Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Kerygmania: In the image of God
Genesis 1:26-27 NRSV - Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Colossians 1:15 NRSV - He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; [/ quote]
In no way am I suggesting that what is meant by image in relation to Jesus and what is meant by image in relation to humankind is the same thing, but they are translated as the same English word. This morning I was pondering my ongoing 'struggle' to relate to Jesus when this popped into my mind. It is hard to convey all the internal discussion I had and I have forgotten most of it but it did make me wonder if maybe what these passages are telling me is that here at least in some degree I can relate to Jesus. The incarnated Jesus. In some way I am drawn to Him as in some way we are alike more than just being human0. There is a part of me, a part that is not as visible as it should be, that I am created in the image of God and that more than anything else should determine how I relate to others, indeed to all creation.
As Jesus conducts himself, revealing the image of God within creation, so humankind (me) was created to reveal the image of God within creation?
I am not sure if the origional Hebrew of Genesis and the origional Greel of Colossians reveal any more? I would appreciate your thoughts and imput.
Comments
When I guess at what more precisely I come up with three things:
There are other takes.
Jengie
We get the word icon directly from this, and there are some interesting ideas in Orthodox theology/spirituality about how icons are a window on to the divine. However, the correspondence that interests me is that the same word is used by Plato to describe the shadows on the wall in his famous allegory of the Cave: what we see as reality is just the shadows that the true forms of things cast when lit from behind.
You might see that as a way of reconciling the idea of the infinity of God with the reality of humanity sharing in that divinity in some way - it’s a necessarily limited sharing and understanding, the shadow of God rather than the cosmic fullness, but it’s God's divine spark none the less.
Psalm 29
A Psalm of David.
Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings,
ascribe to the Lord glory and strength.
Ascribe to the Lord the glory of his name;
worship the Lord in holy splendour.
The voice of the Lord is over the waters;
the God of glory thunders,
the Lord, over mighty waters.
The voice of the Lord is powerful;
the voice of the Lord is full of majesty.
The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars;
the Lord breaks the cedars of Lebanon.
He makes Lebanon skip like a calf,
and Sirion like a young wild ox.
The voice of the Lord flashes forth flames of fire.
The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness;
the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh.
The voice of the Lord causes the oaks to whirl,
and strips the forest bare;
and in his temple all say, ‘Glory!’
The Lord sits enthroned over the flood;
the Lord sits enthroned as king for ever.
May the Lord give strength to his people!
May the Lord bless his people with peace!
One of the consequences of the FallTM is that humanity is cursed in the ability to fulfill this task, and so humanity's efforts will involve suffering and frustration.
But Christ is the 'second Adam', he is the image of God that is able to fulfill the task of subduing the earth and filling the earth. I take it that this is why Paul can talk about the creation of male and female and the 'one flesh' relationship in Genesis 2 as actually referring to Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5
The doctrine of God's Impassability has been taken to imply God does not suffer. You can google 'Does God suffer' to get plenty more on that argument. As I said I reject the argument on the grounds of the cross but that still is a heretical view to some.
It might be heretical to some, but the church fathers were wrong - as they were wrong about lot of stuff.
I prefer to go with the Bible, nit with some Greek philosophical nonsense.
More protestant absurdity. You don't have the Bible, you have the Bible as interpreted through some framework. You don't like that of the Greek fathers. But you have your own just as much. You do NOT have the pure Biblical text compared to everybody else's interpretation. You have an interpretation just as much. Your words here are not so much heretical as arrogantly ignorant.
Jengie
We are all evidently to have no certain beliefs, not even Biblical ones, and we are all to have an emotionless, uncaring, unempathetic god like the ones on Mt Olympus.
Jesus suffered on it, but the Father suffered the loss of his Son. (Moltmann of course).
I am not sure about the Spirit but as we do not believe that the Spirit of God left Jesus, leaving him to die as a mere man, then we can safely say that the Spirit was there with him.
What we cannot say is that the Father and Spirit died.
Passive aggressive bullshit.
I think it makes no sense to say the eternal Godhead could suffer. I think that's one of the reasons for the incarnation -- Christ couldn't suffer unless he was both God and Man.
Or that?
Have you read any Greek myths lately?
Square that with the central nature of the cross to Christian understanding of who God is. If God is uniquely revealed in Christ crucified I am afraid your take is a real watering down of that revelation.
Jengie
Neither did the Son.
".. the Epicureans (see Epikoureios Greek #1946). (i) They believed that everything happened by chance. (ii) They believed that death was the end of all. (iii) They believed that the gods were remote from the world and did not care."
William Barclay, on Acts 17
That's what I meant -the gods were remote and do not care. They do not suffer with us or like us.
I think it makes no sense because we have been inculturated into a worldview that says it makes no sense. But logically, there is no reason why God could not suffer. And biblically, even apart from the cross/incarnation, we see God experience suffering quite frequently-- God is angry, brokenhearted, sorrowful, frustrated-- all sorts of emotions, both good and bad. Indeed, I think it's quite odd (and again, unbiblical) to suggest God is capable of all the "positive" emotions-- joy, delight, pleasure-- and none of the negative ones.
You think the Epicureans were the only ones who got the Greek gods right, and the vast majority of other people in that culture were wrong? Based on what?
No, but it was them whom I was referencing.
Why do you have to disagree with so much hostility?
If you don't know about hostility, then let me draw your attention to "protestant absurdity" and "arrogantly ignorant", "passive aggressive bullshit", as well as "stupid things" in the above referenced quote.
Please dial it down.
Mamacita, Keryg Host
Dialing.
Yes, and IMV this does connect to the question in the OP. ISTM that the cross was a convergence point. A trans dimensional cosmic event where the spirit met flesh, where God and man intersected.
God as it were, died in his incarnate form but he was not killed, rather he chose to give up his humanity but it was supernaturally engineered so that an atonement occurred that now and forever, dictates the fate everyone human born before or since.
In that sense, it has the potential to imprint the image of God into us..humanity.
BTW, someone wrote a book about Jesus keeping to script..’The Passover Plot?’
How could he sort the script to be killed with the thieves, not have a bone broken and be buried in a rich man’s tomb? They always used to break legs after prolonging the agony sufficiently.