Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathetes  I don't understand how the image-bearing of an immaterial being would manifest itself in a physical way. |
If you assume that an immaterial being can have no shape, then you are correct. But that's an assumption that we cannot make about the spirit realm and spirit beings. In fact, the Scriptures would actually lead us to believe otherwise, else they would have no "geographical" limits (consider the angel sent to Daniel, but opposed by the prince of Persia for 30(?) days.)
But in reference to you understanding, I could mold a clay image of a candle flame and we would all know exactly what it is because we know the shape of a flame, even though the flame has no substance at all like the clay used to model it. That's how the physical can model the immaterial. (And Scripture does tell us, "Our God is a Fire...")
Quote:
|
According to Clines…since God has no form, humankind is not made in God’s image, but rather as God’s image;
|
God has no form? But that's not what what God Himself told us in Numbers 12:8 where He speaks of His interaction with Moses and He says, "And he [Moses] beholds the form of the LORD." (NASB)
Therefore if God DOES have some sort of form then mankind CAN be made in His image... a visible likeness of God's Spiritual (and incorporeal) form.
Quote:
|
...The meaning of image, thus, does not lie in the mere terms used, but in…the priestly tradition’s understanding of representative kingship.
|
Interpretation of Scripture does lie in the meanings of words. It DOES mean what it meant to the people it was originally written to, but the "priestly tradition's understanding" is NOT authoritative, for that represents a time MANY years after the original penning of the text. There WAS no "priestly tradition" when it was written. And we know for fact that the priests themselves were quite capable of misunderstanding Scripture (consider Eli's sons and the priests in Jesus' day).
Quote:
|
Humans are forbidden to make solid or graphic representations of God (Exod 20:4; Deut 5:8) or of pagan gods. These representations would inevitably be based on some creature (Exod 20:4; Deut 4:15-19,23,24; cf. Rom 1:23) and, thus, misrepresent the invisible Creator. For on Mt. Sinai Israel heard God speak but saw no form (Deut 4:12).
|
It is entirely possible that God forbade the crafting of any image to represent him because He Himself had already created the only "image" we needed... the human form. I find it interesting that we are not tempted to worship every human being as an image of God, but God knew that if we MADE one and called it an image of God, then we indeed would be tempted to worship the image rather than God Himself!
As you can tell, I do believe that there is a physical element. I came to that conclusion strictly on the basis of Scriptural exegesis alone (And that, contrary to what I had been taught all my life). Quite frankly, I find that there is no argument against a physical aspect that can stand against the sheer weight of exegetical evidence FOR a physical aspect.
I.D.