Imago Dei and Priesthood?

In his Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed, Marc Cortez underscores that in the long-standing debate about what "image of God" means, most agree that the term has to do with humans "reflecting" divine reality in some form or another.  As he traces the history of that discussion (the structural image, the functional image, and the relational image), Cortez notes that the challenge comes when we try to explain more precisely what is reflected, where this is reflected in humanity, and how this reflection actually takes place. In his assessment, the nature of the imago Dei remains an important and unresolved issue in contemporary theology. 

Cortez does his part to offer a way forward by characterizing the imago Dei as "representational presence". But what is it that is being represented?

1. As image-bearers, humans represent the presence of divine reality in symbol while at the same time affirming a real difference between the two. This may well be the basis for the prohibition against creating anything in the likeness of God--since God has already created human persons to serve as his image. Cortez points to Christ to flesh out this meaning: Jesus is "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1.15). What Colossians means by this is not merely that Jesus reflects God's attributes better than others, but rather that Christ is the very presence of God manifest in creation. Developing a theological anthropology from the person of Christ, Cortez concludes that the imago Dei is a task that humans perform in creation; human dominion is thus a consequence rather than a definition of the term. 

2. Cortez develops the meaning of the term "presence" by noting that the creation narratives in Genesis 1-2 "culminate with the advent of human personal relationship, with the coming together of the two who are same yet different in personal relationship" (pg. 35). The creation of humanity as male and female manifests that the image of God represents personal presence that constitutes personal relationships and interdependence. Thus, God's manifestation to creation is interpersonal relationality. Said in another way, an individual human is incapable of manifesting God's presence in creation. Humans can only reflect God's personal presence as interpersonal relationship.

3. Cortez's final point is that the imago Dei is something that God does in and through human persons. As he puts it, the imago Dei is "a task in which human persons are called to participate" (pg. 35). In other words, to be image-bearers is a gift given to humanity by God so that they might manifest his personal presence in creation. While sin and rebellion do damage to the gift of imago Dei, God continues to manifest his personal presence in and through his relationship with human persons as witnessed in the history of his relationships with Israel and the Church. In this regard, the imago Dei is not something that humans possess as a part of their essence but rather something that is developed overtime as God manifests himself in and through his covenantal relationship with humanity. What it means to be human, then, has less to do with ontological distinctions and more to do with understanding the commission given to humans in the biblical narrative.

Cortez summaries his proposal in the following manner: "the image of God can be understood as God manifesting his personal presence in creation through his covenantal relationships with human persons, who he has constituted as personal beings to serve as his representatives in creation and to whom he remains faithful despite their sinful rejection of him" (pg. 37).

As attempt assess and reflect on Cortez's proposal, I wonder what the relationship is between imago Dei and priesthood imagery in the Bible. Both center around the concept of "representation", both are a task that is to be performed (a gift and commission from God), both are embodied by Christ, and both are shaped and informed by God's interaction with humans in history as witnessed to by the Scriptures. Both are also what Christ has come to restore. Are they two ways of saying the same thing? I hope to explore this further in the months to come.