I meet Thursdays with a
small group of men at a local coffee shop to discuss Louis Berkhof’s Systematic
Theology (1939). Last week we read the section on the image of God (imago
Dei) in human beings. I was just a little irked that the Dutchman was very
reluctant concerning the view that I personally hold: the image of God in man
is primarily the dominion he was to hold over all creation.
He started out in his historical summary of the
doctrine: “The Socinians and some of the earlier Arminians taught that the
image of God consisted only in man’s dominion over the lower creation” (pg.
203). Yeah, I didn’t appreciate being lumped in with these guys.
Later, Berkhof – still seeming reluctant – discusses
the reasoning why dominion is considered a possible aspect of the image Dei:
“There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether man’s dominion over the
lower creation also formed a part of the image of God. This is not surprising
in view of the fact that Scripture does not express itself explicitly on this
point. Some regard the dominion in question simply as an office conferred on
man, and not as a part of the image. But notice that God mentions man’s
creation in the divine image and his dominion over the lower creation in a
single breath, Gen. 1:26. It is indicative of the glory and honour with which
man is crowned, Ps. 8:5,6” (pg. 205). Honestly, the fact that the imago Dei and
dominion are mentioned in the same God-breath should mean that the issue is
profoundly settled, and that any discussion of the topic ought to start here
and only very reluctantly leave! I’ll return to this in a moment, but I
seriously wonder how Berkhof can say “that Scripture does not express itself
explicitly on this point”?!
“To sum up it may be said that the image consists:
(a) In the soul or spirit of man, that is, in the qualities of simplicity,
spirituality, invisibility, and immortality. (b) In the psychical powers or
faculties of man as a rational and moral being, namely, the intellect and the
will with their functions. (c) In the intellectual and moral integrity of man’s
nature, revealing itself in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, Eph.
4:24; Col. 3:10. (d) In the body, not as a material substance, but as the fit
organ of the soul, sharing its immortality; and as the instrument through which
man can exercise dominion over the lower creation. (e) In man’s dominion over
the earth. In opposition to the Socinians, some Reformed scholars went too far
in the opposite direction, when they regarded this dominion as something that
did not belong to the image at all but was the result of a special disposal of
God” (pg. 207). Berkhof himself seems to have been influenced by this going
“too far,” but at least he included dominion in his summation.
I’m not saying that the imago
Dei is limited solely to dominion (I think Berkhof does a good job covering
the other possibilities and their biblical basis), but consider it to be the
scripturally primary and foundational aspect.
In the dawning days of the
new creation, the second Adam gives His spiritual children a “Great Commission”
(the new covenant version of Genesis 1:28). It is framed by the dominion He
holds as the Man in perfect reflection of God’s image (2 Corinthians 4:4;
Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3): “All authority has been given to Me in
heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching
them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).
(By the way, the plural
pronouns of Genesis 1:26 find their echo in the Trinitarian baptismal formula
of Matthew 28:19 in the creation of a new humanity at the head of the new
creation.)
Dominion is one of the
foundational biblical principles behind the idea of “good news,” or Gospel: “How
lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces
peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to
Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” (Isaiah 52:7).
The imago Dei in the
second Adam is manifested in His absolute authority over all of Creation. He is
“the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5), the One Who “overcame
and sat down with [His] Father on His throne” (3:21), the One Who is
named “King of kings and Lord of lords” (19:16), and is “the root and
descendant of David” (the eschatological King, 22:16). Remember, too, that
Jesus, sole authoritative Exegete of the Father (John 1:18), speaks constantly
of “Kingdom” during His earthly ministry (something near 120 times!).
From the standpoint of a
thoroughgoing biblical theology, dominion should be viewed as the chief aspect
of the imago Dei. Humanity was to display the absolute sovereignty and
reign of God on His eternal throne. We cannot think of ourselves without
thinking of the King.
As I told the men last
Thursday morning, the idea of the imago Dei is not just abstraction.
Berkhof rightly touches on the moral/ethical implication when he says, “the
doctrine of the image of God in man is of the greatest importance in theology,
for that image is the expression of that which is most distinctive in man and
in his relation to God” (pg. 206). He further points out that “the Bible
represents murder as the destruction...of the image of God in man, Gen. 9:6”
(pg. 205). I made the point to the men that how we define personhood and what our
attitude is toward persons is determined largely by our doctrine of the imago
Dei. What qualifies as “human” and how humans are to be treated is on the
forefront of our society’s ethical identity crisis.
Well, that basically where
it ended in the coffee shop the other day, but I’ve been thinking about it
further since then, convinced that I was missing something obvious and more
basic to the discussion. I think I found it today while splitting some firewood
for kindling in the backyard this morning.
“Then God said, ‘Let Us
make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule...’” (Genesis 1:26). Perhaps more foundational to the doctrine of
imago Dei is not what it is, exactly, but the fact that it is fact as a result
of the proclamation of God. There needs to be a logocentric point at the base
level of any consideration of this doctrine, I would think. The creation of
God’s image in humanity at creation and the new humanity in the new creation is
Word-based. When we are Word-centered, thinking God’s thoughts after Him,
seeking to obey what He has commanded, aligning our relationships according to
His revealed will, and viewing everything by a Word-created worldview, we will
most accurately embody the imago Dei in this life. Merely exercising
dominion, having morality, self-aware intelligence, respect for our bodies,
existing in community (Berkhof didn’t mention this one, but I’ve read it in
later 20th century systematic theologies), or any other option in
the discussion of this doctrine, are all worthless unless they grow out of the
presence of Scripture alone. “God said” must be the ground of our
self-understanding as the imago Dei. As the apostle Peter said, “you
have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is,
through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). It comes
through the Christian community: “...this is the word which was preached to
you” (1:25). The imago Dei is the presence of that Word which is
God’s.
The imago Dei is
introduced by its ground, “God said,” not just in the Scripture, but in
truth (for the “Word is truth,” John 17:17). It is not subject to our
manipulation, our redefinition, our opinion, or our preferences.
