What does it mean to be created “in the image of God”? Over the last few posts, we’ve explored that question and raised some concerns about each of the major approaches. Does that mean we can’t really know what the image means? Should we give up and conclude that it’s just a mystery?
Never cry “mystery” until you’ve wrestled with all the issues. And that includes proposing your own solution. So that’s what I’m going to do.
First, let me summarize. We currently have four options on the table: (1) the structural image; (2) the functional image; (3) the relational image; and (4) the multifaceted image. I don’t want to rehearse all the arguments here, so I’ll just say that I think (1) is wrong and (4) is a problem as long as it includes (1). You can go read those posts and find out why. Although (2) and (3) have some problems, I think there’s a lot to be said for both of them. So I’m inclined to think that an adequate understanding of the imago needs to find some way of holding those two together. But you can’t just mush them together like the multifaceted view tends to. You need some explanation that provides a coherent picture.
And that’s just what I’m going to try and do. It’s will take me a couple of posts to lay this all out. But step one is to realize that the imago has to do with “representational presence.” Let me unpack that just a bit.