Created or Evolved in the Image of God?
My wife and son recently saw one of her brothers who had not seen our
son in many years. She asked her brother if he recognized our son. Her brother
quickly responded that our son looks like his father. I smiled. I liked that.
Have you ever seen a boy who looked so much like his father or a girl
like her mother? Not long after a baby is born, relatives and friends offer
their opinions of which parent the child resembles. The science suggests that
unrelated judges tend to say newborns look like their mothers, but mothers tend
to say newborns look like their fathers, which would fit with an evolutionary
psychology perspective (Matson, 2011). It seems fathers rely on facial
resemblance cues to assess their relationship to their children. Father’s
perceptions of resemblance were correlated with trait anxiety and predicted
their physical health but mother-child similarities were not associated with
mother’s health (Yu et al., 2019). My reason for quoting these studies is to
suggest the importance of image to father-son relationships now and in ancient
times.
This post examines various views on the image of God. The text is an excerpt from "Did
God Create Life Using Evolution?" in the book, Irreconcilable Differences? Apes
Adam, and an Ark: Relating Christianity and Psychology (2024).
One of the things I have learned after encountering so many
interpretations of the phrase image of God or imago Dei, is the
importance of being humble and living with uncertainty. That is not difficult
since I do not understand the ancient languages of the Bible nor have I conducted
in-depth studies of relevant ancient cultures that may offer some context to
the notion of God’s Image. On the one hand, we may say that the ancient Jews
viewed people as a special creation given the emphasis in Genesis 1 and 2. On
the other hand, I considered the moral character of God represented in Genesis
3:22 where God again speaks in the plural form: “And the Lord God said, Behold,
the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”
Biblical scholar Peter Enns advises readers that there may be a range of
interpretations for the image of God, but there are limits to what the phrase
can mean (2010, July 27). He notes that scholars have observed the practice of
ancient kings who placed images of themselves around their kingdoms as
reminders of what they ruled over. Recall that the text places Adam as a ruler
on the earth thus, as God’s image bearer, Adam, or possibly humankind,
represent God on earth. Humans have authority over creation because God gave
humans the authority to rule. Enns also refers to God’s commandment against
making images of God suggesting that people are to be the living image of God
(see for example Psalm 8: 4-6). The history of humanity is of course
disappointing when it comes to kind and caring interpersonal relationships, but
in Christian theology, people are redeemed by Jesus who truly represented the
image of God on earth. The texts of Hebrews 2:5-9 and Colossians 1:15-20 refer
us back to creation. The imperfect image of God portrayed by humanity improves
as people follow Jesus’ way.
Gavin Ortlund (2014) offers a different perspective for Christians. He
calls our attention to the importance of the genealogy of Adam made in God’s
image and Seth made in Adam’s image (Genesis 5:1-3). Then in the New Testament,
Luke (3:38) refers to Jesus’ ancestry: “the son of Seth, which was the son of
Adam, which was the son of God.”
How could people be made in God’s image if humans evolved? People have
speculated on how this may have occurred including some rather fanciful ideas
of God selecting early humans and literally or metaphorically breathing a soul
into them. I do not see the advantage of speculation. We know from a scientific
perspective that our species (Homo sapiens) are physically and
genetically very similar to other apes. And we know that our species is also
very different from those primates who share a high percentage of DNA. The
similarities are largely biological. The differences largely fall within the
purview of psychologists. For example, one overlap between psychology and
theology is the capacity of humans to form long-term attachment bonds. If the
best relationships between humans is love and if love is the foundation for
Christian morality, then perhaps bearing the image of God as representatives of
God means an ethical relationship toward all of creation built on a foundation
of godly love.
From a scientific perspective, the special creation of Adam from dust and
the rib surgery to form a woman from Adam is hardly credible so, it’s no
surprise that Adam and Eve are viewed as characters in the creation story
rather than actual people. It is common knowledge, at least among those who
study the Bible, that the names of Adam and Eve appear symbolic. Here’s a quote
from Borg regarding the names of Adam and Eve (2001).
The
author of the J story uses names in such a way as to suggest that they are symbolic.
Adam is not a proper name in ancient Hebrew; no other person in the Bible is
named Adam. Rather, Adam is the Hebrew adham, which (as already noted) is a
common noun meaning “humankind.” Indeed, the term involves a play on words:
adham comes from the Hebrew word adhamah, which means “ground” or “dust.” In
other words, the first human is a “dust-creature.” We are made of dust, made
from the earth. Moreover, because this word means “humankind,” its use suggests
that the author is thinking not of a specific human but of Everyman (to borrow
the name of the well-known medieval morality play). The author is telling the
story not of a particular person but of “everyone.” So also the name Eve is not
a proper name in Hebrew. It means “mother of all living.” “Garden of Eden” also
has a symbolic meaning: it means “garden of delights” (and, by extension,
paradise). Living in a semiarid climate, the ancient Hebrews pictured paradise
as a green and bountiful garden filled with streams of flowing water. (p. 83)
A Call for Humility
A month ago, a group I attend decided to study Genesis. As a part of the
discussions, we were encouraged to watch episodes of a PBS series on Genesis led by Bill
Moyers (1996). I found it encouraging to observe that these Bible scholars did
not have a firm or definitive opinion on what it means to be made in the image
of God. The unfortunate part of the episode was the lack of input from a
psychological scientist, but then again, as experts in human nature few of us
also qualify as Bible scholars.
A Comment for Christians Writing About Counseling and Psychology
I’ve encountered numerous references to the notion of humans being
created in the ‘image of God’. This concept is often presented as a
foundational premise when exploring the intersection of faith with psychology
or counseling. However, I’ve noticed that many discussions and writings on the
subject of integration tend to overlook the scientific theory of evolution.
Given that biblical scholars are uncertain about how the ancient Israelites
interpreted the concept of being ‘made in the image of God’ (Borg, 2001), and
considering our scientific understanding of human evolution, I question the
utility of this statement. Specifically, how does the assertion that mankind
was created in the ‘image of God’ contribute to the discourse on integration?
My View
As a psychologist, I propose that people from ancient times, much like
those in the present day, placed significant importance on children resembling
their parents. This was particularly evident in patriarchal societies where
firstborn sons were highly prized. In such cultures, it was not just important,
but perhaps crucial, for a son to bear a resemblance to his father. This
underscores the value of the concept of the ‘image of God’ or ‘imago Dei’.
Given the absence of any physical depictions of God and drawing upon the
narratives of creation and the story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent, I am
inclined to believe that the ‘image of God’ in humans is best represented by
our moral sense.
Afterword
In Genesis 2.25 we read "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." The concepts of nakedness appears in the next story of Eve, a serpent, and Adam. They were naked and hid themselves suggesting shame. Then shame appears in the God, Cain, and Abel story. Shame appears to link the three stories. Read more in the post about God and Cain.
References
Borg, M. J. (2001). Reading the Bible
again for the first time: Taking the Bible seriously but not literally.
HarperCollins. [ ON AMAZON ]
Enns, P. (2010, July 27). What does “Image
of God” mean? BioLogos. Retrieved from
https://biologos.org/articles/what-does-image-of-god-mean
Ortlund, G. (2014). Image of Adam, son of
God: Genesis 5:3 and Luke 3:38 in intercanonical dialogue. Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society, 57(4), 673–68
Matson, J. (2011, June 18). Fact or fiction:
Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? Scientific
American. Retrieved from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/babies-paternal-resemblance/
Sutton, G. W. (2024). Irreconcilable
differences? Apes, Adam and an ark: Relating Christianity and psychology.
Springfield, MO: Sunflower Available on AMAZON
Yu, Q., Guo, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, J., Du,
X., Wei, X., Zhou, Z., Liu, S., & Gao, X. (2019). The More Similar, the
Healthier: The Effect of Perceived Parent-Child Facial Resemblance on Parental
Physical Health. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2739.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02739
Links to Connections
Checkout My Website www.suttong.com
See my Books
FOLLOW me on
FACEBOOK Geoff W. Sutton
PINTEREST www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton
Read many free articles at:
Academia Geoff W Sutton
ResearchGate Geoffrey W Sutton
Comments
Post a Comment