"Image" and "Likeness" question

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Orthodox soteriology, according to some, says that there is a distinction between being made in God's "image" and being made in His "likeness," based on the fact that two different Hebrew and Greek words are used in Genesis 1:26. They say that the "image" was retained at the Fall, but the "likeness" was lost or marred, and our θεωσις (theôsis) is the regaining of this "likeness."

A couple comments:

a) The distinction between "image" and "likeness" is I think a strained one, and I'm not sure that many Hebrew scholars would argue for it. Hebrew sometimes uses repetitions of similar or related words for emphasis, poetic structure (see, e.g., the Psalms), etc., to strengthen or convey the same idea, and I think that may be what is going on at Genesis 1:26. (Also, Genesis 5:1 says that Adam was made in God's "likeness," with no mention of "image," and in 5:3, it says that Adam had a son in his "likeness" and "image." Thus, "image" and "likeness" seem to be interchangeable.)

b) Furthermore, James 3:9 says that men have been made or are made (perfect participle, indicating a "state" and not just a past action) in God's "likeness." This seems contrary to the idea that men have lost or distorted the "likeness" of God and must somehow acquire or renew it, for otherwise James, IMO, would have used the word "image" and/or have used the aorist, and not the perfect.

How foundational is this theology to Orthodoxy, and what are the consequences if this is based on an incorrect interpretation of Genesis 1:26?

 

[Mary of Bethany]

No clue. You're way beyond me.

Mary

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

No clue. You're way beyond me.

Mary

It was great to see you Saturday! Sorry we couldn't stay for vespers at St. Sava, but my wife got a bit ill following lunch and even stayed home from church Sunday - but she was better by last night.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

It was great to see y'all too. I heard you ask your question, but I didn't stay for the answer.

I'm glad your wife's feeling better. I saw you poke your head in at St. Sava, and I figured that was why you didn't stay. Too bad you didn't get to meet Father S.

Mary

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

It was great to see y'all too. I heard you ask your question, but I didn't stay for the answer.

I'm glad your wife's feeling better. I saw you poke your head in at St. Sava, and I figured that was why you didn't stay. Too bad you didn't get to meet Father S.

Mary

I did meet Fr. Seraphim, for I stepped into the church briefly, and David Bronzich must have seen me, because he came out as I was leaving - and I was able to ask him the best way to get home to Highland Village (take Spring Creek(?) west to 121 and go from there).

Catherine Lingas didn't really address my question, but afterwards she came to me and told me or apologized that because of the acoustics, even my using the microphone didn't make it possible for her to be able to understand what I was asking. Holy Trinity has the worst acoustics of any church I've been in. Seriously, they need to invest some money in some echo-cancelling equipment and maybe install minispeakers along the sides throughout the church. It's truly awful, IMO, for such a pretty church.

 

[Knowledge3]

I consider your question to be a rhetorical and philosophical one; I have always acknowledged God the Father as the Creator and origin of the universe. I believe the primary goal of Orthodoxy is to return man back to his original relationship with God prior to the fall via theosis.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

I consider your question to be a rhetorical and philosophical one; I have always acknowledged God the Father as the Creator and origin of the universe. I believe the primary goal of Orthodoxy is to return man back to his original relationship with God prior to the fall via theosis.

But my question is neither rhetorical nor philosophical. It has real implications for some widespread and perhaps authoritative Orthodox teachings as I understand them. I don't disagree with salvation being to restore us to a pre-Fall relationship with God (some would say to a state superior to what Adam enjoyed). It's the correctness of some of what is taught in the name of this teaching (which, for some, may even be the basis for this teaching) that is the subject of my inquiry.

 

[gzt]

Answer: see The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Lossky.

 

[gzt]

PS sure the Hebrew text really doesn't support a distinction made there, but does that really matter at all? I think they're less basing it on that text as using the language of the text to describe a theological truth known from elsewhere.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

PS sure the Hebrew text really doesn't support a distinction made there, but does that really matter at all? I think they're less basing it on that text as using the language of the text to describe a theological truth known from elsewhere.

Okay, I'll get my copy of Lossky off the shelf sometime this week. Thanks!

 

[Knowledge3]

But my question is neither rhetorical nor philosophical. It has real implications for some widespread and perhaps authoritative Orthodox teachings as I understand them. I don't disagree with salvation being to restore us to a pre-Fall relationship with God (some would say to a state superior to what Adam enjoyed). It's the correctness of some of what is taught in the name of this teaching (which, for some, may even be the basis for this teaching) that is the subject of my inquiry.

Then I would take the classic theological approach which is by the Scriptures; (Genesis 1.26, Genesis 2.23, John 1:1, Romans 5.11-12, Hebrews 1:3 ) and compare these Scriptures with the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the Trinitarian view of God.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Then I would take the classic theological approach which is by the Scriptures; (Genesis 1.26, Genesis 2.23, John 1:1, Romans 5.11-12, Hebrews 1:3 ) and compare these Scriptures with the teaching of the Orthodox Church on the Trinitarian view of God.

My question has nothing to do with the Trinity. It has to do with whether this teaching that at the Fall man kept God's "image" but lost or ruined God's "likeness," and hence his theôsis is part of the process of regaining this "likeness," is a proper or valid understanding of the Fall and salvation.

 

[jckstraw72]

i think the the two terms are just a convenient way of describing what happened at the Fall and what we need to do to get back to God. I think whether the terms are actually distinct doesn't really matter here -- the theology would be the same either way.

 

[Michael G]

Orthodox soteriology, according to some, says that there is a distinction between being made in God's "image" and being made in His "likeness," based on the fact that two different Hebrew and Greek words are used in Genesis 1:26. They say that the "image" was retained at the Fall, but the "likeness" was lost or marred, and our θεωσις (theôsis) is the regaining of this "likeness."

A couple comments:

a) The distinction between "image" and "likeness" is I think a strained one, and I'm not sure that many Hebrew scholars would argue for it. Hebrew sometimes uses repetitions of similar or related words for emphasis, poetic structure (see, e.g., the Psalms), etc., to strengthen or convey the same idea, and I think that may be what is going on at Genesis 1:26. (Also, Genesis 5:1 says that Adam was made in God's "likeness," with no mention of "image," and in 5:3, it says that Adam had a son in his "likeness" and "image." Thus, "image" and "likeness" seem to be interchangeable.)

b) Furthermore, James 3:9 says that men have been made or are made (perfect participle, indicating a "state" and not just a past action) in God's "likeness." This seems contrary to the idea that men have lost or distorted the "likeness" of God and must somehow acquire or renew it, for otherwise James, IMO, would have used the word "image" and/or have used the aorist, and not the perfect.

How foundational is this theology to Orthodoxy, and what are the consequences if this is based on an incorrect interpretation of Genesis 1:26?

The theology of image and likeness is very foundational to Orthodox theology and plays a large role in the understanding of why we can have iconography. St. John of Damascus and St. Theodore Studite both do very good jobs explaining this in their treatises on holy icons.

 

[Michael G]

St. John of Damascus:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html

 

[Knowledge3]

My question has nothing to do with the Trinity. It has to do with whether this teaching that at the Fall man kept God's "image" but lost or ruined God's "likeness," and hence his theôsis is part of the process of regaining this "likeness," is a proper or valid understanding of the Fall and salvation.

I understand Christ as the bridge of hope and salvation that man must cross over/through one's journey toward God.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

St. John of Damascus:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html

From my brief read-through of this, nothing St. John of Damascus here said would have to be changed if it were shown that "image" and "likeness" are not, in fact, distinct to the point that one can say (as some do) that while man retained the "image" of God at the Fall, he lost the "likeness" of God, and man's salvation involves restoring/repairing this lost/marred "likeness." In other words, showing that it's faulty to say that man retains God's "image," but lost/ruined God's "likeness" at the Fall, does not affect what St. John of Damascus here wrote.

Wenham in his commentary on Genesis 1-15 says that this supposed distinction between "image" and "likeness" that some have postulated about Genesis 1:26 began with Irenaeus ca. 180 A.D. He says, for reasons I also gave, that such a distinction is foreign to Genesis.

So, how critical is this supposed distinction for Orthodox soteriology?

 

[Nickolai]

Here's a small excerpt from Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Fr. Michael Pomazansky that may answer part of your question.

The image of God in man.
The sacred writer of the account of man's creation relates, “And God said: Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness … So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them” (Gen. 1:26 27).
In what does the image of God in us consist? The Church's teaching tells us only that in general man was created “in the image,” but precisely what part of our nature manifests this image is not indicated. The Fathers and teachers of the Church have answered this question in various ways: some see it (the image) in reason, others in free will, still others in immortality. If one brings together their ideas, one obtains a complete conception of what the image of God in man is, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers.
First of all, the image of God may be seen only in the soul, not in the body. According to His nature, God is most pure Spirit, not clothed in any kind of body and not a partaker of any kind of materiality. Therefore the image of God can refer only to the immaterial soul — many Fathers of the Church have considered it necessary to give this warning.
Man bears the image of God in the higher qualities of the soul, especially in the soul's immortality, in its freedom of will, its reason, and in its capability for pure love without thought of gain.

• 
  a. The eternal God gave immortality of soul to man, even though the soul is immortal not by nature but only by the goodness of God.

• b. God is completely free in His actions, and He gave to man free will and the ability to act freely within certain boundaries.

• c. God is most wise, and He has given man a reason which is capable of being not limited only to earthly, animal needs and to the visible side of things, but is capable of penetrating to their depths, of recognizing and explaining their inward meaning. Man's reason is able to rise to the level of that which is invisible and of striving in thought towards the very Source of all that exists — God. Man's reason makes his will conscious and authentically free, because it can choose that which corresponds to man's highest dignity rather than that to which his lower nature inclines him.

• d. God created man in His goodness and He has never left him nor ever will leave him without His love. Man, having received his soul from the breathing of God, strives towards his first Principle, God, as towards something akin to himself, seeking and thirsting for union with Him. This is specifically shown in the straight and upright posture of his body, and his gaze, which turns up towards heaven. Thus, this striving towards and love for God expresses the image of God in man.

In summary, one may say that all of the good and noble qualities and capabilities of the soul are an expression of the image of God in man.
Is there a distinction between the “image” and the “likeness” of God? The majority of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church reply that there is. They see the image of God in the very nature of the soul, and the likeness in the moral perfecting of man in virtue and sanctity, in the acquirement of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we receive the image of God from God together with existence, but the likeness we must acquire ourselves, having received the possibility of doing this from God.

To become “in the likeness” depends upon our will; it is acquired in accordance with our own activity. Therefore, concerning the “counsel” of God it is said: “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26), but with regard to the very act of creation it is said: “God created man in His own image” (Gen. 1:27). About this St. Gregory of Nyssa reasons, “By God's ‘counsel,’ we were given the potential to be ‘in His likeness.’”

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Is there a distinction between the “image” and the “likeness” of God? The majority of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church reply that there is. They see the image of God in the very nature of the soul, and the likeness in the moral perfecting of man in virtue and sanctity, in the acquirement of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, we receive the image of God from God together with existence, but the likeness we must acquire ourselves, having received the possibility of doing this from God.

To become “in the likeness” depends upon our will; it is acquired in accordance with our own activity. Therefore, concerning the “counsel” of God it is said: “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness” (Gen. 1:26), but with regard to the very act of creation it is said: “God created man in His own image” (Gen. 1:27). About this St. Gregory of Nyssa reasons, “By God's ‘counsel,’ we were given the potential to be ‘in His likeness.’”

Then why does Saint James say that men ARE in God's likeness? James 3:9:

εν αυτη ευλογουμεν τον κυριον και πατερα, και εν αυτη καταρωμεθα τους ανθρωπους τους καθ ομοιωσιν θεου γεγονοτας

"With it (i.e., the tongue) we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who are created in the likeness of God."

 

[jckstraw72]

is it perhaps a language issue btwn Greek and Hebrew? I'm just guessing here, I know nothing about it.