In the last post I said the "image" tells us more (or at least as
much) about God than it does man. I just reviewed Berhof's "Systematic
Theology" on the Image. It strikes me as very strange that nowhere does
"classical" theology raise the issue of what it tells us of God. It's
all about "something" distinct in man as compared to other animals. But
nowhere does Scripture- Genesis I, in particular- say we are the image
of some specific aspect of God! It says simply that we are his image!!
All right- "in the image of...." How else could you say it? The
distinction is pedantic. I mention that because someone "corrected" me,
saying that only Christ is "the" image. It doesn't say we are made in
the image of the image. It says simply "in the image of God...." We ARE
the image! Furthermore, "OUR image"!! We are the image of the Holy
Trinity!- You and I. Aside from fallen- what are we; what potential do
we possess? My sense is all the theological speculation misses the main
point. That is, our closeness to God. "God is love". We are able to
know and love, as God does! Whatever else the image may be, I maintain
it is secondary to that. Again, I have the growing sense that- after all
the theologians have speculated- the knowledge of God and love can only
be experienced. Allowing for our fallenness, the "image of God" is, at
the very least, our capacity for pure love.
1 comment:
Bill, I agree with both of your posts about the "image." In these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son... and it is amazing how much Jesus taught us about the Father and His heart by referencing human situations and characters. That brings me to this observation: many Christians ascribe to God characteristics that, if applied to humans, would be considered absolutely abusive. The love we have for our own children, is it self-generated, or are we reflecting our Father in Heaven? Some posit a God whose wrath and anger toward humanity will leave very few of us to share eternity with Him. Who wants to live with a father like that?
Post a Comment