Implications of the Fall & Regeneration
Introduction
Over the centuries no greater subject has been the object of debate and discussion than that of the image of God within man. Little agreement has been made regarding this issue that is at the heart of many doctrines concerning the believer. Is the image substantive, functional, or relational in nature? What affect did the fall of man have regarding the image? Is the image of God something that regenerates within the believer as part of their spiritual journey? These questions and more need to be answered if we are to truly grasp the fullness of this issue.
At the heart of this doctrine is the creation account as found in the first chapter of the book of Genesis. It is here we see, in the 26th and 27th verses the locus of the image of God in man:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
It is with these verses in mind that much debate has taken place, and will continue to do so.
While many theologians have attempted to amplify the total depravity of man at the expense of the image of God in man, in that the image was almost totally lost or so badly tarnished as to no longer be recognizable after the fall, this position holds little biblical weight to support it. While clearly the affects of the fall did in fact have an effect on the image of God within man, the total depravity of man does not compete with or diminish the image of God in man to the extent that is believed. In order to see a more harmonistic approach to these two vital theological topics one must look at the nature of the image of God in man, the implications of the fall of man, and the regeneration of man as it applies to both the fall and the image of God.
It is the components of the nature of the image of God in man, the affects of the fall, and the implications of regeneration, that will be focused on throughout the rest of this paper to find what exactly is at the heart of this most critical doctrine.
The Nature of the Image of God in Man
The first question that must be satisfactorily answered is what exactly is the nature of God in man? The answer to this question will determine in many ways the outcome of the other categories as well. If the image is substantive or structural in nature than it is inherent in humanity and cannot be lost. If it is functional than it is only present in the act of functioning and thus can be lost without the act itself. If it is relational in nature than the image is a choice that is determined by each person. As one can easily see, determining the nature of the image is of critical importance.
Let us first look at the three options available to us before we make such a determination. The first theory that has been held the longest by theologians but is not necessarily looked at as strongly today is that the image of God is substantive in nature. This view identifies the image as some definite characteristic or quality within the human.[1] It is inherent with humanity. What must be noted here is that there is a plethora of views concerning just what that characteristic or quality is within man. Some view it as the physical ability of man to walk upright, while other view it as a psychological or spiritual quality in humans, while still others see it as man’s ability to reason. Clark would assert that it is indeed reason in that this view preserves the unity of man and saves theologians from splitting the image into multiple parts.[2]
It must also be noted that in the beginning many early theologians thought of the image of God in dualistic terms. This is due to the fact that in the Genesis account the word image and likeness is used. Origen would be the first to hold to this view as he saw the image as something given immediately at creation, while the likeness was given by God at a later time.[3] Irenaeus would take this duality even further in his theology, believing that the image was humanity’s resemblance to God (specifically the powers of reason and will), and the likeness was a gift added by God later.[4] However, this thinking does not rightly interpret the text as it is seen in Genesis 1:26, in that image and likeness reinforce one another, and the author does not use them as two distinct expressions.[5]
While there is much variation within the substantive view the agreement can be made that the image in man is within man, and is inherent in a quality or characteristic. It is not something man does, or chooses, but rather is.
The next view concerning the nature of the image of God in man is the functional one. Theologians who espouse this view of the image of God believe that man’s chief uniqueness isn’t in their characteristics or relationships, but rather in their function as it relates to the rest of creation.[6] Proponents of this view hold that verse 26 and 27 in Genesis chapter 1 are conjoined and that when the author states that God made man in his image, that image is man’s dominion over the earth. As Stephen Herring so aptly puts it:
“The function or purpose of making humanity as the extension of the deity is found in the blessing to create a humanity which produces progeny in keeping with that image and likeness, and, further, is to subdue and rule over the cosmic temple.”[7]
Humans then only exercise the image of God in the act of their dominion or procreation, it is not something within them, but an action made possible only by God himself. Just as God himself rules over the entire Cosmos with absolute sovereignty, man rules over the earth as his appointed representatives. It is in this act of dominion that the image of God is present within man. This view draws heavily from the philosophical thinking known as pragmatism which stresses function and purpose over all else.[8]
The final view concerning the image of God in man would be the relational view. This view holds that the image of God in man is displayed when practiced within a particular relationship, which in fact is the image itself. One of the most famous theologians to hold this view would be Karl Barth. Barth believed that man was created capable of action and responsibility in relation to God, a partner as it were although not in the fullness or same level as God. Thus in man’s ability to act in relation to God, others, and creation, they manifest a similarity to God.[9] Barth saw the image of God as consisting of not only the vertical relationship between humanity and God, but also in the horizontal relationship between humans themselves.[10] This means that in humans the quality that resembles the divine original is relationship, such as it exists within the Trinity.[11]
This places the image of God squarely on the side of choice. Individual humans exercise whether or not they wish to have relationship with God and others, and thus choose whether or not to exhibit the image of God. Put simply, humanity chooses whether to resemble God or not.
A more critical look at each of these views is warranted. Substantialists run into trouble on a few different fronts. The first being their penchant for dualistically approaching the concepts of image and likeness as found in Genesis chapter one. While it is true that the author of Genesis did in fact use two different terms in these verses, they do not spell out two different concepts. To read this into the text is to stretch the true sense of the text too far.
Another potential weakness within the substantialist view is idea that the image is a physical manifestation within man; most notably held by Mormons. That the image of God in man is physical in nature is a direct contradiction to the make-up of God as He clearly has no body.
As far as the functional view is concerned, it misplaces the role of the divine image within man. The dominion over all creatures is not the content of the image, but the consequence of it.[12] The image is not the act of dominion itself, but rather man has the ability to rule over creation precisely because of the image of God placed within them. To put it simply, when a young boy sees his father mowing the lawn and then begin to mimic him, we do not say he is in his father’s image, but rather that the young boy is acting like his father. The act of the young boy does not imply image. The young boy is in the image of his father because he is his offspring, not because he is mowing the yard in mimicry. This also holds true concerning the concept of the divine image in man. Man is not made in the image of God because we copy a characteristic (in a much lesser degree) of Him, but it is because we are his creation.
One aspect of the functional view has brought focus though to a very important issue concerning Imago Dei and the relationship that this doctrine has to ecological responsibility. Man has been put over creation to have dominion over it, and as such humanity must maintain a conscious about our stewardship and how we as rulers in fact, rule. I would wholeheartedly agree with David Bryant when he states that the image of God in man, “also gives humanity a unique responsibility before God and requires self-awareness, freedom, and creativity.”[13] One could in fact goes as far as Niskanen, in saying that human rulership over creation could be a finger pointing to the image of God.[14]
Finally, we look more critically at the relational view. While it answers many questions concerning the image of God in man, in many ways it mirrors the functional approach. Man is in God’s image only when he is acting in relationship to God or others. The function of relationship is the locus of the image. It is precisely man’s ability to have a relationship that is in fact the image of God in them. This makes God’s image a choice rather than an attribute. I choose whether or not I will have relationship with God. Barth’s counter to this, that man is in constant relationship with God whether it be negative or positive is weak at best. How is no relationship negative? If I choose not to have relationship with another person, how is that negative. It has a sum zero impact. Would this not apply to God as well?
Having looked at all these views of the image of God in man, it is easy to see that clearly the divine image is substantive in nature, rather than functional or relational. While one can appreciate what these other approaches have brought to the table concerning the image of God in man, they clearly have more holes and lack sufficient biblical support to back their claims up. The image of God is something that we are, not something that we have or do.[15]
This view is not without its dangers or pitfalls. One must be quick to understand that there is in fact a unity between image and likeness as they are found in Genesis one. Secondly, one must guard themselves from narrowing in on the nature of the image of God too much. It becomes very easy to attempt to singularize or minimize the image of God in man into one concept or one area, where clearly no distinctions reside. The Bible does not clarify the exact nature of the image in the sense that it is this or that component. It could in fact be many components or characteristics, or it could be singular in nature. Without clear biblical support it is impossible to know for sure.
Now that we have a clearer understanding of the nature of the divine image in man, it is critical to look at the implications of this nature as it applies to the fall of man. Here we will look at the sustainability of the image of God.
The Divine Image and the Fall of Man
What must be asked now, after determining the nature of the Imago Dei, is what affect if any, did original sin and the fall of man have upon it. Here again much debate has been brought forth with little consensus being found. What’s at stake here is whether or not the divine image can be lost, forfeited, or chosen. Is it something given by God that can easily be taken back, or is it something inherent in man regardless of the fall? These are critical questions to look at because they truly cut to the heart of man and theologically how we see humanity.
As theologians over the centuries began to grapple with the consequences of sin, beginning as early as Augustine as he faced off against pelagianism, more and more the doctrine of total depravity came into focus. Total depravity is a belief that because of the effects of the fall of man, the original fellowship with God has been broken and man’s entire nature has been corrupted.[16] Those who adhere to total depravity also believe that this corruption afforded by the fall spread to the entire nature of man, leaving nothing untouched in its wake, including the divine image. Simply put, Imago Dei was sacrificed at the altar of total depravity. No longer did man carry the image of God as it was originally intended, but it is somehow marred, lost, broken, or forfeited.[17]
Irenaeus, who was a proponent of total depravity, believed that God had always intended to give humanity a share of his divine nature, but over time as it would take some getting used to. This belief sprung from his differentiation between image and likeness that was talked about earlier. He believed that man forfeited their opportunity to share in this divine nature by sinning, and grasping for what can only be given.[18] Thus, the fall of man into sin destroyed a major component of the image of God in man.
The question needs to be asked though, does the doctrine of total depravity where man is no longer capable of doing good on his own demand that the image of God within man be destroyed, tarnished, or broken? Secondly, is there any biblical support for the destruction of this doctrine? The answers are a resounding no.
Let’s look at the biblical data first regarding humanity after the fall regarding the divine image. The first such verse is found in Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” Here we have a verse in Genesis that comes after Adam and Eve’s original sin that once again strongly states that man is made in the image of God. Not only does this verse state such, but is tied to a direct law by God that no man should kill another precisely because man is still in God’s image. All life is God’s and even more so human life. At minimum one could gather that the author of Genesis himself did not believe that the divine image was lost after the fall. At best, without arguing for the inspiration of Scripture, one can see that God himself does not believe that his image has been lost in man. We are left with no ambiguity here; God does not state that we still bear a flawed or partial image of him, or that we have a tarnished image, but we are still in the image of God.
One can also see the concept of image being present through the use of “children of the Lord,” or, “children of God,” throughout the Bible (Deut. 14:1). Just as a child bears the image of their parent, so the children of God bear his image as well.
Another critical verse to look at is found in Ephesians 4:22-24:
You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
This verse has been used many times to show that according to Paul the image of God had been lost in man and there was a need for regeneration of it. This, however, distorts the context of the text and the purpose for which Paul is writing. Paul is not asserting that the divine image has been lost, but rather that man is lost in sin. The “old self” as it were is corrupted and polluted, but the “new self”, which believers inherit when they come into a relationship with Jesus Christ, makes them more and more like God in the ways of righteousness and holiness.
If one were to say that Paul is talking about the doctrine of Imago Dei here, they would also have to come to the conclusion that according to Pauline theology the image was righteousness and holiness. It’s not God’s image that is at stake here, but rather his nature and qualities. The fall of man then damaged man’s nature and way of life, hindering humanity’s ability to be like God in righteousness and holiness.
Another verse that is looked up concerning the image of God within man is also by Paul, and is found in Colossians 3:9-10: “Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” This verse speaks more strongly concerning the image of God than the previous one in Ephesians. However, is Paul talking about the doctrine of Imago Dei, or is this another example of Paul alluding to a new life in Jesus Christ as opposed to the old life that was dead in sin? A closer examination of the text is warranted.
What is abundantly clear here is that Paul is talking to the Colossians about the opposing lifestyles concerning their old sinful habits and way of life versus their new lives as they are found in Jesus Christ. Humanity in sin is out of shape and distorts everything whether by manipulation, anger, or lying. Once they accept the new life in Christ they are straightened out as it were by the perfect example set forth in Christ.[19] This is an all too familiar doctrine of Paul’s; since one has been renewed, they should live like a renewed person.[20] The standard for this renewal that Paul talks about is none other than the image of the one who created it.[21]
Paul is clearly not talking about the doctrine of Imago Dei here, but rather the nature or qualities of the new self that we put on in Jesus Christ. That new self is renewed in the knowledge of the image of its creator, not man himself. To be renewed then in accordance with the image of God really refers to the process of becoming more and more like Christ.[22] To draw the conclusion from Colossians that the divine image is in disrepair or distorted within man is to read too much into the text that simply isn’t there. It is the new life in Christ that is renewed in the image of its creator, not the divine image.
In looking at the biblical data that is presented to the reader one can clearly see that there is no biblical support for the distortion or destruction of the Image of God within man. If anything, Genesis 9 shows that the divine image is still very much present within humanity after the fall. The only logical conclusion to draw from Scriptures is the view of a sustained image of God within man. Man did in fact fall, man did in fact distort and corrupt many things, but through the fall and original sin, man maintained and continues to maintain the divine image.
The question then becomes, can the doctrines of total depravity and sustained Imago Dei coexist? Like most circumstances in life, the answer lies a little more in the middle than one would think. While it can be agreed that Augustine was right in declaring that man was incapable of doing good for good’s sake, and that man was rightly totally bad after the fall, this does not mean that God’s image is no longer with humanity. Perhaps a little license is due to pelagianism in the arena of this critical doctrine. While man is totally corrupt and in the absolute wrong, he still bears the indelible mark of the Creator. While the fall of man effectively tarnished the entire nature of man, it did not destroy or hurt God’s image. These are not contradictory views in the least.
The Divine Image in Regards to Regeneration
In answering the critical question of whether or not the fall of man had a direct and negative consequence on Imago Dei, we have in affect, answered the question of what role regeneration plays within this doctrine. Since the image of God has not been tarnished or destroyed by the fall, it stands to reason that man is not in need of regenerating, as it were, through salvation.
While man is not in need of regeneration in regards to the inherent image within, there is a most definite link between renewal and the process of living up to the image that we bear. For example, we cannot state that Paul is delving into the topic of the divine image in Colossians 3:10, but what we can see is that Paul is overly concerned with those who have put on their new life, that they live a life that lives up to the image of it’s Creator. That same image is not only in the new life, but is also found inherently within all of humanity. According to Paul, old humanity which is lost in sin is incapable of living up to the new life which is based on the image of its creator. Those who have accepted the new life though are perfectly capable of living that life out though. This coincides very nicely with what the writer of Genesis was alluding to concerning Imago Dei.
In drawing parallels with other near eastern cultures concerning the concept of the divine image, the writer of Genesis was showing that humanity was and is little statues or representations of God on this earth.[23] Humanity then has a representative function in that they must live out that image. Paul shows that once humanity fell they were incapable of doing so, but through the power of Christ all can live up to the standard God has set forth. The representative possibility is again restored as a means has been achieved to do so through Christ. The innate image isn’t gone, but the ability to live up to that image has been restored.
In conclusion, the Image of God within man is clearly inherent within all of humanity, and is substantive in nature. In essence, the divine image is something that we are, not something that we do or choose. It is not simply the relationship between humanity and God, or humanity with humanity for that matter. Nor is it merely an action or function which reduces it to nothing more than mechanical in nature. It is a characteristic or quality that is within man, and it resembles God.
It has also been concluded that the fall of man into sin did nothing to tarnish or destroy God’s image in man as was clearly seen in Genesis 9:6. While man’s nature may be totally corrupted and distorted, the image remained through the fall and is still present to this day. Simply put, the image of God has been sustained even through sin. This does not put the doctrine of Imago Dei at odds with total depravity. Man is totally and absolutely in sin and corrupt, but that does not preclude that humanity no longer bears God’s image, and what’s more this thinking lacks any real biblical support.
In regards to regeneration, the image itself needs no regenerating as it has been sustained through the fall. However, man’s ability to live up to that image and be the representative that God created him to be is in need of regeneration. A new life through Jesus Christ is the means by which all of humanity can begin to live up to the image placed in them by God.
Bryant, david J. 2000. “Imago Dei, Imagination, and Ecological Responsibility.”
Theology Today 57, no. 1:35-50. ATLA Religious Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed Oct. 10th, 2010).
Clark, Gordon H. “The Image of God in Man”. Journal of the Evangelical TheologicalSociety Volume XII (Fall 1969): 215-222. (accessed September 1st, 2010).
Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library). 2 ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd Edition. (Grand Rapids, Baker Books). March, 2000.
Herring, Stephen L. 2008. "A "transubstantiated" humanity: the relationship between the divine image and the presence of God in Genesis i 26f." Vetus testamentum 58, no. 4-5: 480-494. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 14, 2010).
Munyon, Timothy. “The Creation of the Universe and Humankind,” Systematic Theology, Edited by Horton, Stanley. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press), Pg. 252.
Johnson, David H. 1992. "The image of God in Colossians." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 3, no. 2: 9-15. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 14, 2010).
Kidner, Derek. Genesis (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries). Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008.
Krötke, Wolf. "The humanity of the human person in Karl Barth’s anthropology." The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth. Ed. John Webster. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Cambridge Collections Online. Cambridge University Press. 15 October 2010
Niskanen, Paul. 2009. "The poetics of Adam: the creation of." Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3: 417-436. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 14, 2010).
Towner, W Sibley. 2005. "Clones of God: Genesis 1:26-28 and the image of God in the Hebrew Bible." Interpretation 59, no. 4: 341-356. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 14, 2010).
Vogel, Jeff. 2007. “The haste of sin, the slowness of salvation: an interpretation of Irenaeus on the fall and redemption.” Anglican Theological Review 89, no. 3: 443
459. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 8th, 2010).
Wright, N. T. Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008.
[1] Erickson, Milliard. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), Pg. 520.
[2] Clark, Gordon H. “The Image of God in Man,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume XII (Fall 1969): Pg. 219.
[3] Erickson, Milliard. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), Pg. 522.
[4] Ibid, Pg. 522.
[5] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries) (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), page 55.
[6] Johnson, David H. 1992. "The image of God in Colossians." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 3, no.2. Pg. 10.
[7] Herring, Stephen L. 2008. "A "transubstantiated" humanity: the relationship between the divine image and the presence of God in Genesis 1:26." Vetus testamentum 58, no. 4-5, Pg. 491.
[8] Erickson, Milliard. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), Pg. 529.
[9] Krötke, Wolf. "The humanity of the human person in Karl Barth’s anthropology." The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, (Cambridge Collections Online. Cambridge University Press), Pg. 167.
[10] Erickson, Milliard. Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books), Pg. 524.
[11] Towner, W Sibley. 2005. "Clones of God: Genesis 1:26-28 and the image of God in the Hebrew Bible." Interpretation 59, no. 4, Pg. 343.
[12] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries) (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), page 56.
[13] Bryant, David J., “Imago Dei, Imagination, and Ecological Responsibility.” Theology Today 5 no. 1, Pg. 37.
[14] Niskanen, Paul. 2009. "The poetics of Adam: the creation of." Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 3, Pg. 128.
[15] Munyon, Timothy. “The Creation of the Universe and Humankind,” Systematic Theology, Edited by Horton, Stanley. (Springfield, MO: Logion Press), Pg. 252.
[16] Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library). 2 ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic), Pg. 337.
[17] Clark, Gordon H. “The Image of God in Man,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume XII (Fall 1969): Pg. 218.
[18] Vogel, Jeff. “The Haste of Sin, the Slowness of Salvation: An Interpretation of Irenaeus on the Fall and Redemption,” Anglican Theological Review 89, no. 3, Pg. 443.
[19] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), page 142.
[20] Johnson, David H. 1992. "The image of God in Colossians." Didaskalia (Otterburne, Man.) 3, no.2. Pg. 11.
[21] Ibid, Pg. 11.
[22] Ibid, Pg. 12.
[23] Bryant, David J., “Imago Dei, Imagination, and Ecological Responsibility.” Theology Today 5 no. 1, Pg. 36.
No comments:
Post a Comment