The Place of Humanity Within Creation: Early Reflections
The Place of Humanity Within Creation: Early Reflections
The Christian tradition, basing itself largely upon the accounts of creation found in the book of Genesis, has insisted that humanity is the height of God's creation, set over and above the animal kingdom. The theological justification of this rests largely upon the doctrine of creation in the image of God, to which we now turn.
The Image of God
A text of central importance to a Christian understanding of human nature is Genesis 1: 27, which speaks of humanity being made in God's image and likeness – an idea which is often expressed with reference to the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does this affirmation mean? Jewish and Christian theologians have interpreted this passage in significantly different ways, especially during the first five Christian centuries. The Jewish interpretation of humanity's creation in the image of God tended to avoid any suggestion that this established a direct correlation with God, perhaps reflecting a fear of some form of anthropomorphism ensuing. Some Jewish exegetes argued that God created humanity in the image of the angels, interpreting the context of Genesis 1: 27 to imply that God's words were addressed to an angelic audience. Others argued that the text was to be interpreted as implying that humanity was created according to some image that was specific to it, thus distinguishing humanity from the remainder of creation. Christian theologians, however, saw no difficulty in interpreting this passage as proposing a direct link between the creator and humanity, as the height of the creation.
Especially during the early patristic period, a distinction was drawn between the two phrases “image of God” and “likeness of God.” For Tertullian (c.160–c.220), humanity retained the image of God after sinning; it could only be restored to the likeness of God through the renewing activity of the Holy Spirit:
[In baptism] death is abolished by the washing away of sins: for the removal of guilt also removes the penalty. Thus humanity is restored to God into “his likeness,” for he had originally been “in his image.” The state of being “in the image of God” relates to his form; “in the likeness” refers to his eternity: for humanity receives back that Spirit of God which at the beginning was received from God's inbreathing, but which was afterwards lost through falling away.
Origen (c.185–c.254) adopted a related approach, arguing that the term “image of God” referred to humanity after the Fall, whereas the term “likeness of God” referred to human nature after its perfection at the final consummation:
And God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness” (Genesis 1: 26). He then adds: “In the image of God he made him” (Genesis 1: 27), and is silent about the likeness. This indicates that in his first creation man received the dignity of the image of God, but the fulfillment of the likeness is reserved for the final consummation. [...] The possibility of perfection given to him at the beginning by the dignity of the image, and then in the end, through the fulfillment of his works, should bring to perfect consummation the likeness of God.
A second approach found during the patristic period interpreted the “image of God” in terms of human reason. The “image of God” is understood to be the human rational faculty, which here mirrors the wisdom of God. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) argued that this faculty distinguishes humanity from the animal kingdom: “We ought therefore to cultivate in ourselves the faculty through which we are superior to the beasts, and to reshape it in some way. [...] So let us therefore use our intelligence [...] to judge our behavior.” Augustine does not use this theological premise to justify the human exploitation of animals, as has sometimes been suggested. Augustine's point is that the central distinctive element of human nature is its God-given ability to relate to God. Although human reason has been corrupted by the Fall, it may be renewed by grace: “For after original sin, humanity is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of its creator.”
The fact that humanity is created in the image of God is widely regarded as establishing the original uprightness and dignity of human nature. This idea was developed in a political direction by Lactantius (c.250–c.325) during the early fourth century. In his Divine Institutions (c.304–11), Lactantius argued that being created in the image of God established the common identity and dignity of all human beings, leading directly to a series of political doctrines concerning human rights and responsibilities:
I have spoken about what is due to God; now I shall speak about what is due to other people, although what is due to people still equally relates to God, since humanity is the image of God. [...] The strongest bond which unites us is humanity. Anyone who breaks it is a criminal and a parricide. Now it was from the one human being that God created us all, so that we are all of the same blood, with the result that the greatest crime is to hate humanity or do them harm. That is why we are forbidden to develop or to encourage hatred. So if we are the work of the same God, what else are we but brothers and sisters? The bond which unites our souls is therefore stronger than that which unites our bodies.
The doctrine of creation in the image of God was also seen as being directly related to the doctrine of redemption. Redemption involved bringing the image of God to its fulfillment, in a perfect relationship with God, culminating in immortality. Several patristic writers emphasized the state of blessedness enjoyed by Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. For example, Athanasius (c.293–373) taught that God created human beings in the “image of God,” thus endowing humanity with a capacity which was granted to no other creature – that of being able to relate to and partake in the life of God. This fellowship with the Logos is seen at its most perfect in Eden, when Adam enjoyed a perfect relationship with God.
An important question must be raised at this point: do both men and women bear this image of God? Most biblical interpreters of the early church regarded it as obvious that both both men and women were bearers of the divine image. However, Augustine of Hippo found himself challenged by some words of Paul in the New Testament, which pointed to men as the primary bearers of the image and women as secondary or indirect bearers: “a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man” (1 Corinthians 11: 7).
Augustine insisted that God “did not exclude woman from being understood as the image of God” but found himself unable to allow that women bore this image in quite the same way as men. The following passage from Augustine's On the Trinity is often cited in this context:
The woman together with her husband is the image of God, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned as a help-mate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God; but as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God, just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one.
What does Augustine mean here? The passage could be interpreted to mean that women participate in the image of God as human beings, not specifically as women; it could also be read to imply that a woman bears the image of God indirectly, as a result of her relationship with a man.
The Concept of Sin
For the Cappadocian fathers, the fact that Adam was created in the image of God meant that he was free from all normal weaknesses and disabilities which subsequently afflicted human nature – such as death. Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313–86) emphasized that there was no need for Adam or Eve to fall from this state of grace. It took place as a result of their decision to turn away from God to the material world. As a result, the image of God in human nature has been defaced and disfigured. Since all of humanity traces its origins to Adam and Eve, he argued, it follows that all humanity shares in this defacement of the image of God.
It should, however, be noted that the Greek patristic writers do not speak of a “Fall” or express such a “Fall” in terms of a doctrine of original sin, such as that which would later be associated with Augustine of Hippo. Most Greek writers insisted that sin arises from an abuse of the human free will. Gregory of Nazianzus (329–89) and Gregory of Nyssa (c.335–c.394) both taught that infants are born without sin, an idea which stands in contrast with Augustine's doctrine of the universal sinfulness of fallen humanity. John Chrysostom (c.347–407), commenting on Paul's assertion that many were made sinners through the disobedience of Adam (Romans 5: 19), interprets the passage to mean that all are made liable to punishment and death. The idea of transmitted guilt, a central feature of Augustine's later doctrine of original sin, is generally thought to be conspicuously absent from the Greek patristic tradition.
Nevertheless, at least some aspects of Augustine's notion of original sin can be detected within the eastern Christian tradition. The Oxford patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly (1909–97) identified three areas in which at least traces of a notion of “original sin” can be discerned in the Greek patristic tradition.
It was, however, during the Pelagian debate, to which we now turn, that these issues were first discussed at length.