As you might imagine, given my chosen handle, I have great interest in the topic of Imago Dei and what it really means.

But before I give my 2 cents, I'd like to ask you all what you believe the Imago Dei is.

I suspect that we all would agree that image-bearing has much to do with much that is not physical, but I'm wondering if there are some who count that our image-bearing is also somehow physical.

Any thoughts?

I.D.

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

Since you chose the name, I am sure you have quite a developed theory on this yourself. What is your take on this topic?

__________________
Pergamum


"If a commission by an earthly king is considered a honor, how can a commission by a Heavenly King be considered a sacrifice?"
-- David Livingstone

I don't understand how the image-bearing of an immaterial being would manifest itself in a physical way. I understand the imago dei to have reference to man having a sort of lordship over creation. I think I agree most with this explanation:

__________________
Vaughn Shideler
St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church
Toronto, ON, Canada

Dear ImagoDei,

John Owen believed that the image involved the physical in some way, that is we humans are a psychosomatic unity. It seems to me that the physical is somehow involved in the image from:

1 Cor. 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.

What the imago actually is, is a difficult question to answer because Scripture doesn't explicitly tell us.

At the very least it must include the capacity to rule as the Hebrew makes rule a purpose of being in the image:

Gene 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, in order that they might rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [...]" [My translation]

Blessings bro.

__________________
Marty

From Creation to New Creation via Redemption

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Oh, and I take the 'traditional view' that it is "knowledge, righteousness and true holiness".

Ken Samples is doing a series right now titled the Imago Dei. If you're at all interested here is the link.

__________________
Kyle S.
Member, URCNA
Orange, CA

On the one hand, God in His Word uses the physical attributes of man to represent some facet of his own attributes, ie., his hands, sight, smell, feet for trodding, mouth, and so on.

On the other hand we might think of what we call the 'physical realities' of our bodies to be merely shadows of the TRUE reality, the supra-reality, the hyper-reality which is the Creator.

__________________
Bob Vigneault (Bawb Vēēn-yo)
I just know there's got to be a pony in here somewhere!

The Heartbeat of Heaven (blog) MySpace (Music), MySpace (Personal)
Member of Christ Presbyterian Church, Janesville, WI OPC www.christ-opc.org

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

What do you make of Clines' Humanity as the Image of God

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...")
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.

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).
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.

Perhaps God's form is that of a bird. The "exegesis" shows that he has wings, right? How can he hide us in their shadow unless he actually has them?!

I can think of a few: literary device, anthropomorphism, and the assuming a body which is not part of a spirit nature for the sake of particular moments of communication.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

So, I.D., does that mean that spiritual substance is extended? And, exegetically, how do you account for Romans 1:23 ?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

Let me just make sure of something, to make sure I've heard you wrong.

You're not saying that God is a physical entity?

__________________
Todd K. Pedlar
member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
http://semperubi.rtrc.net

"Many men, after a long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did before or at their first conversion. Now, such men have not an increase of sin, but an increase of illumination and light" (Christopher Love)


Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

The absence of a description of Christ's physical appearance (except in Revelation) leads me to believe outward appearance is secondary until we are transformed.

__________________
Bryan Wiley
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Reformed Baptist Church
Louisville, Kentucky

Good post, Thank you!

While I do believe that we were created to somehow visibly represent God's form, I completely affirm that it means much more than that. God Himself used two words... "image" and "likeness." All together it has to mean more than a simply visual likeness.

I.D.

For you, sir, I will ask a question for which I have never received an adequate answer:

Assuming for a moment that the Imago Dei is not in any way physical...

Taking the traditional view (which I believe is all true in addition to the physical aspect), in what way are we more in God's image than the angels (holy or fallen)?

What is your answer?

Thank you.

I.D.

I think that's it precisely.

Not unlike when Moses was told to build the tabernacle precisely according to the pattern he saw on the mountain.

We don't know much about the spirit realm, but evidently, it contains things which can be "copied" here on earth.

Even Jesus said there were many "mansions" in His Father's house. What kind of Spirit realm reality does that point to?

So it's either ALL metaphor or none of it is? Why would that have to be?
You can perhaps explain some of the "anthropomorphisms" by way of literary device, but some make no sense at all... as if we are assuming that God is really lying about Himself.

Consider this passage:

There is no reason at all for God to use anthropomorphisms here. Moses asked to see God's Glory. God told him that he couldn't see His face, but allowed him to see his back side. That simply is beyond explanation simply as an anthropomorphism. This is God revealing Himself in His glory to His servant. There was no need at all to "appear as a man" here.

What's more, you see that God is actually moving His presence in a physical space. He is actually "passing by" Moses while he is hidden. All this is the testimony of God about Himself, not the testimony of a man trying to explain the unexplainable.

So either God is misleading Moses about His true nature (having a face, hands, back side, and passing by), or else He was revealing Himself as He really is.

I.D.

I'm sorry, I do not understand your questions.

I see Romans 1:23 as speaking literally to the crafting of idols, and people giving the Glory due to God to the idols instead, passing on true power and glory for a dumb animal look-alike.

NASB I think might be somewhat clearer: "and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

I'm not sure why you suspect that would be troublesome to my understanding of the Imago Dei.

I.D.

Absolutely not.

I am suggesting that God has -- in His spiritual essence -- some sort of form which He used as a template to form mankind (male and female - Gen. 1:27).

I sincerely doubt that I could ever fully understand it, let alone explain it, but I have come to believe that that's what God meant in His Word, so I'm content to not fully understand it.

It's not unlike the concept of the Trinity... there's no way I can adequately understand it nor explain it, but I can't deny it because it doesn't mesh with my ability to understand it intellectually, either.

No, God the Father is incorporeal. That is undeniable. But to assume that that also means he has no shape that could be represented physically is an assumption that we have made for much too long. The Scriptures teach us otherwise.

I.D.

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.