Thursday, 25 September 2025

相逢在「東方」以外——神學與身心障礙的對遇

摘自:相逢在「东方」以外——神学与身心障碍的对遇

文|陈文珊/玉山神学院助理教授,香港中文大学名誉助理教授 2024年6月9日

真正适应身心障碍者需要的牧养,不存在于普遍的神学命题,而是在真实处境的生活中。


东方主义与障碍神学

萨依德(Edward W. Said)称用十八、十九世纪的欧洲殖民主义心态来理解东方,视其为对立的他者,并进行带有某种刻板印象化、本质偏见的理解为「东方主义」(orientalism)。然而,东方主义的视角不单侷限在地理空间上,对于那些仿若存在「异次元」的身心障碍者来说,身心健全主义(abelism)的凝视也是非常「东方主义式的」。


拿艾斯兰(Nancy Eiesland)著名的身心障碍神学先驱为例:她因患有先天性的骨骼缺陷,成长过程中不仅曾接受过多次无果的矫治手术,还曾这样描绘自己在教会中的「灵性关怀」:「在教会长大,又终身残障,让我得以了解宗教信仰对残障的诸多回应。那些卫教的说法可以用一些再熟悉不过的话来总结:『你在上帝眼中是特别的,所以你才会残障。』或是:『不要为你现今的痛苦忧虑,到了天家,你就会成为完全。』还有:『感谢上帝,情况没有更糟。』别人告诉我,上帝让我残障,好磨鍊我的性格;到了六、七岁,我相信我已经养成了受用一生的好品格了。我家人常带我去神医特会,我从未得医治。人们问我是否有隐藏的罪,但这些罪必定得隐藏得很好,以致于连我也不知道。我所听到的这些对于残障的宗教诠释,都不足以说明我的经验。」



相较于约翰福音里瞎眼得医治的叙事中耶稣门徒的反应:「这个人生下来就失明,是谁的罪造成的?是他自己的罪或是他父母的罪呢?」(约九 1~2)艾斯兰受到的「灵性关怀」已然友善、亲和得多;至少,没有再把犯罪的「连带污名」扣在身心障碍者的父母身上。

来自于罪?

究竟犹太/基督宗教如何可以把天生的缺陷与障碍者个人的犯罪因果关联起来,说天生目盲是因为这个人犯罪?这个缺失的神学建构,如今透过灵医特会,看似得到了补足;经常抱持成功神学假定的灵恩运动,面对没有什么身体「资本」可言的身心障碍者,既不能怀疑「灵师」的教导有误,又不能质问上帝干了什么,只好祭出想像出来的「犯罪」一说,把责任全推到障碍者身上——必定是因为有隐藏的罪,才没有得到医治。

但是,「因为人人都犯罪」(罗三 23),岂只是身心障碍者?为什么身体健全不会被怀疑是因为犯罪所导致?答案出在基督教信仰带有目的论色彩的自然观:「上帝看祂所创造的一切都很好。」(创一 31)因此,在一般人眼中,身心缺损明显不好!那么,只能得出这样的结论:身心缺损不是上帝造的,而是人犯罪的结果。的确,有的身心障碍与犯罪有关,小至酒驾、不负责任的亲职,大至战争,乃至阶级、殖民主义的体制暴力导致的医疗资源分配不均、卫教资讯不普及,甚或生活环境的污染破坏等等,但这些都必须有可以描述出因果关连的事实佐证。要命的是,神学或信仰上想当然尔的推断,往往缺乏这样的「证据」,还偏偏牢不可破;而它未必出于想「定罪」,更可能是以「关怀」为名!

所幸,随著障碍运动及其人权的兴起,犯罪想像明显「政治不正确」,使得一般教会不再敢明目张胆质疑身心障碍者个人或其亲族犯罪;即便在遇到个案的确是因为犯罪而导致身心障碍的情况下,也多半三缄其口。

化了妆的祝福?

然而,这种把他者仅仅视为客体的「东方主义式」神学想像的幽灵,仍旧以其他样貌一再还魂。在与身心障碍的对遇中,目的论自然观不再扮演要角,主导的是教牧关怀的正向心理学基本预设,让教会不能停止教育身心障碍者要「往好处想」,或是在此世心怀感恩:「还好没有更糟」;或是寄望于来生:「到了天家就成为完全」;或者视「不好」的身心障碍为手段或工具,以达成「好的」,即「化了妆的祝福」:比如让自己拥有好品行,或是成为他人的信心楷模。

这样的说法未必人人都愿意买单。天主教方舟团体创办人范尼云(Jean Vanier),曾经感性地描述智能障碍者如何也能在灵性上教导他人,不少人认为其中不乏过度想像,淡化了障碍对其个人乃至原生家庭带来的重荷。而肢障者史黛拉.杨(Stella Young)亦曾在 TED 中现身说法,质疑身心障碍者为什么非得为别人而活不可?非得成为他人眼中的榜样不可?过度美化身心障碍者,推崇其为天使或圣人般的存在,不但剥夺了身心障碍者个人犯错乃至犯罪的可能,更易使人们对身心障碍的真实生活与边缘处境无视。

圣人或天使岂会有如下的困扰?肢体障碍者可否因为性需求,而要求政府补助召妓?生活无法自理的智能或精神障碍者能否结婚生子,再交给他人抚养?以身为聋人为傲的父母,可不可以透过基因筛选或人工生殖技术协助,选择生下跟自己一样的子代?又或者,身心障碍者是否可以选择安乐死?身体完整性认同障碍患者可否要求动手术切除未罹病的肢体,以满足心理需求?这些艰难的课题,都不是靠把身心障碍浪漫化便可以轻易解决的。

超人类 vs 多元社会

不管是祝福或罪恶,将其侷限在身心障碍个人身上,即是一种本质论立场,视身心障碍为个人的不幸或苦难,从而附加神学的想像与解释。在医疗科技日新月异的现今,身心障碍者在人类历史上首次被想像成为 「超人类」,例如丹尼尔.基什(Daniel K i s h ) 教导盲人使用回声定位(e c h olocation)的方式来骑乘脚踏车,或像约翰.布兰比列(John Bramblitt)以触觉来绘制三度空间、色彩缤纷的绘画,以及「刀锋战士」南非田径选手奥斯卡.佩斯托瑞斯(Oscar Pistorius)用碳纤维义肢打破奥运世界纪录。这种新类型的身心障碍想像,早已出现在「金刚狼」系列描写变种人的电影中,这也说明了为什么具有强大异能的 X 教授,其人设仍旧是坐在轮椅上。倘若未来出现这样的科幻片——宣称使用晶片植入可大幅改善人类选择,解决智能障碍或精神障碍者理性判断或意志自主的限制,应该也不会太令人跌破眼镜。

然而,「谁」会用「什么判准」来判定「哪些」算是残障,常随文化而异。建构论者喜好用「社会或少数模式」(social or minority model)来理解残障,主张身体的缺损并不必然导致障碍,其障碍成因系源于社会对不同身体的歧视与压迫。障碍作为一种近代兴起的人口分类范畴,并没有不同障碍别共享的经验。身心障碍对个人未来生命的影响互异,再加上年龄、性别、种族、性取向,以及阶级种种因素的交互影响,社会对不同身心障碍的接受度与处遇也大不相同。如果真要说不同的残障经验有什么共通之处,那就是都被建构成身体健全主义的对立物。用女性主义身体现象学者艾莉斯.杨(Iris Marion Young)的话来说:个别残障的身体是「处境中的身体」(body in situation),即活生生的在特定社会文化脉络中行动、经验的肉体,它既受到处境限制,同时亦是具有行动自由的能动者。「障碍」根本指的是一种由结构性的不平等制度所形成的社会位置:「限制的结构包括成套的资产分配、规则、规范,以及让哪些人比其他人得到更多自由与谋利的优先排序。限制为个体界定了有效的选项范围,或界定追求一些选项而非其他选项所需的成本」。

建构论主张:身心障碍的改善未必非得藉由医疗作为来达到不可,更何况人类科技也未必真能摆脱所有自然加诸身体的限制,譬如因老年而导致的缺损、失能,乃至障碍,恐怕是身为人永远无法突破的极限处境。一个更具包容且多元的社会,「现在――无需未来」就能够透过资源及机会的重新配置,去除加诸在身心障碍者处境上的诸多限制。在为重度阿兹海默症患者专门打造的荷兰侯格威村(De Hogeweyk),居民买东西忘记付款、不认得回家的路、不知道自己今年几岁,完全不构成障碍。近年来,许多人更希望这样的实验可以推广至实验村外,打造完全无障碍的社会。肢障牧师陈博文生前曾在教会大力推广听人学习手语,方便为聋人打造无障碍沟通的教会及社会环境,则是另一个本土实践神学的例证。

道成肉身的相遇

身心障碍家庭对待障碍的孩子,往往出现「过犹不及」两个极端:一种是「过份保护」,另一种则是「排斥或抛弃」。这种极端也存在于基督教神学中:将障碍者直接排除在牧养之外,拒绝提供适应于他们不同障碍程度及生命阶段的牧养关怀;又或者未经同意,便代为作出包括受洗、认信,乃至求学、求职、结婚、生子等大小决定,以避免他们做错事或犯罪。

神学与障碍是否可能摆脱东方主义式的想像?答案是肯定的!真正适应身心障碍者需要的牧养,不存在于普遍的神学命题,而是在真实处境的生活中;不在于让障碍者作为被照顾的客体,而是让他们成为有喜怒哀乐、能犯错并负责任的主体;不在于教导他们按著刻板印象来发展,而是让他们个别的生命差异及选择能被尊重。

基督教会和神学能否效法基督,真正道成肉身活在障碍者当中?端看我们如何反思与抉择!


God walks at three miles an hour



摘自:God walks at three miles an hour

05 April 2019

In a culture that prioritises speed and productivity, we should remember that love takes time, says John Swinton

THE theology of disability begins with a question: what does it mean to be disabled — sometimes profoundly disabled — to be made in God’s image, to be fully human, and to be beautiful, just the way you are, without having to change anything? Striving to answer such a question takes one into places and ways of thinking that are not available by other means.

One of the things that disability theologians have noticed is that the questions that are asked of theology tend to come from a certain group of people: theologians. That in itself is not the problem. The issue is whether theologians have taken the fullness of human experiences into consideration as they have reflected on the things of God over time.

If we think about the way in which academic theology is constructed, it tends to be developed by well-educated people, usually within a university context. The questions that academic theologians ask are important. But the questions that they don’t ask are equally as important. Certain questions that come from other perspectives and other places within creation are often not asked of the tradition. One of these other places is the human experience of disability.

Disability theology desires to explore what happens when the different perspectives and questions that emerge from human disability are placed alongside scripture and tradition and the practices of the Church. What does the gospel look like if we ask such different questions?

AT THE heart of disability theology is the idea of illumination. John Calvin talks about it, St Augustine talks about it, Aquinas talks about it. Illumination occurs when something from scripture suddenly changes the way that you see everything. Illumination is a mode of revelation; it is a movement of the Spirit wherein we suddenly come to see a different angle on the way that things are. When we see things differently, we are illuminated. When we are illuminated, everything changes; nothing can ever be the same.

Illumination is action-oriented. It leads to revised understanding and revised practices. Disability theologians use scripture and tradition to illuminate the human condition in ways that are sometimes dissonant and surprising.

Think, for example, about the calling and vocation of Moses. He has a significant speech impediment. God says, “Listen, I’ve got a big job for you.” What does Moses respond? “I can’t do it because I’ve got this speech impediment. Could you not send somebody else?” God basically says to him “Do what you’re told!”

What God does not do is say, “Oh, hold on a second, I’m going to heal your speech impediment and then you can go off and fulfil your vocation.” He says: “I’ll send people to help you, but nothing of you is going to change.” And Moses, that powerful disabled leader of God’s people, discovers his vocation through that encounter.

And, more than that, what does God say? He says: “Well, who, do you think, makes blind people blind? Who, do you think, makes speechless people speechless?” There is something mysterious about this statement. What on earth does it mean, that God is somehow implicated in what we choose to call human disability? Some of us might say that disability is a product of the Fall, or the product of sin and evil, but God says “No, I did it.”

There is no indication here that God does this in judgement. God simply says that he does it. I don’t know what that means, but, at a minimum, it indicates that the God who creates the universe and loves it into existence, the God who is love, is deeply implicated in human difference, not in terms of judgement, but as a loving, creating presence.

So, when we begin to read a passage like that in the light of human disability, and allow it to illuminate us, things begin to change.

BESIDES reflecting on scripture, disability theologians take broader theological ideas and place them alongside the experience of human disability. Take, for example, the nature of God’s love.

In the 1960s, a Japanese theologian, Kosuke Koyama, wrote a book, Three Mile an Hour God (SCM Press). He noticed that the average speed that human beings walk at is three miles per hour. Jesus, who is God, walked at three miles per hour. God, who is love, walks at three miles per hour. Love has a speed, Koyama says, and that speed is slow. That speed is gentle. That speed is tender.

When you begin to think about that, it challenges those who think that God is only interested in speed, productivity, and efficiency. Jesus, who created the universe, the God who throws the stars into the heavens, is a slow God — a God who takes time to love. When you begin to recognise God in this rather counter-cultural way, things begin to change.

I spoke to one of my colleagues, who works in a busy hospital, about the three-mile-an-hour God. He said: “This place means that I have to move at nine miles an hour!” I said to him, “Well, who are you following?” If Jesus is walking at three miles an hour, and you’re walking at nine miles an hour, who is following whom?

In a culture of speed, we forget that love takes time, and that love is slow.

If you place that way of thinking about God-as-slow and time-as-for-love, and place it beside the experience of people living with advanced dementia, we can begin to see how important it is to be Christlike in the ways in which we care.

To be with people living with dementia, you need to slow down and take time for those things that the world considers to be trivial. When you do this, you will be surprised — and probably amazed — at what you discover, as you encounter people in the slowness of God’s love. There is a deep beauty in such illumination.

Jesus talks about gentleness. In the Beatitudes, he says “I am gentle.” Think about that: “I am gentle.” The God who creates the universe, the one who is all-powerful, who knows everything, is not only slow, but is also gentle. A fundamental aspect of being made in the image of that God is gentleness.

Think what it would be like if we did our politics gently — even, if we did our church politics gently. Think what it would be like if we did our relationships gently. You may say, well it’s impossible; but then you turn to someone such as Jean Vanier, and the L’Arche communities where people with and without intellectual disabilities live together, and you begin to see that a gentle way of life may actually be possible.

Stanley Hauerwas says: “Because Jean Vanier exists, because the L’Arche communities live slow lives, living gently is possible.” Perhaps the gospel of gentleness is not so ridiculous after all.

WHEN we begin to think differently about scripture in the light of human difference, it opens up a whole new way of understanding humanness. John Hull, a practical theologian who, sadly, died a few years ago, lost his sight in his early fifties. In his book Touching the Rock, he lays out what it is like to lose your sight.

One of the things that he concluded, eventually, after much grief and lament, was that being blind was not so bad: it was just another way of being in the world — not a lesser way, just different. Sighted people assume that looking out on the world is the only way of being human, and they try as hard as they can to rehabilitate people so that they can receive as close an approximation of sight as possible. In doing this, they risk colonising the diversity of humanness.

Hull concludes, however, that there is no single way of being human. To be human is a wide range of possibilities, all of which teach us something about how to love. It is only when we learn to value and appreciate the diversity of the human condition that we begin to understand the beauty of the diversity of being human — and the beauty of the diversity of participating in that community that is Jesus’s body.

The Revd Dr John Swinton is a former nurse, a minister in the Church of Scotland, and Professor of Practical Theology and Pastoral Care at the University of Aberdeen. His books include Dementia: Living in the memories of God, which won the 2016 Michael Ramsey Prize, and Becoming Friends of Time (Reading Groups, 8 September 2017), both published by SCM Press.







The Three Mile an Hour God

 

The Three Mile an Hour God

Jesus walked, a lot.[3] Take for example, the geographical shift Jesus made at the beginning of his ministry: “leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum which was by the lake” (Matt 4:13). Nazareth to Capernaum was a forty-mile journey. At the average human pace, we are talking 13-14 hours of walking. Likely, this journey would have been broken up into 2-3 days. Every time we see Jesus traversing from one city to another, he is walking.

More profoundly, the New Testament speaks about those who Jesus walked alongside. He walked with outcasts, disciples, and family members and he walked their pace (Matt 9:9-13, Jn 2:1-11, Lk 8:1-2). He walked with them through sickness, sorrow, misunderstanding, sin, abandonment, and death. He never rushed, he never sped ahead. Love does that, it walks the speed of another.

But what happens when three miles an hour is far too fast? What about the reality of sorrow and loss? What about the seasons of life where it feels impossible to put one foot in front of another?

God’s taken name in Christ means he is with us (Matt 1:22-23). He does not qualify his name, there are no exceptions to his “withness.” The sandaled God walks with us every step of the way—no matter the speed. He is not just the three mile an hour God, he is the one mile an hour God and even the God that comes to a stand-still.


[1]Kosuke Koyama, The Three Mile an Hour God: Biblical Reflections (New York: Orbis, 1979), 7. “Love has its speed. It is a spiritual speed. It is a different kind of speed from the technological speed to which we are accustomed. It goes on in the depth of our life, whether we notice or not, at three miles an hour. It is the speed we walk and therefore the speed the love of God walks.”

[2]He is the “Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and end” (Rev 22:13). In other words, he is point A and point B while existing within both points. He never journeys from one to another, he simply is across the beginning, middle, and end. God is fundamentally immediate, he is “occurring without any lapse in time” (Websters). The incarnation is mind-bending when considering the timelessness of God. Taken from another angle, speed is a creature fashioned by God. As everything else in creation, it is was created through him and for him (Col 1:16). Speed serves a specific gospel function and so does its corollary, slowness.

[3]Conservative estimates of the mileage walked by Jesus in the gospels is around 3,000.


“耶稣以每小时三英里的速度行走”这一说法,源于日本神学家小山晃佑(Kosuke Koyama)在其著作《三英里时速的上帝》(Three Mile an Hour God)中提出的神学概念。该理念认为,上帝的爱以一种缓慢、温和、不匆忙的节奏运行——这正相当于人类平均每小时三英里(约合4.8公里)的步行速度。

这一神学观点鼓励人们以一种更缓慢、更从容的态度去生活,与现代社会快节奏、效率至上的心态形成鲜明对比。小山晃佑指出,上帝的爱是耐心的,它不急于求成,而是留出时间让人们建立真实的联结和深刻的理解。他认为,这种特质也体现在耶稣基督耐心的事工以及他与门徒们一同行走的经历中。

Thursday, 11 September 2025

Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability (犹太教视角下的神学与人类残障体验)

 


William Gaventa. Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability. New York: Routledge, 2006. https://research-ebsco-com.tsdasdigitalcollections.remotexs.co/linkprocessor/plink?id=3c20407e-7bba-37ba-9986-da6577890e8b.

 这本书重新审视犹太经文与传统中对残障的理解,强调没有残障者的参与,犹太群体就是不完整的。作者来自不同国家和犹太教派,探讨神学、伦理、律法与教育如何回应残障议题。书中涵盖盲人、聋人、学习与智力障碍、自闭症等案例,打破对残障的刻板印象,并提供信仰与实践的资源。


A re-examination of Jewish scripture and teachings about disabilities

Few people are untouched by the issue of disability, whether personally or through a friend or relative. Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability shares moving insights from around the world and across the broad spectrum of Judaism on how and why the Jewish community is incomplete without the presence and participation of the disabled. Authors representing each of the three main movements of Judaism—Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform—examine theology, scripture, ethics, practical theology, religious education, and personal experience to understand and apply the lessons and wisdom of the past to issues of the present.

Authors from Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia reflect on their theological understandings of specific disabilities and on disability as a whole. Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability re-examines tradition, teachings, and beliefs to shatter stereotypes of Judaism and common interpretations of scripture. This unique book addresses several disabilities (blindness, deafness, intellectual disabilities, autism, learning disabilities), and a wide range of topics, including human rights and disabilities, Jewish laws concerning niddah, misconceptions about disabilities in the Hebrew Bible, Jewish community programs to include people with disabilities, and the need to educate American Jews about Jewish genetic diseases.

Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability examines:

  • three methods that allow Jews who are blind to participate in the Torah service
  • the spiritual needs of people with learning disabilities
  • the attitude of Jewish Law toward marriage and parenthood on people with intellectual disabilities
  • how the rabbis of the Mishnah incorporated Greco-Roman beliefs about the connections between hearing, speech, and intelligence into Jewish law
  • a sampling of opinions issued on matters concerning disabilities by the Responsa Committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbis
  • how the Jewish sages have made participation by people with disabilities possible
  • and much more

Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability also includes reviews of Judaism and Disability: Portrayals in Ancient Texts from the Tanach through the Bavil and Disability in Jewish Law, as well as comprehensive resource collections. This book is an essential read for clergy and lay leaders involved in the support of people with disabilities, for the families of people with disabilities, and for anyone working with the disabled.

🕍 重新审视犹太教经典与对残障的教义理解

几乎每个人都与残障议题有所接触,无论是自身经历,或是亲友的情况。《犹太教视角下的神学与人类残障体验》(Jewish Perspectives on Theology and the Human Experience of Disability)汇集了来自全球、涵盖犹太教三大主要派别——正统派、保守派与改革派——的深刻见解,强调没有残障者的参与,犹太社群是不完整的。

📚 跨地域与教派的神学反思

来自以色列、美国、英国与澳大利亚的作者探讨特定残障类型与整体残障议题的神学理解,重新审视传统教义与信仰,打破对犹太教及其经典的刻板印象。书中涵盖的残障类型包括:视障、听障、智力障碍、自闭症与学习障碍。

📖 探讨主题包括:

  • 残障与人权

  • 关于女性月经洁净法(niddah)的犹太法律

  • 希伯来圣经中对残障的误解

  • 犹太社群包容残障者的项目

  • 教育美国犹太人认识犹太遗传疾病的必要性

🕯️ 具体研究内容包括:

  • 三种让视障犹太人参与诵读妥拉仪式的方法

  • 学习障碍者的灵性需求

  • 犹太法律对智力障碍者婚姻与育儿的态度

  • 米示拿时代的拉比如何将希腊-罗马关于听觉、言语与智力的观念融入犹太法律

  • 美国改革派拉比中央会议(CCAR)回应残障议题的教义意见选摘

  • 犹太圣贤如何使残障者得以参与宗教生活

📚 附录与资源

本书还评介了《犹太教与残障:从塔纳赫到巴比伦塔木德的古代文本描绘》与《犹太法律中的残障》两部作品,并提供详尽的资源汇编。它是宗教领袖、残障者家庭成员,以及所有从事残障支持工作的人员不可或缺的参考读物。

Translated and summarized by Microsoft Copilot, an AI companion. This translation was generated with the assistance of Microsoft Copilot, using AI to ensure clarity and fidelity to the original English source.



Thursday, 4 September 2025

The Imago Dei (Gen 1:26-27): a history of interpretation from Philo to the present

Full article refer to: https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S1017-04992016000100014&script=sci_arttext&utm_source=chatgpt.com

The purpose of this article is to present a history of interpretation of the image and likeness of God (gen 1:26-27) from Philo to the present. The article presents the various interpretations given, the reasons for their interpretations and changes in the major interpretation over time.

Keywords: Imago Dei; image of God; Genesis 1:26-27; history of interpretation; from Philo to the present

SUMMARY OF RECENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE IMAGE OF GOD (GEN 1:26-27)

The modern period shows a wide range of opinion regarding the image of God. The image and likeness of God in Genesis 1:26-27 are interpreted from the functional, relational, and substantive perspectives or a combination of these. The image of God is seen as having dominion over creation (Gen 1:28), having fellowship with God, as consisting of corporeal resemblance, denoting the bodily form, as well as spiritual, psychological, and moral attributes or qualities. From the history of recent interpretation, it is evident that most interpreters and commentators do not think that the biblical context of Genesis 1:26-27 is sufficient to define what it means to be created in the image of God. Many commentators interpret the image of God from a New Testament perspective in which Christ restores the image of God in man, (not attempting any Old Testament development of the theme) to justify their interpretation of the image of God that may be substantive, relational, functional or a combination of these.

Although there is a wide range of interpretations of what the image of God refers to, many commentators and scholars agree that Christ is the perfect or true image of God. He is the second Adam, who restores the corrupted or distorted image in man; this happens when he is regenerated and sanctified through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

CONCLUSION

Philo, Irenaeus, Augustine, and Aquinas interpreted the image of God in man as the power of reason. Luther and Calvin interpreted the image of God in man as moral likeness to God. The fall corrupted the image of God and redemption restores the shattered image of God. The modern period shows a wide range of opinions regarding the image of God. The image and likeness of God in Genesis 1:26-27 are interpreted from the functional, relational and substantive perspectives or a combination of these.