The Imago Dei

A Priestly Calling for Humankind

Swann

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781532604072
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

The creation of humankind in the Image of God is perhaps the most foundational tenet of theological anthropology, yet it is rarely understood in the fullness of what it represents. Too often, focus is placed on the divine image as a condition. A study of the Scriptures suggests that it is better understood not as a condition, but rather as a commission of humanity to a role, specifically a priestly role.This book delves into the recognition that the Image of God is nothing less than a divine commission over all of humanity to serve as priests within the temple of creation. It examines not only the creation of humankind as a priesthood in the opening chapters of Genesis, but also the echoes of this anthropological interpretation throughout the Scriptures and the resulting ramifications for future biblical and theological studies.

Chapter 1

Introductory Matters on the Examination of the Image of God as a Priestly Calling

Articulation of Research Problem of Understanding the Image of God

The primary account of biblical creation in Genesis 1 describes humankind in terms of the image of God (צלם אלהים).1 While there are multiple creation accounts distributed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, Genesis 1 serves—both on the basis of its canonical placement and its comprehensive scope—as the foundational account for the understanding of both biblical cosmogony and, perhaps more importantly from a scriptural standpoint, biblical anthropology.2

Since Genesis 1 serves this foundational role, a proper understanding of the divine image assumes significant importance.3 The problem for theological studies, however, is while the image of God is critical for theological anthropological reflection, the specific data surrounding the צלם אלהים is relatively limited.4 The precise phrase occurs only twice in the whole of the Old Testament (Gen 1:27; 9:6), and its closest match (דמות אלהים) only once in Gen 5:1. With a cursory reading, the immediate context of Genesis 1, and even the larger context of Genesis 1–9, provides an ambiguous illustration of how to interpret the divine image and what it entails for humanity.

However, while a precise interpretation of the image of God can be elusive, the implications of the divine image are nonetheless extensive.5 Minimally, the use of the divine image in Gen 9:6 provides the foundational authority underlying the prohibition against homicide and therefore serves as an essential aspect of the valuation of (human) life. This then provides a basis for not only the criminal laws but also the purity and hospitality laws of the Torah.6 The social aspects of the prophets’ oracles also revolve around or serve as extensions of the image of God, as does the Christians’ adoption of the image of Christ (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; Col 3:10–11) in the New Testament.7

The importance of the divine image becomes even more distinctive when the association between Creation theology and the theologies of call/election and covenant are considered. Notably, the first covenant proper in the Old Testament—the Noahic covenant (Gen 9:8–17)—occurs during the re-Creation period following the flood and directly follows the ascription of the divine image and the reiteration of the command issued to Adam to multiply to Noah (Gen 9:1–7; cf. Gen 1:26–31).8 While it lacks the direct reference to the צלם אלהים, the connection between Creation and covenant at Sinai is perhaps even more important. The establishment of Israel as a “treasured possession” of God and a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:5–6) effectively serves as an act of divine creation as the Pentateuch itself interprets the Sinai covenant as a re-creation of the fellowship that existed between God and Adam.9 This interpretation is most easily and directly seen in the comparison of Exod 20:8–11 and Deut 5:12–15, where the saving work of YHWH is directly equated to the Sabbath of Creation.10 This is also further in accord with Philip Davies’ observation that the narrative does not have to declare what “must have happened, but . . . [what] could have happened.”11 The gap between the descriptive and the normative—an issue present within biblical theology since Gabler’s inauguration speech—is largely a false one.12 Historically, there may have been a difference between the Creation and the exodus and Sinai event; theologically they were equivalent acts of deliverance and creation that should be read synchronically rather than diachronically.13 The connection between Genesis 1 and Sinai should be easily accepted, since it is functionally identical to the already accepted connection(s) between soteriology and eschatology and between the (initial) Creation and the final re-Creation that will occur in the Day of the Lord.14 The recognition of these connections and the synchronic nature of biblical creation theology is critical to proper understanding and interpretation of the image of God and respect for the extent of its importance.15

While specifically nuanced interpretations of the divine image abound, all of the interpretations of the divine image can be divided largely into two broad views: either the צלם אלהים is a characteristic/condition of humankind, or it is a commissioning/commandment for humankind.16 The interpretation of the divine image as a condition has been prevalent for much of the church’s history, being explicated by Justin Martyr and Origen as a capacity for reason as early as mid-second century AD and upheld in subsequent centuries by both Catholic and protestant scholars.17 The alternate interpretive position is to recognition that the image of God is not a condition, but a calling or a commissioning describing the expected activity of humankind. While they do not advocate this position in these exact terms or explicitly, the majority of the writings of the early church fathers reveal essentially this mentality. Both Clement and his pseudonymous imitator directly link the idea of the imago Dei with the “work of righteousness” and suggest that living out a righteous life serves as the expression of the צלם אלהים (1 Clem. 33:8; cf. 2 Clem. 9–11).18 Their concern was not so much to define the nature of the image of God as it was to capture the presentation of it. This approach has found something of a resurgence in modern interpretations of the divine image that often focus on the relationship between the image and the aspects of dominion in Gen 1:28.19 While the right to dominion might be a characteristic, the...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Chapter 1: Introductory Matters on the Examination of the Image of God as a Priestly Calling
• Chapter 2: Biblical Study on the Image of God
• Chapter 3: Examination of Biblical Compatibility of the צלם אלהים as a Priestly Calling
• Chapter 4: Examination of Theological Compatibility of the צלם אלהים as a Priestly Calling
• Chapter 5: The Significance of a Priestly אלהים צלם within Biblical Theology
• Chapter 6: Concluding Matters on the Interpretation of the Image of God as a Commission to Priesthood
• Selected Bibliography