In our last article, we introduced the study of anthropology and considered the telos of the study, namely, the praise of the triune God. To do so, we drew on the work of Basil the Great and gave something of a commentary exposition of his argument. In this article, we will look at Basil’s interpretation or articulation of a key discussion in the study of theological anthropology: the image of God.
In the study of the image of God—or imago Dei in its common Latin expression, there are several different proposals as to the identity of the image of God in man. Admittedly, the definition of the imago Dei has generally been consistent over the course of Christian theology, but in the last few centuries there have been some differences included. Rather than offer critiques or assessments at this time, the aim of the next several articles will be to outline the arguments of various writers chronologically. Thus, we will begin with Basil today and move to those who lived after him in future articles. As we do so, we will notice both the consistency of the argument and the adjustments made to the doctrine.
First, after quoting Genesis 1:26, Basil asks the perennial question, “In what sense are we according to the image of God?” (5) Before offering a positive answer to that question, he rules out the idea that it can be the body since God is simple and uncircumscribed, saying, “God is without structure and simple” and warning is readers, “Do not enclose God in bodily concepts, nor circumscribe him according to your own mind.” (Circumscription refers to something like “boundedness”). His point: be careful as you enter this study about immediately bringing God down to the realm of the creature from the heights of the simple Creator. “Nothing is with God as it is with us.”
Next (6), Basil says that the image is not in the body since the body is corruptible. He illustrates this by pointing to the various shifts the body goes through over the course of life, both in the minute events, such as sleeping and rising, and in the span of the life, such as youth and old age. Since the body is so much unlike the simple Creator, and since this is particularly seen in its constant mutability (and yes, that was a purposeful paradoxical statement).
Like most who came after Basil, he affirms that the image must be located in something that makes sense of the “ruling principle.” Since Scripture seems to associate the image with the command to rule (Gen 1:26), the image must be located in the aspect of man associated with that capacity. “But in what is the ruling principle?,” Basil asks. He answers, “In the superiority of reason.” Later, he says, “where the power to rule is, there is the image of God” (8). Thus, because the principle from which man rules is reason, the image of God must be man’s reason. Now, Basil recognizes that the text does not say that it is in reason, but Scripture does affirm, he believes, that man is the inner or rational part of man, such as we see when Paul says that the outer man is wasting away while the inner man is being renewed (2 Cor. 4:16). He says the body is an instrument of the man while the man “is principally the soul itself,” and it is particularly the rational part in which the image is located.
The reason for this affirmation, again, is that the reason, or mind, is that from which man exercises dominion. That dominion, he goes on, is over the passions of the body as well as the fellow creatures. He claims that it is not by the body, per se, that the beast is subdued, nor by the body that man joins the bird in flight, but through reason. The exercise of reason is the means by which man lifts heavy items, catches fish and birds and land animals, and especially those that are most obviously physically stronger than the human body. Even the human body is ruled by the reason. Consider, for instance, the slave who has “reason as master of the passions.” Basil contrasts this person to his master. “When you see your master being a slave to pleasure, while you yourself are a slave only in body, know that you are a slave in name only.” The one who has mastered his passions by his reason has the greater power as the image of God.
Before closing out this article, it is worth noting the distinction that Basil makes between “image” and “likeness” because this is a topic that has regularly appeared in conversations about the two. Perhaps the best way to explain his view of the distinction is to say that he views the image as ontological and the likeness as ethical. “In our initial structure co-originates and exists our coming into being according to the image of God. By free choice we are conformed to that which according to the likeness of God. And this is what is according to free choice: the power exists in us but we bring it about by our activity” (16). He says the “likeness” of God is the volitional mimicking of God in our relationships with others. So, “If you become a hater of evil, free of rancor, not remembering yesterday’s enmity; if you become brother-loving and compassionate, you are like God. If you forgive your enemy from your heart, you are like God. If as God is toward you, the sinner, you become the same toward the brother who has wronged you, by your good will from your heart toward your neighbor, you are like God” (17). This all sounds very Christian, doesn’t it? Of course it does, so Basil calls his readers to become Christian that they might become like God (or we might say, “godly”). To be frank, it is not clear from the biblical text why he makes this move. Further, to answer another question that may be asked: does man lose the image or likeness? He doesn’t seem to answer the first question explicitly, but it does seem that he would say man keeps the image of God since it is just the faculty reason. Of course, reason is not always exercised well, as seen in the example of the slave and the master, but he doesn’t seem to argue that man loses the image. To the second question, it doesn’t seem that he would claim likeness is something that can be lost since it is the result of activity on the part of man. Man exercises his will in godly ways that he might be like God.
In this explanation of Basil’s arguments, we have begun to see some of the building blocks of a theological anthropology, and in particular the imago Dei. It involves remembering God is unlike the creature, that the text we need to consider is Genesis 1:26–28, that we need to consider the body and the soul, that we need to think about the exercise of dominion, and that we need to consider the distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness.’ Basil’s answers to these may or may not be convincing to you. Certainly the hard dualism (between body and soul) is not popular in theology today. The distinction between image and likeness may include something helpful in thinking about our responsibilities in this world, but perhaps you are not convinced that his understanding of the distinction is proper. Nevertheless, Basil offers a helpful entry point to the conversation.
We will continue with another writer next time.
Quotes taken from Basil the Great, “On the Origin of Humanity, Discourse 1,” On the Human Condition (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Press, 2005). Numbers in parentheses are the section numbers rather than page numbers.