpretation.

The interpretation of what it means to be made in God’s image has been one of the most vexing problems (Huyssteen 119). According to the Genesis 1-15 Biblical Commentary, being made in God’s image is the capacity for man to relate to God. Therefore God can enter into personal relationships with man, speak to man, and make covenants with man (Wenham 31).

One of the most influential and classical interpretation of the imago Dei is the the Substantive interpretation. Substantive refers to the substance of God that man also has. This interpretation might have been based on Genesis 3:22a “Then the Lord said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil.” (ESV) This view interprets the ‘knowing’ or knowledge as the similar substance of God that man has. The imago Dei in this interpretation is most often directly associated with reason, rationality, and intellect, which are human capacities which animals do not possess (Huyssteen 126). This is why Aristotelians defined human beings as the zōon logon echōn (“living being having logos”) or the rational animal (Shults 223).

Early theologians and church fathers adopted this interpretation, although at the same time they adopted misogynistic tendencies as well. “The image of God was very closely and most directly connected with males, who were allegedly better ruled by reason, while females were tied to their embodiedness” (Huyssteen 127). Augustine claims that, “There is no doubt that man was made to the body, nor according to any part of the soul, but according to the rational mind wherein the knowledge of God can exist” (Herzfeld 16). He also wrote that the image of God exists as a triunity: memory, understanding, and will (Huyssteen 128). Augustine was one church father who adopted the misogynist view in which his understanding of being made in God’s image only applied to men, based it on 1 Cor. 11:7 “For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man” (NRSV).

Thomas Aquinas believed that it was the intellectual nature of humanity to imitate God in three ways: “in natural aptitude for understanding and loving God, which as such consists in the very nature of human mind; inasmuch as man actually knows and loves God, although imperfectly, this image then exists in the conformity of grace; [and] inasmuch as man knows and loves God perfectly, this image consists in the likeness of Glory” (Huyssteen 128). Aquinas also tries to link reason and the image of God stating that, “Only in a rational creature do you find a resemblance to God in the manner of an image…. Now what puts the rational creature in a higher class than others is precisely intellect or mind. So it follows that not even in the rational creature will you find God’s image except with reference to mind” (Shults 225). In his interpretation, Aquinas uses the terms “image” of God as human essential nature (rationality) and the “likeness” – a supernatural gift (righteousness). He claims that man, who is estranged from God, is still capable of “natural reason” because this is essential in the human being (rational soul) and therefore, cannot be destroyed by human sin (Shults 226).

Unlike Aquinas, Martin Luther, a church reformer, does not separate the term “image” and “likeness”. To Luther, “image and likeness” was in fact holiness, which the primal parents lost with their first sin and therefore, both human intellect and will were seriously impaired after the Fall (Huyssteen 129). Made in the image of God means that human beings were created, “by a special plan and providence of God” for a better spiritual life in the future (Huyssteen 130). As a reformer who respects the church fathers, Luther did not appear to make distinctions between male and female regarding imago Dei. In fact he contends, “had Eve not sinned, she would have been entirely equal to Adam – her punishment is to be subject to man” (Gonzalez 53). He argues that when Adam and Eve were created, they had an egalitarian relationship and were meant to rule the world together (Gonzalez 54).

Another reformation leader, John Calvin, describes the imago Dei as, “righteousness, knowledge, and holiness, a triad that clearly emphasizes conformity to God, a conformity that restores what the first parents had lost” (Huyssteen 131). For Calvin, the image in the book of Genesis refers to a “spiritual” image which consists of the mind, heart, soul, and its powers (Shults 227). Similar to Luther, Calvin also rejects the distinction between imago and similitudo because he argues that, “human self-knowledge cannot be separated from knowledge of God” (Shults 227). In terms of gender, he always insisted that, “men and women were created in God’s image, he also accepted traditional qualifications, i.e., that the women was derived from the man and therefore possessed the image of God in derivative sense” (Huyssteen 131).

Despite this interpretation being adopted by the church fathers and reformers, the Substantive interpretation has been highly criticized in recent years. Noreen L. Herzfeld in his book In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit, point out three criticisms of this interpretation: the imago Dei interpretation in terms of reason, will, or knowledge, “however broadly defined, is the almost inevitable mind/body dualism – an anthropology that sees the divine only in mental aspects of the human person denigrates the physical” (19); reason is the instrument of domination over nature and even other human beings – an instrument that focuses on the end rather than on, “determining the soundness of [human] goals” (Herzfeld 20); and the substance that human have in common with God is suggested to be innate therefore, “we are not responsible for our innate capacities” (Herzfeld 20).

The second interpretation, Eschatological interpretation, although considered a contemporary 20th century interpretation, its interpretation has actually been used since the time of Irenaeus. Irenaeus believed that Adam and Eve were not created perfect; rather he pictured them as innocent children who will one day be mature and righteous adult. His focus was on the, “recapitulation of creation in Christ, wherein redemption is not a return to an original order but a gracious transformation beyond the initial conditions of human existence” (Shults 221). Another point is that it is the destiny of Christians to become a copy or prototype of Christ when they receive the Spirit (Shults 222). This eschatological interpretation is based on not only the temporal mode of ‘future’ in which the future human will become God’s image, but also on the, “absolute future of God’s reign of peace that has arrived and is arriving and will ultimately arrive through the presence of the Spirit of Christ” (Huyssteen 139).

Two best-known contemporary proponents on this interpretation are Wolhart Pannenberg and Jürgen Moltmann. Wolhart Pannenberg connects human nature and the image of God through the term “exocentricity” where unlike the static substance (innate), human nature and God’s image has a dynamic relation that points human beings toward a future destiny – being formed into the image of God (Shults 236). This eschatological interpretation can only come from the fact that Christ has resurrected and therefore provided an eschatological hope (Pannenberg 2: 220). Jesus Christ in this interpretation is the fulfillment of the hope and hence, “belonging to Jesus can be for believers individually a guarantee of future participation in the salvation of the new life that became a reality in Jesus” (Pannenberg 3: 550). It is therefore only through a relationship with Christ that humans can meet their eschatological future destiny.

Jürgen Moltmann's interpretation of imago Dei is based on, “Just as creation is for the sabbath, so human beings are created as the image of God for the divine glory” (Moltmann 216). In his interpretation, Moltmann includes all human beings as the designated imago Dei, “But believers are those who respond to the messianic calling and become imitation Chirsti: yet they still look forward to the eschatological consummation in which as glorified human beings the will become Gloria Dei, the glory of God” (Shults 237). Moltmann explains that human beings are now in a “fragmentary form” (mirror) that will then in the future be seen “face to face” with God (Moltmann 228). He concludes his eschatological interpretation through theosis, becoming-one-with-God, the concept of ‘seeing’, “for the seeing face to face and the seeing him as is, transforms the seer into the One seen and allows him to participate in the divine life and beauty” (Moltmann 229) – humanity’s ultimate destiny.

As far as I researched, there is no strong argument against the eschatological interpretation. The reason lies in the fact that this interpretation does not exclude the other interpretations, “but may incorporate and integrate them” (Shults 237). Even in terms of substance, human rationality, and righteousness, this interpretation includes “an anticipation of [an] ideal future” (Shults 238). For example in Calvin’s view of imago Dei:

“We now begin to bear the image of Christ, and we are daily being transformed into it more and more; but the image depends upon spiritual regeneration. But then, it will be restored to fullness, in our body as well as our soul; what has now begun will be brought to completion, and we will obtain in reality what as yet we are only hoping for” (Shults 238)

Even in this statement there is a hint of eschatology, the fact that we are transformed into the fullness in the end – the image of God.

In conclusion, out of many interpretations the eschatological interpretation might be the best way of explaining what it means to be made in the image of God because, unlike the static nature of substantive interpretation, it accommodates other interpretations. In a sense, other interpretations might be trying to limit the possible meanings of imago Dei or even to limit God’s divine image. On the other hand, the eschatological interpretation shows the human aspect of trying to relate to God and at the same time, opening ways for other interpretations and for further learning. After all, the fact that we are created in God’s image has become our motivation to find out what is God’s image in order to understand both ourselves and our Creator even better.

Works Cited

Gonzalez, Michelle A. Created in God’s Image: An Introduction to Feminist Theological Anthropology. New York: Orbis, 2007. Print.

Herzfeld, Noreen L. In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002. Print.

Huyssteen, J Wentzel van. Alone in the World? Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006. Print.

Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. Minneapolis: Fortpress Press,1993. Print.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1991. Print.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Systematic Theology. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman, 1991. Print.

Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 2003. Print.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15 World Biblical Commentary. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987. Print.

#business #technology #London #tech #notebook