I’ve written, more than once, on the theological anthropological theme of humanity being images of the Image of God or imago Dei. This theme, and its importance cannot be overemphasized, since it is directly 
related to how humanity is related to God. The primary point of the theme is that when the Christian refers to the imago Dei, what or who we are really referring to, according to the Apostle Paul, is Jesus Christ; he writes:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.[1]
Notice, for Paul, to be created in the imago Dei is really to be created and recreated in the imago Christi (‘image of Christ’). Our humanity is a gift, it is extra nos (outside of us), it is continuously mediated to us through the intercessory life of Jesus Christ for us (cf. Heb. 7:25). This, what we might call, centraldogma, of the ‘image of Christ,’ is interconnected to a swarm of other theological themes; in particular a doctrine of God, doctrine of Creation (inclusive of protology and eschatology), doctrine of Sin, doctrine of soteriology/anthropology (inclusive of a doctrine of Scripture) so on and so forth. This makes sense, since as Jesus says: “You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me” (Jn 5:39). In other words, if all of Scripture, if all of creation, if the whole cosmological sweep is centered upon Jesus Christ as its telos (or purpose), then it would only make sense to see Jesus Christ as the centraldogma of all theological reality. Our humanity, or our image of Godness, is contingent upon Jesus’s image of God for us. All of reality is contingent upon His choice to be this for us. It is a reality that presses into the very essence or esse of what it means to exist before and with God at all.
As my earlier posts have made clear, this theme of the imago Christi, among the Patristics, was of significant importance to Athanasius (later we would be right to think of Maximus the Confessor as well). But even before Athanasius, someone else noticed this theme, mostly in the Pauline corpus; Irenaeus, the theologian who can be closely linked to the Apostle John (through Polycarp), thought in these imago Christi terms as well. He writes:
The Word has saved His creation, humanity, which had perished. Seeking its salvation, He established through Himself that fellowship which should exist between humanity and God. Now, perishing humanity had flesh and blood. . . He Himself, therefore, took flesh and blood, summing up in Himself the Father’s original creation, seeking the race that had perished. That’s why Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians says, “Though you were formerly alienated, and enemies to His knowledge by evil works, yet now you have been reconciled in the body of His flesh, through His death, to present yourselves holy and chaste, and without fault in His sight” (Col. 1:21-22). He says, “You have been reconciled in the body of His flesh,” because the Lord’s righteous flesh has reconciled the flesh that was enslaved in sin, bringing it back into comradeship with God.
If, then, anyone says the Lord’s flesh was different from ours in that it didn’t sin, neither was falsehood found in His soul, while we, conversely, are sinners, this would be true. Yet if anyone claims the Lord had some other substance of flesh than ours, he overthrows the biblical teaching on reconciliation. What is reconciled is what had previously been hostile. But if the Lord had taken flesh from some entity other than humankind, He wouldn’t have reconciled to God the flesh that had become hostile through disobedience. Now, however, through human nature’s union with Himself, the Lord has reconciled humanity to God the Father, by reconciling us to Himself in the body of His own flesh, and redeeming us with His own blood. As Paul says to the Ephesians “In whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins” (Eph. 1:7) . . . Indeed in every Epistle, Paul clearly testifies that we have been saved through the Lord’s flesh and blood.[2]
Reading, Irenaeus words, we might for a moment think we are reading John Calvin on unio cum Christo (union with Christ), or Martin Luther on mirifica commutatio (the wonderful exchange), or Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance, respectively, on a doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ. There is this silver thread woven throughout the whole of historical theology; it is a thread that finds its brilliance and splendor in the fabric of God’s flesh and blood in Jesus Christ.
I am afraid that what has been thwarted upon the Western evangelical churches of the 21st century has kept it from ever delving into the depth dimension of what we are considering here. This focus on Christ, even a so called ‘conciliar Christ,’ is the focus of the New Testament, in particular, and the whole of Holy Scripture, in general! Without this focus the Christian will slide off into abstract scholastic philosophical or turn-to-the-subject discussions that have little to do with these riches. I commend this theme and Christ concentrated focus to you. Start trying to think all things theological from this christological reality. Start thinking the duplex consubstantiality of the singular person of Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully human, into all of your theological machinations; you won’t be sorry. You’ll only be sorry if you don’t.
[1] Colossians 1:15-18, NKJV.
[2] Irenaeus cited by Nick Needham in, “Daily Readings, The Early Church Fathers: February 17th ‘Our Flesh and Blood’,” (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications Christian Heritage Imprint, 2017).
A person reflection rising from this beautiful article.
It’s as a whole that humanity is created as image of God. In Christ, the Image of God, humanity as a whole has been renewed in that image. We are image of The Image of God. God is Love. Created as Image of God we as a whole humanity is image of Love. I think we can say that humanity is love (lowercase letter l). The Fall into Sin is a fall from Love (uppercase letter L), and a fall from love, which is our true human nature. In Christ we are restored to Love and restored to love, our true human nature.
While its as a whole and in community that humanity is love and restored to Love and restored to love, I see myself as love. I am only such in union with Christ, and in union with His Community, His Body, who have embrace our renewed humanity in Christ.
Sin is failure to love and the distortion of love. While I acknowledge that I do fall into lack of love and failure to love, this is a failure to be what I am. As my trust and focus is on the Lord Jesus Christ, I am becoming what I am in Him. I am becoming image of the Image of God.
Hi Steelwires, thanks!
Actually I’m saying the opposite from your reflection. I’m saying, along with Barth’s Reformed reformulation of election, and in line with the Patristic trad, that Christ is ALL of humanity; that Christ is archetypal humanity, and without His there is no genuine humanity before God. This is key to grasp. We don’t want to think of humanity in abstraction from Christs, or we end up creating space between Him and us where Hid Lordliness can be questioned. He is the firstborn from the dead; He is prime; we are buried and raised with Him. We aren’t “becoming” anything, in ourselves, He is the image of God for us, and He continuously, moment by moment gifts us with His humanity as ours. You are what He is, by grace now, or you’re without hope when He comes again for you.
Hi Bobby! Thanks for your comment. Frankly, I don’t see how my reflection is the opposite of what you are saying. I totally agree that ” Christ is ALL of humanity; that Christ is archetypal humanity, and without Hi(m) there is no genuine humanity before God.” I do think that we aren’t becoming anything in ourselves. We are becoming what we are in Christ. Yes, He is the image of God for us, and we are renewed in the image of God, or in the image of the Image of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, He is the renewed humanity.
Yes, we are buried and raised with Christ. We do, however, have to be what we are. Colossiens 3 seems to me to be the key here. 2 “Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” and 5 “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you”. There is the reality that humanity has died with Christ, or in Christ, but then we are called to put to death the earthly in us, and set our minds where our life is hidden, with Christ in God.
That God is Love and that in the incarnation Christ is Love for all humanity is important. Apart from Christ, the love which humanity is fails or is distorted. In Christ, however, human nature as love is restored. In Christ, with Christ, and in the communion of His Community, which is His Body, and with that Community.
I would be grateful if you would show me in greater detail how i “think of humanity in abstraction from Christs”, and how I “end up creating space between Him and us where Hid Lordliness can be questioned.” I’m not arguing. I’m seeking understanding.
Hey Steele,
I think I am just way more particular with my language on this, that may be the impasse. When saying that God is Love, or that we are love in Him, I like to emphasize God in concreto rather than in abstracto by simply referring to love. I like to emphasize the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their eternal relationship and coinhering koinonia as love; this is the concrete way I prefer. So you’re referring to love the way you did, even though I think you probably mean what I am saying, is too abstract and detached for my liking.
I agree that the Col 3 mortification and vivification is a serious reality and dynamic. But I almost sensed a sort of viator (pilgrim) type theology informing the way you think about our ‘becoming.’ That’s the ‘space’ I sensed in what you wrote, as far as our becoming. I like to think from what we have already fully become (indeed, we are hidden in God in Christ and He is our life), and recognize that in this in between time we are indeed simul justus et peccator; indeed, that we are being transformed from glory to glory; and yet we will be in this simultaneity of justified and sinner status even as we are fully complete in Christ’s new creation and resurrected humanity, as we traverse this walk by faith rather than sight.
I think the difference between you and I, materially, is probably slim to none. It might simply be a matter of phrasing and emphasis. Pax Christi
When I think of God as Love, I think of the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the One in the Three and the Three in the One. James Torrance, in a series of lectures he gave on the Holy Spirit I attended at Regent College, Vancouver, in the mid 1980s, talked about the Holy spirit being the intra-trinitarian love, and the Holy Spirit lifting us into that Love in Christ. I think that without the Trinity God cannot be Love. A monad can’t be Love, a unitarian God can’t be Love, Allah is not Love, though He is compassionate. When I think of our becoming, it’s becoming what we are by creation and in Christ. It’s only in the communion of the Trinity and the Body of Christ that I am what I am.
I may well lapse into abstract thinking due to my philosophical background. I gave away all my books, including my books by TF and JB, when I moved to Wales some years ago.
Steelewires, what’s your real name? And we seem to be saying the same thing. I got caught on the phrasing, I think.
My real name is William Steele. I was given the name Habib by my neighbours when I served as a missionary with the Christian Reformed Church in Guinea, West Africa. Habib means beloved. It’s short for Hababallah, which means loved by God. Because of the meaning I use the name Habib.
Thanks for sharing your name, William or Habib! That is a great story and witness. I used to work with Muslims while in college and seminary. That is definitely an evangelistic work that involves lots of friendship, and an ability to listen.