Theological anthropology expresses one of the basic convictions that the human person can be fully understood only

from a theological perspective. the true reality of what it means to be human is revealed only as we understand the human person in relationship to God, and more specifically as we view the human person through the person and work of Jesus Christ, then any attempt to understand humanity in abstraction from this theological reality is necessarily limited and ultimately inadequate. Marc Cortez. Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed When and how were humans created? How do different creation stories influence our understanding of what it means to be human? What is the relationship between human persons and the rest of creation? How "unique" are humans in creation? How does this affect our appreciation for the "dignity" of the human person? Why were humans created male and female? What is the significance of human sexuality for understanding humanity? How should this influence our understanding of marriage, family, and sexual ethics? Of what are human persons comprised? Are we basically physical beings, spiritual beings, some combination of the two, or something else entirely? In what ways does our answer to this question affect how humans should live in the world? Do human persons have "free will"? What exactly does this mean and what is its significance for understanding, among other things, salvation, moral responsibility, and relationality? What exactly is "personhood" and why is it important to understand what it means to be human? How do interpersonal relationships and community t what it means to be human? How do we balance the individual and corporate aspects of humanity? How important is "race" to being human? Is it an essential aspect of humanity or is it a cultural creation? How do economic and class issues relate to humanity? Is work an essential aspect of being human, or only something that we do to serve other purposes?

Six Truths About The Imago Dei

To image God means to reflect God in creation. Image and likeness are largely or entirely synonymous. This view is probably the consensus today, but there might reason to make some sort of distinction. The image of God includes all human persons. Image-bearing is not based on gender or the combination of both sexes. Sin has affected the image in some way. After the fall, men are still image-bearers, but their reflection is that of a carnival mirror. We distort the image we were created to represent. The image in the New Testament is a Christological concept. In the NT, the language of image is usually related to redemption and new creation (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49), not creation (although, see James 3:9). The image of God is teleological. In others, the image of God is not static in Genesis 1; it is moving towards an ultimate goal (telos) in Christ.

The Imago Dei: A Survey of Perspectives on the Image of God In Genesis 1:26-27, God said, Let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, over the cattle in all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. What does it mean for God to make man in his image? This question has been asked by many throughout the age of the Church. Many and varying positions have been proposed. This serves simply to survey these positions. Structural Perspective

Three major positions have been typically held by the major figures throughout the history of the Church: the structural, relational, and functional perspectives. The structural position has been the most widely accepted position. This view suggests that there is something about our structurethat is, our physical makeup or formationthat constitutes mans being made in the image of God. In line with Aristotle, the early church focused its teaching concerning the image of God on human reason and free will. Augustine emphasized the structural elements of human memory, intellect, and volition and spoke of them as a reflection of the Triune God. During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between the image and the likeness of God; he associated the immaterial aspects of the human with the divine image and the material aspects to the likeness of God. Thus, he positioned the image of God in mans reason. These structural capacities were thought to be what separated man from animals and what enabled them to have a relationship with God.

Relational Perspective More recently, the relational perspective has found acceptance by some theologians. Barth believed the image of God had to do with relationality, first within the members of the Trinity, then between God and man, and finally between man and man. Humans reflect this image and plurality of persons primarily as male relates to female and female relates to male. Thus, for these theologians, relationality is what constitutes the image of God in humans. Functional Perspective Another common view among modern theologians is the functional view. This perspective argues for an emphasis on man ruling and subduing the earth. Gerhard von Rad spoke of the man as Gods representative or coregent who is to exercise dominion over creation. D. J. A. Clines sought to uncover why it was that Mosesthe writer of Genesisdid not explain or define the image of God for his readers. Clines inferred that it was possible that Moses did not define the term because it must have been commonly understood by his readers. That is, Clines believed that the first readers of Genesis would have had a clear understanding of the phrase. So, he began researching the Ancient Near Eastern history and found that the term image, when used of humans, has to do with the rulership of a king who acts on behalf of a god. Thus, according to Clines, humans image God when they functionally rule over the earth on His behalf. Ruling over the world as vice-regents is properly carried out when man embraces his cultural mandate to procreate, filling the earth, and to build civilization. In the end, the goal is to spread the glory of God over the face of the earth. Participation in the Divine Nature These three perspectives have been most common in Christian thought, but there are other perspectives as well. Kathryn Tanner argues for a complete dichotomization () of the divine and human natures. In contrast to common theological understanding, such as ones belief that being created in the image of God amounts to humans having reason, free will, or the ability to rule over others as God does, Tanner seeks to demonstrate that a properly Christ-centered understanding of mans creation in the image of God turns ones attention away from man altogether and redirects it to Christ. Her premise is rooted in her interpretation of Genesis 1:27 and 5:1, where she understands that mans creation in the image of God does not mean that they have something in them that images God, but simply that they were made for a relationship with God, one perfected in Christ. What makes humans unique and different than other created beings, according to Tanner, is nothing other than Gods choice to have a special kind of relationship with man. Tanner understands the Genesis passages to teach that man is not said to be the image of God but rather that he is made in or after or according to the image. Thus, the image spoken of is a divine one and not a human one at all. As a result, humans are only capable of being a secondary image of this other [divine] image. Because a perfect image of God can only be a divine image, perfect imaging requires a community of nature. Since humans do not have a divine nature, they simply cannot by themselves be images of God. Thus, human persons can only image God by participating in what they are notGod. In the end, that which is not divine cannot properly image God. However, God finds a way to communicate the goodness of Gods own life to creatures; He

accomplishes this by giving the divine image itself to the human who is united with Christ. Through the hypostatic union* of the incarnation, the divine second person of the Trinity takes on human nature and thus unites His divine nature with his human nature. Jesus is both the perfect divine image and the perfect human image. Humans may image God properly only by participating in God when they draw near to the divine image in their union with Christ. It must be said, however, that humans never become that divine image in and of themselves; they remain creatures and are never made over into a divine creature|. Thus, some seek to direct ones attention away from the material and emphasizes the immaterial, divine nature and the necessity to participate in the divine life of God through union with Christ.

*Theology - the single person of Christ, as contrasted with his dual human and divine nature. (
). Holistic Perspective G. C. Berkouwer opposed the adoption of any singular approach to understanding the divine image over another. Instead, he proposed a holistic approach, pointing to Scriptures emphasis on the whole man as the image of God. He, thus, did not emphasize one part of man as independent from the other parts. In the end it is illegitimate to consider human nature as divided into higher and lower parts. The human must be considered holistically in order to properly understand his being created in the image of God. Accordingly, the body cannot be left out of the meaning of the image. Man is a totality*. The image does not simply relate to the divine nature but also to the human nature. Mans flesh is just as much the image of God as his spirit, creativeness, or personality. None of these supposed higher aspects (element - , qualityappearance ) can exist apart from the body. The body is not the prison house of the soul. Insofar as man is a body, and a bodiless man is not God, man is created in the image of God. Others have adopted this holistic perspective as well, suggesting that man has been created a certain way so that he might live a certain way. It is argued, then, that the Fall has corrupted each of these qualities in man so that s/he is no longer able to think the right thoughts, relate properly to God and to others, or rule well over the creation. Being renewed into the image of Christ, according to Ware then, is a process by which this pattern is reversed. The one who is being remade into the image of God is in effect being remade into the image of Christ and is empowered to think Christ-like thoughts, have Christ-like relationships, and subdue and rule over the earth in a Christ-like manner.

*,

The first perspective relates to humankinds capacity to think and reason. This has been termed the substantive view, connoting that the imago Dei can be described by any one or more of its essential parts, but particular human rationality. Church fathers such as Irenaeus (d. 202) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) fashioned their theological views around Gods creating humankind in his image with the ability to reason and think over the non-human creation. Influenced by Plato and Aristotle, Irenaeus is acknowledged as distinguishing between the image of God and the likeness of God (i.e., Gen. 1:26: Then God said, Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule). He maintained that humans retained Gods image after the fall but lost Gods likeness because of disobedience. Drawing from his magnum opus, Summa Theologica (Summary of Theology) Aquinas, a theologian of the medieval church, also regarded the imago Dei as mans intellectual and reasoning capacity. This perspective relates to intellectual formation. The second perspective regarding what imago Dei refers to has been called the functional view, relating to the God-ordained dominion of humans over the earth (i.e., Gen. 1:26b, 28: let them rule . . . Be fruitful, increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.). The functional view asserts that being created in the imago Dei means to have stewardship, dominion, and oversight over Gods creation. This view directly ties to these three formational areas: vocational, physical/wellness, and economic/resourceformation. As Anthony Hoekema argues in his

book, Created in Gods Image, If it is true that the whole person is the image of God, we must also include the body as part of the image (p. 68). God created us with potential to steward the resources He has given us. The third perspective advances the notion that the imago Dei involves relational capacity, namely that male and female collectively reflect Gods image through their relationality with each other and with God. Emil Brunner, Martin Buber, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Karl Barth all affirm this perspective. To Brunner, the imago Dei is clearly possible because of humanitys relationship and fellowship with God. For Buber, the I-Thou relationship between the individual and God should inform and enact all other human relationships. Dietrich Bonhoeffer depended on Bubers I-Thou perspectives, while Karl Barth drew on the work of Bonhoeffer in defining his position. This third perspective connects to emotional and relational formation. God has given us relational capacity to relate to Him and to others. A fourth perspective signifies that the imago Dei is humankinds divine goal and destiny. Defined by Stanley Grenz in his book, The Social God and Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei (2001, pp. 177-82), this view suggests that God, then, becomes our model to whom we are to aspire; and through whom over time, we become increasingly conformed into his likeness in the spiritual dimension. This fourth perspective relates to spiritual formation, with the goal of becoming conformed to Christs image. God has given us spiritual capacity to respond to His grace in order to know Him.

Most likely the answer lies in what has already been suggested; and in this instance Paul really is reflecting the sense of the OT text to which he is alluding. Man by himself is not complete; he is alone, without a companion or helper suitable to him. The animals will not do; he needs one who is bone of his bone, one who is like him but different from him, one who is uniquely his own "glory." In fact, when the man in the OT narrative sees the woman he "glories" in her by bursting into song. She is thus man's glory because she "came from man" and was created "for him." She is not thereby subordinate to him, but necessary for him. She exists to his honor as the one who having come from man is the one companion suitable to him, so that he might be complete and that together they might form humanity. Paul's point, of course, is that in the creation narrative this did not happen the other way aroundman from woman and for her sake. Hence he is her "head" (her source of origin) and she is his "glory." She must not be uncovered when praying and prophesying, and thereby disregard one of the (apparently) visible expressions of differentiation, because in so doing she brings shame on him by trying to dissolve the rightful male/female relationship that still obtains in the present age. the key words "authority" and "angels" are very likely from them in some way.