Brother, I believe you are starting at the wrong end of the Book to address this question! The answer is in Genesis, not in Revelation.

Let me use that as a springboard to explain why I find that our physically bearing God's image is so compelling exegetically:

It starts with a word study. Words in Scripture mean specific things. Often, they mean something that we do not have a precise equivalent for in English, but in this case, I believe that "image" is a very clear and accurate word to translate tseh'-lem (H6754).

A comparison to every other place it appears in Scripture will demonstrate that it always refers to a visual representation of something else. Every time.

This to me is the most significant piece of evidence, and it's the first one. God chose THIS word to describe his pattern for crafting the first man and woman. He did so because the word means what it means. We cannot be exegetically honest and force a divergent meaning upon this word in this passage only simply because we struggle with it intellectually.

But that's just "strike one"

If we look in Gen. 5:1, we find a reiteration of one of the two words God used in Gen 1, "likeness" and it specifically recalls the creation of mankind. Two verses later in Gen. 5:3, we find the same author using the same words in reference to Adam's fathering Seth... "image" and "likeness." Exegetically, we must understand "image" and "likeness" in chapter 5 to mean the same thing as they do in chapter 1 (same author, same book, same words, referencing the same event).

I suspect that we all would agree that in Gen. 5:3, it means that Seth was very much like his father, physically, and every other way. It really cannot be interpreted metaphysically in that passage, can it? Therefore, we must conclude that the terms in Gen. 1 mean the same as they do in Gen. 5... that it includes a physical likeness. (Scripture explains Scripture.)

That's strike two.

Finally, fast forward to Gen. 9:6 where God establishes capital punishment: 'Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. " (NASB)

Killing a man is an act against the body. It does not effect his soul, for his soul and spirit live on after death. Yet God gives the reason that murder was forbidden as "For in the image of God He made man." If the "image" was not physical, how then can it be the reason for NOT harming a man physically?

I know, it could simply be speaking to the fact that God placed so much value in the life of humanity at creation -- represented most vividly by making us in His image (even if it's not physical) -- that there could likely be no more poignant way to express it, but I would consider that only a "plausible" understanding that we need only resort to if the plain meaning has to be rejected for some reason. And I see no reason to reject the plain meaning of the word.

That's strike three. All three strikes found in the book of Genesis, penned by the same author. I find these facts so convincing that I am compelled to seek to understand the Imago Dei as having a literal "physical likeness" component (yet not the entire meaning!).

I am forced to acknowledge it as true, and consequently to take a second look at all the "logical" or Scriptural evidences that would seem to stand in opposition to that understanding. What I found is that none of them are very difficult at all to answer, and none come anywhere close to forcing me to return to the metaphysical (only) understanding.

One final point... and this one is not a valid Scriptural argument, but perhaps an explanation that would help it make sense as it does to me.

For a while, I wondered why God used two words, "image" and "likeness," not really knowing what the difference might be. Their meanings and Scriptural usage seem quite similar, yet God used them both. (Hebrew parallelism? maybe, but then again, maybe not)

Then one day it occurred to me that we use the same words in similar context today.

• If I were to say, "He's the spittin' image of his dad!" we all know that we are talking about what the son looks like... even though he might be completely different in personality.
  
• If I were to say, "He's just like his father!" we all know that we are talking about how the son behaves and what he's like, etc... even though he might not look a thing like his father.

In like manner, I believe that God might have been telling us that He made man to look physically like God, and to be in character like God as well. I cannot sustain that incontrovertibly with exegetical evidence, but neither can that explanation be exegetically dismissed. ("image" always refers to a visual likeness, but "likeness," in biblical usage, is sometimes visual, and sometimes other qualities.)

Thanks for listening.

I.D.

__________________
[SIZE="2"][COLOR="Purple"][B][LIST][*]Adam[*]Former Worship Pastor :sing:[*]Fundamental Evangelical[*]Kansas, OK[/LIST][/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]