The 'Image of God' as the Interpersonal Capacity
THE “IMAGE OF GOD” AS THE INTERPERSONAL CAPACITY
Virgil Warren, PhD
Much creative energy can be directed toward tracing through the implications of interpersonal relationships as the center of Christian truth. Nowhere has this observation appeared more relevant than in the study of the nature of man.
Over the centuries extensive thought has gone into the interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27 and related materials: “Let’s make humankind in our image after our likeness.” There have been four proposed aspects of the “image of God” together with their sub-units and effects. Reason heads the list. The ability to think abstractly enables language communication, creativity, self-transcendence, responsibility (dominion), and even humor. People can penetrate a situation in thought and imagination.
Emotion distinguishes people from much of the created realm because they can care, have feelings, and experience affection from other persons. Will enables people to choose between alternatives. Consequently, they are not limited to a stimulus-response existence where response answers the most intense stimulus in the environment. People have a spirit—or a spiritual dimension—that survives the death of the body. Traditionally, people have been regarded as created in God’s image because they have rational, emotional, volitional, and spiritual capacities.
While these proposals offer significant insights into human nature, Genesis 1:26-27 suggests a larger, more inclusive truth that correlates with interpersonalism. The first observation that highlights the interpersonal character of people is (a) the plural pronoun us. “Let us make humankind in our image” draws attention to the interpersonal character of God himself. In our understanding of the text, “us” refers to the three-person oneness of God. It is not majestic plural, since a little farther in the Genesis account 3:22 speaks about “one of us.” “Majestic plural” refers to the Semitic idiom of using plurality to indicate great degree—in this case the greatness of God. But there could be no speaking about “one of” such a plurality: “Mankind has become like one of us.”
An alternate approach supposes that “us” means God and the celestial angels. But angels are not in the context. The word for angel does not appear until Genesis 16:7. The word cherub appears in 3:24 in reference either to an order of angels or a figure for the angelic order that God calls on to protect against any return to the Orchard. Nevertheless, even this term occurs a full two chapters past the “image of God” terminology. Furthermore, people are said to be created in the image and likeness of God, not only here but elsewhere in scripture (Genesis 5:1—likeness; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9; cp. Acts 17:28-29). Such phraseology does not occur for likeness to angels. It seems then that “us” indicates the interpersonal character of God. Since people bear the image of that interpersonal God, his image in people means their interpersonal capacity.
(a) A second observation that highlights the interpersonal character of people comes from the parallelism in Genesis 1:27. “In the image of God he created man” stands parallel to “male and female he created them.” The image evidently relates in some way to the male-female nature of humanness whether analogously, indirectly, corporately, or transcendently. Of course, since God is spirit, physical sexuality is not the point, even though marriage of physical persons does provide the most intense, permanent, and all-inclusive relationship in human experience. Marriage has the character it does because it most intensely, permanently, and inclusively demonstrates the interpersonal oneness of the godhead. So we choose to say that the plurality-in-oneness of marriage is analogous to the plurality-in-oneness of trinity.
Of special importance regarding marriage is that its interpersonal character precedes its physical distinctive. Not until there is compenetration of personhood can there be compenetration of physical natures. Marriage is mutual commitment and common identity of persons before it is pleasure and procreation (mankind is unique in being able to reproduce face to face). Consequently, we place the relevance of image to male-female, not directly in the physical domain, but contextually in its interpersonal framework, in which the body and human sexuality are parts. Physical relationship occurs in interpersonal relationship, and physical relationship bonds interpersonal identity in a unique dimension between husband and wife. As a result, analogy to the trinity teaches us about the divine intent in marriage as an interpersonal experience, and the interpersonal marriage experience helps us comprehend something about the divine trinity in whose image persons are created. In other words, the image of God in man lies at the corporate as well as the individual level.
The individual capacities traditionally cited do have a place in the image, not because they are the image, but because they make the image possible. Reason, emotion, will, and so on, are abilities necessary for behaving and relating interpersonally.
We see several advantages to this. For one thing, (1) putting the image at the level of interpersonal capacity fosters wholeness. People are not reduced to one essence like rationality, nor are they fragmented into a series of parts like reason, will, and so forth. It is particularly interesting that a person’s wholeness in God’s image can involve even the physical body so as not to create unnatural division between body and spirit or to depreciate the physical aspect of the total self. The image can include the body by analogy. The socio-physical unit that marriage is bears analogy to the socio-spiritual unit that Father-Son-Spirit is (note implications of 1 Corinthians 6:17).
The image as interpersonal capacity (2) clarifies the human-animal distinction. No animal is said to be created in God’s image. No mate for Adam was found in the animal kingdom (Genesis 2:18-20). Animals could be killed but not humans (Genesis 9:6). Cohabitation between a human and an animal was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:15). To be distinct from animal, people do not have to be different in every respect nor absolutely unique in any one respect. Rather, the degree to which they possess these abilities is sufficiently greater that in combination they produce people’s uniqueness—the interpersonal capacity. Most specifically, people’s uniqueness from animals is not jeopardized by discovering rudimentary intelligence seen in crude tool making (vs. tool using) or in elementary language learning—which has not actually been demonstrated despite occasional claims to that effect.
The image as interpersonal capacity (3) provides theological foundation for interpreting sexuality. It affirms the equal worth of both sexes (Galatians 3:28) and defines the proper relationship between them (1 Corinthians 6:13-20). This variance is subsumed under the larger truth of the divine image common to both and expressed in the union of the two (Genesis 2:24). The dignity of marriage nevertheless harmonizes with the validity and wholeness of personhood in those not married, because the interpersonal capacity accentuated in marriage finds expression in all other social relations as well. The total, permanent, exclusive identity of husband-wife is reminiscent of the Father-Son-Spirit. In his own image God created them male and female.
Finally, the imago dei as interpersonal capacity (4) connects the natural and ethical usages of the “image of God” expression (Genesis 1:26; 5:1; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9 vs. Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:10). Not only were men created in the image of God; they are redeemed from being sinners to “put on the new man that is being renewed to knowledge after the image” of their creator (Colossians 3:10). Ethics and morality apply only to interpersonal circumstances. The natural image amounts to the interpersonal capacity; the ethical image amounts to proper interpersonal behavior. The very usage of the term image to mean ethical character confirms our understanding of the image of God as interpersonal capacity.
“Image,” then, is used in a nature sense (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; 15:49; James 3:9), in an ethical sense (Romans 8:29; 2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 3:10; 2 Peter 1:4), and perhaps in an eschatological sense (Romans 8:29?).
In summation, when Genesis 1:26 speaks of the image of God, it does so in connection with (a) the whole person, not with some aspect of a person, with (b) both male and female, and with (c) people individually and combined.
christir.org