# Imago Dei... is it at all physical?



## ImagoDei

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.


----------



## Pergamum

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


----------



## Mathetes

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:



> The nonphysical resemblance of image and object represented should be kept in mind. ANE modes of representation are highly metaphorpic and symbolic. Thus, the same Egyptian god can appear as a human figure, in the form of a hieroglyph, or as an animal, and queen Hatsepsut can be the image of a male deity (Clines, 72-73). Thus, the image of the god is not a matter of physical resemblance, but of power and prerogative, often connected with expressions like “under the feet” (Lichthim, AEL 2:36-37; cf. Ps 8:6b).
> 
> According to Clines…since God has no form, humankind is not made in God’s image, but rather as God’s image; thus, humanity is his representative and agent here on earth. The expression “likeness” guarantees that humans will be a faithful and adequate representative of God on earth. Humans, thus, embody “God’s lordship over the lower orders of creation” (Clines, 101).
> 
> The meaning of image, thus, does not lie in the mere terms used, but in…the priestly tradition’s understanding of representative kingship.
> 
> 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).
> 
> New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis 4:643-47.


----------



## JohnOwen007

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 brother.


----------



## AV1611

The Image of God in Man: A Reformed Reassessment


----------



## AV1611

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


----------



## Kyle S.

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


----------



## BobVigneault

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.


----------



## AV1611

JohnOwen007 said:


> ...



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


----------



## ImagoDei

Mathetes said:


> 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...")


> 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.



> ...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).


> 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.


----------



## Davidius

ImagoDei said:


> 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).



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?!



> 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.



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.


----------



## py3ak

So, I.D., does that mean that spiritual substance is extended? And, _exegetically_, how do you account for [KJV]Romans 1:23[/KJV]?


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> 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.



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?


----------



## staythecourse

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.


----------



## ImagoDei

JohnOwen007 said:


> 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 brother.



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.


----------



## ImagoDei

AV1611 said:


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


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.


----------



## ImagoDei

BobVigneault said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## ImagoDei

Davidius said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?!
Click to expand...

So it's either ALL metaphor or none of it is? Why would that have to be?


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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:



> 18Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"
> 
> 19And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."
> 
> 20But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
> 
> 21Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock;
> 
> 22and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.
> 
> 23"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen." - Exodus 33 (NASB)



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.


----------



## ImagoDei

py3ak said:


> So, I.D., does that mean that spiritual substance is extended? And, _exegetically_, how do you account for [KJV]Romans 1:23[/KJV]?



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.


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## ImagoDei

staythecourse said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## staythecourse

You are getting close to the Mormon god. I recommend you do an about face theologically.


----------



## py3ak

The pagans are condemned _for depicting God as man_, among other things. _Why_ that would be wrong seems to me like an interesting question for someone who thinks that _physically_ man is a depiction of God.

Does spiritual substance have the property of extension? Does it take up room? Does it require "space" in which to be?


----------



## ImagoDei

staythecourse said:


> You are getting close to the Mormon god. I recommend you do an about face theologically.


What does Mormon have to do with anything? 

I believe that I'm getting closer to a true biblical understanding of Almighty God as He has revealed Himself. I am neither deterred or encouraged by whatever any sect or cult may profess.

I recommend that you examine your Bible and tell me how I have been mistaken. I am not defending a Mormon doctrine, I am presenting my Fundamentalist Christian Biblicist understanding of the Word of God. 

I.D.


----------



## Davidius

ImagoDei said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's either ALL metaphor or none of it is? Why would that have to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18Then Moses said, "I pray You, show me Your glory!"
> 
> 19And He said, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion."
> 
> 20But He said, "You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!"
> 
> 21Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock;
> 
> 22and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by.
> 
> 23"Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen." - Exodus 33 (NASB)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Adam,

You are focusing on one of the several options I listed (anthropomorphism). This is, however, not all that I said. Not _everything_ is a metaphor, but there are other suggestions which must be considered. We must weigh the passages that you have offered in light of other propositions which tell us about God's nature. 

In his work on the inspiration and authority of the bible, Warfield quotes A.B. Davidson in his discussion of the three ways which God has revealed himself to man throughout redemptive history: (1) theophany, (2) prophecy, and (3) inspiration. The patristic age, or the age of theophany, is the period during which God "spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc." He goes on to note how the method of revelation changed after the Patristic period; God spoke through prophets, "without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God." This reached its fulfillment in the inspiration of the NT authors. 

*Theophany*
1. An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation. 
2. A visible (but not necessarily material) manifestation of a deity to a human person.

The progression that Warfield (with Davidson's help) notes is very striking and very clear. God used visible manifestations at the beginning of redemptive history in order to communicate with man. It does not follow, however, that God's appearance in theophanies has anything to do with his nature, be it a physical or "spiritual" form. His appearance in the form of a man does not mean that God, who is Spirit, is spiritually shaped like a man, anymore than the pillar of smoke or the burning bush were anything more than forms which He took at a given time for a particular reason. As redemptive history progresses, we can see this form of revelation fade away.


----------



## ImagoDei

py3ak said:


> The pagans are condemned _for depicting God as man_, among other things. _Why_ that would be wrong seems to me like an interesting question for someone who thinks that _physically_ man is a depiction of God.


Simple. God is not a man. God is so much higher than His creation that He cannot be adequately described as a man.

That man is physically a depiction of God happens to be an act of God's own doing. As I said before, we are not tempted to worship the image of God on the human body simply because there are so many of them around (even in the mirror)... it's in our loved ones, and our enemies. From that perspective, it's genius... God put his "picture" on display all over the world, and no one is tempted to worship the image (as being the image of God) rather than God Himself. (Other means of false worship, yes, but not the human body itself)


> Does spiritual substance have the property of extension? Does it take up room? Does it require "space" in which to be?


Now that's a tough question. The answer lies in the spirit realm where we have little knowledge.

Evidently, spirits like to "live" somewhere... Jesus teaching on the wicked spirit that roamed around looking for a place to live and the story of the "legion" of demons begging to go into the pigs seem to bear this out. The angel's 21 day delay in battle with the Prince of Persia before visiting Daniel (Daniel 10:12-13) seems to indicate that spirits have limits geographically and that their movements can be blocked or opposed. God said he would "pass by" Moses while he was in the cleft of the rock. God even said that His Spirit would live "in" us.

What does all this mean regarding the "property of extension"? I don't know. But I do know that we don't know very much at all about the nature of spirit beings. And certainly we do NOT know enough to dismiss the possibility of a physical likeness of a spirit being.

Many people correctly declare that "God is Spirit!" (John 4:23) but that is simply insufficient to prove that the _Imago Dei_ must only be metaphysical.

What I believe is that God was actually revealing something about Himself in the creation of man, but that we have logically dismissed it as false before we ever learned what God intended to reveal.

I.D.


----------



## ImagoDei

Davidius said:


> Adam,
> 
> You are focusing on one of the several options I listed (anthropomorphism). This is, however, not all that I said. Not _everything_ is a metaphor, but there are other suggestions which must be considered. We must weigh the passages that you have offered in light of other propositions which tell us about God's nature.
> 
> In his work on the inspiration and authority of the bible, Warfield quotes A.B. Davidson in his discussion of the three ways which God has revealed himself to man throughout redemptive history: (1) theophany, (2) prophecy, and (3) inspiration. The patristic age, or the age of theophany, is the period during which God "spoke to men through their senses, in physical phenomena, as the burning bush, the cloudy pillar, or in sensuous forms, as men, angels, etc." He goes on to note how the method of revelation changed after the Patristic period; God spoke through prophets, "without the aid of external sensuous symbols of God." This reached its fulfillment in the inspiration of the NT authors.
> 
> *Theophany*
> 1. An appearance of a god to a human; a divine manifestation.
> 2. A visible (but not necessarily material) manifestation of a deity to a human person.
> 
> The progression that Warfield (with Davidson's help) notes is very striking and very clear. God used visible manifestations at the beginning of redemptive history in order to communicate with man. It does not follow, however, that God's appearance in theophanies has anything to do with his nature, be it a physical or "spiritual" form. His appearance in the form of a man does not mean that God, who is Spirit, is spiritually shaped like a man, anymore than the pillar of smoke or the burning bush were anything more than forms which He took at a given time for a particular reason. As redemptive history progresses, we can see this form of revelation fade away.



You see, I would suggest that many (or perhaps most) of the Theophanies were not God "appearing in human form" but in reality, God appearing as He is (albeit visible). If indeed man were created to look like God, then quite naturally, when God appeared, He would appear "as a man." 

It is interesting to note, however, that often, when God appeared, the people knew it was more than just a man, even though they described Him "as a man." The most memorable one for me is Nebuchadnezzar's declaration about seeing FOUR men in the furnace, and that the fourth was "like the Son of God" (Dan. 3:25). Obviously, in a furnace blazing so hot, he could not have discerned actual features, but rather shape. And the fourth one must have been much larger than the others or else it would not have been notable as "the Son of God"

I know that most commentaries give flowery explanations of why the _Imago Dei_ is not a physical thing at all, but I would go back again to the word study... no matter what they all say, I simply cannot dismiss the simple exegetical evidence that the word God used for "image" means a visual representation, every time it's used. No man's opinion can trump that for me; unless someone can demonstrate how that is mistaken, I have to go with it.

I.D.


----------



## k.seymore

Ok, I'll bite. I'll try to explain how it might be possible in a certain sense to say that the image of God has a physical aspect in humans. 

First of all, I personally do think Genesis 1 tells us what it means by the image of God. How is God described in the chapter? God is portrayed as a sovereign–a ruler. He merely commands and his word is law. He orders things after their kinds and brings order to creation. What type of human institution does this resemble? Kings. Rulers. We can see this is a big deal in the Ancient Near East in Israel's neighbors as well, such as the Babylonians whose story "Enuma Elish" explains Marduk recreating the heavens and the earth. The gods are not sure about Marduk but then he commands and what he says happens. Then the gods interpret what this means by instantly saying, "Marduk is king! The firstborn over all!" ...because that's what kings do. They merely command things, and those things come about. With earthly kings, this of course comes about through their servants. The kings commands, and the king's people obey, and order is brought, and that is what a kingdom is. Kings sit on their throne and through their wisdom and knowledge bring order to an area of creation, building it up as a kingdom and sustaining it through their wisdom. Kings are, in a certain limited sense, a visible image of what God is doing here in Genesis 1.

Remember how Proverbs 8 describes this: Wisdom lifts up her voice and says, "By me kings reign," then goes on to describe how she was there at the beginning, and through her God brought an ordered creation into existence (and we know who God's Wisdom is from the NT). This ordering of creation is also what kings do, and this is also reflected in Israel's neighbors. For instance Egypt is known for really really emphasizing bringing order to creation as what a king does with his kingdom.

I'm sure the Israelites wouldn't have had to think too hard to see what God is like in Genesis 1. What is God's likeness? He is a Sovereign. He brings about creation in a very ordered way, separating things through his wisdom, ordering things by kinds, etc.. And remember the orderly way God did this: He wisely ordered the places where things would live in the first three days, like the sky, sea and land before creating their inhabitants. Then he made sure there was food, then he created the inhabitants of those places the next three days: birds and fish and land animals. He is ordering the world as a large kingdom ruled by a very wise king.

Then Genesis 1 describes God as creating humans in this image:

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. 
And let them have dominion 
over the fish of the sea 
and over the birds of the heavens 
and over the livestock...
So God created man in his own image" (Gen 1:26-27)

I understand this as simply saying God, the ruler, is creating humans to be like him: as rulers so that they might reign and keep order in the inhabitants of the sky and land and sea, to keep it from turning into a disordered chaos. This makes perfect sense to me in the context. And it makes the context of the 6 days of creation define what is meant by "the image of God." It even repeats all the lower creatures that God made on the previous days.

And now to my answer to the question, "is the image of God in humans at all physical?" First off, I don't think God has any form that is like our physical form, but I do think that we have physical aspects that are analogous to aspects of God. We have physical attributes which allow us to be kings reigning over the kingdom of creation through wisdom. What is one of the obvious things that differentiates humans from animals which is physical? The human brain. Our brains have a capacity to gather and put together incredible amounts of information and use that information in creative ways, ordering creation, domesticating animals, spreading civilization to places where nature has run wild. By this use of our brains we can grow in wisdom. Animals can't be said to do these things in the way that we do. And one of the physical reasons we we rule over them because of these brains of ours. And lest anyone think that wisdom is not necessarily tied to our physical brains in this way, what is your experience when people get old and their physical brains begin deteriorating? Do they get wiser? Or if we were to perform a scientific experiment, say hitting a wise person on the head with a bat or giving them large amounts of certain drugs, we would find that we can physically remove wisdom from them. While we are alive, our wisdom seems to be sustained by God through our physical brains by what we would call natural means (that isn't to say our wisdom ceases when we, being living souls, die, it simply means God is no longer sustaining who we are by "natural" means. We would say God is sustaining us outside of nature by "supernatural" means). 

So all that to say this: since God has knowledge and wisdom in of himself and reigns and brings about an ordered creation through that knowledge and wisdom, and since in order that we might have knowledge and wisdom in ourselves in a sufficient amount to reign over creatures and land in a way analogous to his reigning over creatures and land, he gave us very complex brains. That would, based on my interpretation of Genesis 1 above, make our physical brains at least a part of us being the image of God. In God, the fact that he has knowledge in of himself can not be seen by a visible form that is part of him, but in humans, the fact that God has knowledge to rule is represented by a visible form: the very complex head on our shoulders.


----------



## AV1611

ImagoDei said:


> *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)?*


*

There is a great deal of similarity between angels and Man in terms of image. However, the perfect image of the invisible God is Jesus. We lost the image of God in Adam but regain it in Christ through regeneration. What did we loose in Adam? Knowledge, righteousness and true holiness. What do we regain through regeneration? Knowledge, righteousness and true holiness:

Eph 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
Col 3:10 "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"​*


----------



## ImagoDei

k.seymore said:


> And now to my answer to the question, "is the image of God in humans at all physical?" First off, I don't think God has any form that is like our physical form, but I do think that we have physical aspects that are analogous to aspects of God. We have physical attributes which allow us to be kings reigning over the kingdom of creation through wisdom.



First of all, let me thank you for a great post!

I'm not sure I had fully recognized before how significant the "ruling" was to our image bearing. But with your post, I see it very clearly, and that it is quite significant.

I would like to challenge one thing and add another.

*Challenge:* The claim that God has no form is not consistent with Scripture. Even in the Genesis account of creation, we find that God "spoke" most of creation into being, the animals and man were "formed" which seems to be much more active and personal. It does not actually say so, but to me it evokes a "by hand" impression. The same can be said of the crafting of the garments for Adam and Eve... God made them... as it were... by hand... including the slaying of the animals and preparing the skins.

What's more, the narrative specifically states that A&E _heard_ God "walking" in the cool of the day. Walking tends to require something that will function as legs. Evidently it was substantial enough to make noise as He approached.

And I return again to God's statement about his meeting with Moses... God Himself testified that Moses saw the "form" of YAHWEH. (incidentally, that word "form" is also used to describe the beauty of Rachel and the handsomeness of Joseph)

It is a struggle to understand a Spirit having form, of course, but I believe we should struggle on the side of taking these words to mean what they mean, wrestling with the implications it has about the spirit realm rather than presume what we cannot know about the spirit realm and consequently being forced to impose new definitions upon the words of Scripture.

*Addition: *Don't stop at the brain! I recently read a portion of a systematic theology book that said essentially the same thing, but applied it equally to seeing, (God sees, and He gave us physical eyes so we too could see), hearing, smelling, tasting, etc. It could also easily apply to creativity and love as well.

I.D.


----------



## ImagoDei

AV1611 said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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)?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> There is a great deal of similarity between angels and Man in terms of image. However, the perfect image of the invisible God is Jesus. We lost the image of God in Adam but regain it in Christ through regeneration. What did we loose in Adam? Knowledge, righteousness and true holiness. What do we regain through regeneration? Knowledge, righteousness and true holiness:
> 
> Eph 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
> Col 3:10 "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"​*
Click to expand...

*

Yes, there is great similarity between Angels and men in reference to the image-bearing... in fact, since angels exist as spirits, and God is spirit, it would stand to reason that if our bodies are NOT part of our image bearing, that angels are actually MORE in God's image than we are because they are not restricted by physical bodies and the severe geographic limitations they impose (As compared to spirits' mobility).

But the more I follow that line of reasoning, the more distant we are from the statement of Scripture that MAN is made in God's image, and the angels simply are not described that way. It is only our logical analysis of what Imago Dei might mean that would even suggest that angels are also in God's image.

If, however, we accept that we physically are somehow formed to look like His spiritual essence, then image-bearing becomes the realm of mankind alone... and honor that not even the angels can boast.

It further means that image bearing is NOT something we lost at the Fall. If you believe that we have lost our image bearing status, how then can you explain Gen. 9:6 where God invokes the Imago Dei as the reason that murder is wrong? That was given after the Fall, and after the flood even. 

The logical end of such a claim is that we need not be concerned with killing unbelievers because they are not in God's image, and as unregenerate, God's reason behind prohibiting murder would not apply to them. I know you were not saying that, and I know that it is preposterous, but logically, it does follow the claim that we lost our image-bearing at the Fall.

Any further thoughts?

I.D.*


----------



## AV1611

ImagoDei said:


> If you believe that we have lost our image bearing status, how then can you explain Gen. 9:6 where God invokes the _Imago Dei_ as the reason that murder is wrong?



*Genesis 9:6* "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."​
Murder is wrong because we were made in the image of God (which was then lost through the Fall). Further, we are image bearers and are capable of bearing God's image. Try, The Image of God in Man: A Reformed Reassessment


----------



## ImagoDei

AV1611 said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that we have lost our image bearing status, how then can you explain Gen. 9:6 where God invokes the _Imago Dei_ as the reason that murder is wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Genesis 9:6* "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."​
> Murder is wrong because we were made in the image of God (which was then lost through the Fall). Further, we are image bearers and are capable of bearing God's image. Try, The Image of God in Man: A Reformed Reassessment
Click to expand...


Your article seems to say that Gen. 9:6 makes sense because man originally had the capacity to bear God's image, and that therefore, murder is wrong because it is a sin against God and what He originally created as a part of man. But then it goes on to say that right now, we do not bear that image (as unregenerate). 

I have several comments:

1. Exegetically, we must be careful to not assume that the Greek word translated "image" in the NT is exactly the same word (and same concept) as the original Hebrew word translated "image" in the OT. In truth, if we want to know what word is most similar, we should look to James 3:9 because is it there that James is obviously quoting from Gen. 1:27 and he did NOT use the Greek word generally translated "image" but instead used "homoiosis" (G3669) here in KJV translated "similitude"

Scripture interprets Scripture, and here we see the closer Greek term to represent the Hebrew term (corresponding to either "image" or "likeness").

So, the writings of Paul speaking of the image of Christ in us do not necessarily apply to our study and understanding of what is meant by the "Imago Dei."

2. I still don't see the strength of reasoning for Gen 9:6 if we no longer bear God's Image in our fallen state. Instead the passage seems to affirm the image-bearing reality is still in effect after the Fall. And since we are _nowhere_ told that the image was lost, the burden of proof is upon you to show where and how in Scripture that image is clearly portrayed as lost.

3. No offense to the scholarly men who wrote your article, but even all those high sounding arguments cannot overcome the simple fact that the word God chose to convey what he meant _always_ refers to a visible representation of another reality. It always describes something that visually _looks like _something else!

As I understand correct exegesis, defining words is of primary importance to the understanding of Scripture. Word studies to see how the word is used elsewhere in the Scriptures is critical to the process. And when we find a solid definition, we must stick with it... otherwise our interpretation is only a subjective exercise in airing diverse views. Exegesis is supposed to be about discerning what a text MUST mean.

In this instance, I submit that, exegetically, the word translated "image" in Gen 1:26-27 MUST mean a visible likeness. The collective Scriptural usage of the term demands it.

If that is established as true, then all the other discussions about losing or retaining the image bearing become moot.

I.D.


----------



## ImagoDei

AV1611 said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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)?*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> There is a great deal of similarity between angels and Man in terms of image. However, the perfect image of the invisible God is Jesus. We lost the image of God in Adam but regain it in Christ through regeneration. What did we loose in Adam? Knowledge, righteousness and true holiness. What do we regain through regeneration? Knowledge, righteousness and true holiness:
> 
> Eph 4:24 "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
> Col 3:10 "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"​*
Click to expand...

*
Incidentally, as I read this response, I see you defining the Imago Dei as "Knowledge, Righteousness, and true holiness."

I find that that does not answer the question I posed to you, however. For the holy angels still possess all three of those qualities. Therefore, the question still remains... How are MEN more in God's image than the angels? (Answer it for the pre-Fall condition if you don't mind... before you believe it was lost)

I.D.*


----------



## Davidius

I don't see how your own view avoids this problem. You think that the image of God is physical because God has appeared in sensual forms, sometimes with human traits. Angels have appeared as men, too. So how are men made more in the image of God? Since angels would only have a "spiritual" form, they would actually be more like God than we, because they don't have bodies. 

And have you decided yet whether God's form is a human form, or a cloud, or fire? You said above it would be natural for God to appear as a man if he had a human form. Well, he's appeared as other things, too. Is he a shapeshifter in his natural "spiritual" state?


----------



## AV1611

ImagoDei said:


> How are MEN more in God's image than the angels?



I thought I had answered this already, they are not.

*Eph 4:24* "And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."​
Calvin comments:
"Adam was at first created after the image of God, and reflected, as in a mirror, the Divine righteousness; but that image, having been defaced by sin, must now be restored in Christ. The regeneration of the godly is indeed — as we have formerly explained nothing else than the formation anew of the image of God in them. There is, no doubt, a far more rich and powerful manifestation of Divine grace in this second creation than in the first; but our highest perfection is uniformly represented in Scripture as consisting in our conformity and resemblance to God. Adam lost the image which he had originally received, and therefore it becomes necessary that it shall be restored to us by Christ. The design contemplated by regeneration is to recall us from our wanderings to that end for which we were created."

*Col 3:10* "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:"​
Calvin comments:
"Now, the image of God resides in the whole of the soul, inasmuch as it is not the reason merely that is rectified, but also the will. Hence, too, we learn, on the one hand, what is the end of our regeneration, that is, that we may be made like God, and that his glory may shine forth in us; and, on the other hand, what is the image of God, of which mention is made by Moses in Genesis 9:6, the rectitude and integrity of the whole soul, so that man reflects, like a mirror, the wisdom, righteousness, and goodness of God. He speaks somewhat differently in the Epistle to the Ephesians, but the meaning is the same. See the passage — Ephesians 4:24. Paul, at the same time, teaches, that there is nothing more excellent at which the Colossians can aspire, inasmuch as this is our highest perfection and blessedness to bear the image of God."​
On Genesis 9:6 Calvin writes 

_For in the image of God made he man. _For the greater confirmation of the above doctrines God declares, that he is not thus solicitous respecting human life rashly, and for no purpose. Men are indeed unworthy of God’s care, if respect be had only to themselves. but since they bear the image of God engraven on them, He deems himself violated in their person. Thus, although they have nothing of their own by which they obtain the favor of God, he looks upon his own gifts in them, and is thereby excited to love and to care for them. This doctrine, however is to be carefully observed that no one can be injurious to his brother without wounding God himself. Were this doctrine deeply fixed in our minds, we should be much more reluctant than we are to inflict injuries. Should any one object, that this divine image has been obliterated, the solution is easy; first, there yet exists some remnant of it, so that man is possessed of no small dignity; and, secondly, the Celestial Creator himself, however corrupted man may be, still keeps in view the end of his original creation; and according to his example, we ought to consider for what end he created men, and what excellence he has bestowed upon them above the rest of living beings.​
And on Genesis 1:26

Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure _synecdochee_; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth.​


----------



## k.seymore

ImagoDei said:


> I'm not sure I had fully recognized before how significant the "ruling" was to our image bearing. But with your post, I see it very clearly, and that it is quite significant.
> 
> I would like to challenge one thing and add another.
> 
> *Challenge:* The claim that God has no form is not consistent with Scripture. Even in the Genesis account of creation, we find that God "spoke" most of creation into being, the animals and man were "formed" which seems to be much more active and personal. It does not actually say so, but to me it evokes a "by hand" impression. The same can be said of the crafting of the garments for Adam and Eve... God made them... as it were... by hand... including the slaying of the animals and preparing the skins.
> 
> What's more, the narrative specifically states that A&E _heard_ God "walking" in the cool of the day. Walking tends to require something that will function as legs. Evidently it was substantial enough to make noise as He approached.
> 
> And I return again to God's statement about his meeting with Moses... God Himself testified that Moses saw the "form" of YAHWEH. (incidentally, that word "form" is also used to describe the beauty of Rachel and the handsomeness of Joseph)
> 
> It is a struggle to understand a Spirit having form, of course, but I believe we should struggle on the side of taking these words to mean what they mean, wrestling with the implications it has about the spirit realm rather than presume what we cannot know about the spirit realm and consequently being forced to impose new definitions upon the words of Scripture.
> 
> *Addition: *Don't stop at the brain! I recently read a portion of a systematic theology book that said essentially the same thing, but applied it equally to seeing, (God sees, and He gave us physical eyes so we too could see), hearing, smelling, tasting, etc. It could also easily apply to creativity and love as well.
> 
> I.D.




First off, I myself once went through a time when I read those descriptions of God in a similar way to how you are reading them. Instead of trying to steer you away from that path, perhaps it would be more helpful for you if I suggest you run up ahead on the path you are taking and see if it is leading to the place you want to be. I trust you'll find it is leading where you don't want to go, and you'll switch paths. So I suggest: be as consistent to your view as possible and take into account all the language of scripture and see what God you end up with. Here is what I believe you will find:

First we begin with Genesis 1's description of God as king, speaking with his voice and decreeing like a good ruler the way things must be under his rule. Most everyone has similar ideas of what a king is. A king sits on his throne and says things and those things come about without him having to get up off his throne. Sure enough, other places in scripture confirm Genesis 1's language. The Psalms say, he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth” (Psa 33:13-14) and Isaiah says that from "the beginning... from the foundations of the earth" God "sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers" (Is 40:21-22). So he's pretty high up there in the sky–if people look small like grasshoppers– and he's described as actually sitting on a throne at the beginning of creation. 

So from this throne in the sky God the king does the same thing human kings do. He commands things with his mouth and they must happen. It is through a kings wisdom, expressed outwardly by his voice, that the king rules and brings order. Then this king puts people in charge of his kingdom beneath him, and charges them with keeping the creation under control sustaining order. This imagery of God as king putting creation under the charge of humans is again brought up at the end of the flood story, so if we look at the beginning of the flood story to see how it plays out it is very helpful. There we see God the king looking down from his throne and seeing that his kingdom is overcome by disorder. God sees that the wickedness of his "representatives" is so great that every thought (in their brains, to bring up my earlier comments) was only evil. Now, thinking of God as a king like human kings we see a problem. If a human king creates a kingdom that degrades from order to disorder we think that they are not a very good king. So based on the imagery of a king we would say God made a mistake creating these people in charge of creation. They were not good representatives. Sure enough, this is how the language of scripture plays out. God "regrets" having created them, and he's "sorry" that he made them (Genesis 6:6-7). God "repents" of his mistake. It grieves God the king to his heart. So he says he will destroy them all, "For I am sorry I have made them." Then of course at the end of the flood God charges Noah and his family to be rulers of the renewed creation. 

Now, if we jump to the next account of God as king destroying those who are disobedient, we see that the language is consistent with a human king. The king has heard about a rebellious city and he is going to go down there and see if it is true and punish them. God the king says, "I will go down there to see [with his own two eyes!] whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know" (Gen. 18:21). So God will walk down there [with his own two feet!] to Sodom to see for himself whether the reports he has heard are true. It turns out that God finds out the reports were true, so God the king punishes them with destruction.

So, should we take all this language completely literally? Is God just like a human king who has arms, legs, eyes, eyelids, a heart, and a head, and who sits on a throne, and who repents of his mistakes, and who has human limitations to the point where he wants to visit a place to see if what he heard about it was true? That is the way God is described in scripture, right? Is this language literally true, or is it true because aspects of these human things are analogous to God? I would say the language conveys truth through concepts that humans can understand, even though it isn't exactly literally true in every respect. We are creatures! We need concepts we can understand as creatures, and I don't think we can help using language that is anthropomorphic. But don't take my word for it... lets go to the wisest man in the OT and see if he understands this type of language. Lets go to Solomon.

God promised Solomon's father by covenant that Solomon would build a house on earth which God would dwell in. So Solomon builds the house, and then the glory of God's presence fills it. Notice Solomon's understanding:
“A cloud filled the house of the LORD... Solomon said, ‘The LORD has said that he would dwell in thick darkness. I have indeed built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever... But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!"
Notice Solomon is staring with his own two eyes at a manifestation of God's glory on earth (God keeping his promise and dwelling in the temple) yet he doesn't take this visible language about God "literally." He sees it but he says, "You said you'd dwell in this house, but will you really? Not even all of heaven and earth could contain you as a dwelling!" That is wisdom! The truth Solomon knows in his mind is overruling the display God is presenting before their eyes. But even though he just said God can't even be contained by heaven itself, Solomon still can't help but speak using non-literal language. He goes on to pray that, even though the temple and the heavens and the earth can not contain God, he prays that God will hear from his true dwelling place whenever anyone prays toward this temple (and Solomon uses anthropomorphic language about God to pray this even though he just admitted the language wasn't literal. I don't think we can help but use language like this either! God "hears" our prayers!). 

Here's a good quote from Calvin in the Institutes on this subject, where Calvin also doesn't think God literally dwells in heaven or that he literally has human features as the Bible describes:

"His immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his dwelling-place... knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the worlds that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity... The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height."

Calvin has quite a few good quotes on this, I can post some more if you'd like. But anyways, I hope I have shown that if you take the language about God as you are taking it are are very consistently you will end up with a very human God. Whereas if you think that, since humans were created by God there are things about humans which are analogous to God, and that scripture uses these analogous aspects as language to convey the truth of God, you will see that sometimes one is focusing on the human analogy and missing the truth that the language is actually conveying. I hope that makes sense.



ImagoDei said:


> *Addition: *Don't stop at the brain! I recently read a portion of a systematic theology book that said essentially the same thing, but applied it equally to seeing, (God sees, and He gave us physical eyes so we too could see), hearing, smelling, tasting, etc. It could also easily apply to creativity and love as well.



I wouldn't stop with the brain either, the next thing I'd include would be opposable thumbs. They are a very useful thing in using tools that our minds conceive of in order to preserve order in creation and rule over the lower creatures. But that doesn't mean I think God has opposable thumbs. It means that I believe God, in of himself, has the tools necessary to bring order on the earth. Thus human opposable thumbs are a reflection of that fact about God.


----------



## ImagoDei

Davidius said:


> I don't see how your own view avoids this problem. You think that the image of God is physical because God has appeared in sensual forms, sometimes with human traits.


Wrong. I never said that. I believe that our bodies somehow visually look like God's form because that's what God's Word says. That's what _tselem _means. And nobody in this forum has made the first attempt to give the any evidence that it does not. It is consistent every time it is used, and even in Gen. 5:3 it is obviously used to mean that Seth looked like Adam. 

Scripture interprets Scripture. Gen. 5:3 explains what Gen. 1:27 means. While I find support for the concept that God has "form" elsewhere in Scripture, nothing is as indisputable as the clear meaning of the term "image" as used in Gen. 1:26-27 and throughout the Bible.


> Angels have appeared as men, too. So how are men made more in the image of God? Since angels would only have a "spiritual" form, they would actually be more like God than we, because they don't have bodies.


Exactly. That's why we must be suspicious of an interpretation that gives angel's "image-bearing" status. That is an honor reserved for mankind alone. Any suggestion otherwise (in my opinion) demeans the significance and value of the _Imago Dei._


> And have you decided yet whether God's form is a human form, or a cloud, or fire?


God is Spirit. I have no decision to make about what form He is or what form He can take. And that has zero impact on the meaning of the term "image."


> You said above it would be natural for God to appear as a man if he had a human form. Well, he's appeared as other things, too. Is he a shapeshifter in his natural "spiritual" state?


God can do whatever he likes. Obviously He has appeared different ways at different times. But God said that he created man to look like Him. I don't know everything that it means, but I do know that it's a visual representation. Beyond that, we don't know much, because we simply know very little about the spirit realm or the beings that dwell there.

Is that a dodge? I don't know... maybe it is. I have never said that I could explain it all, or understand it all, in fact, I've said exactly the opposite.

But I _cannot_ deny the plain meaning of God's Word and cast it aside on the basis of a human reasoning.

Ι.D.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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).
Click to expand...


Form? I take it by this you mean that the physical shape of human beings is representative somehow of God? Since God is Spirit - and nobody can deny that, and I don't think you do either - then you know that means he has no physical extent (or limitation). The physical shape of man cannot have any resemblance in any sense to anything physical in God, since, as you affirm, He is incorporeal.



> 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.



I'm not sure I follow, nor am I sure that logical study of Scripture demands what you seem to be saying (nor do I understand the utility of going down this road). Christ is said to be the express image of God. 

Why do you think that the physical shape and human body of Christ is what is meant when that is said?


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how your own view avoids this problem. You think that the image of God is physical because God has appeared in sensual forms, sometimes with human traits.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I never said that. I believe that our bodies somehow visually look like God's form because that's what God's Word says. That's what _tselem _means. And nobody in this forum has made the first attempt to give the any evidence that it does not. It is consistent every time it is used, and even in Gen. 5:3 it is obviously used to mean that Seth looked like Adam.
Click to expand...


What do you mean by "form" if it isn't physical - corporeal? Please explain.


----------



## ImagoDei

AV1611 said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are MEN more in God's image than the angels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I had answered this already, they are not.
Click to expand...


Then you are consistent in your own perspective. That answer is internally consistent, because everything that the traditional perspective says that the _Imago Dei _means about humanity is also true of the angels.

The only two logically consistent positions are that the angels ARE in God's image, or that all men and women bear God's image on their bodies, and that sets them apart from the angels as the true and only image-bearers.

From my point of view, I find the suggestion that the angels are also in God's image completely unacceptable for two reasons: 


God only declared it to be true of humans. (it is not ours to declare it otherwise.)

If Image-bearing is happenstance ("oh, I guess all these things are also true of angels, so they must be in God's image, too!") I find that highly insulting to the very concept of the "Imago Dei" for it is no longer a unique and special privilege. Furthermore, if our bodies have nothing to do with it, then we are LESS in God's image than the angels for they exist in spirit form exclusively and we are hampered by our bodies. That too is a severe devaluing of our role as image bearers.
I.D.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me remind everyone here that this is a confessional board. Better divines than ourselves who knew the languages wrote the Confessions to express the Scriptures. 

Here is the London Baptist Confession of Faith.



> Chapter 2
> GOD AND THE HOLY TRINITY
> 2.1 The Lord our God is the one and only living and true God.1
> His substance is in and of himself, he is infinite in being and perfection.2 His essence cannot be understood by any but himself.3* He is an absolutely pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions.* He alone has immortality, living in light which no one can approach.4 He is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, in every way infinite, perfectly holy, perfectly wise, absolutely free, completely absolute.5 He works all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and entirely righteous will for his own glory.6
> He is perfectly loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth; he forgives iniquity, transgression and sin.7 He is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him, yet at the same time he is entirely just and terrible in his judgements, hating all sin, and he will by no means clear the guilty.8
> (1) Deu_6:4; Jer_10:10; 1Co_8:4,1Co_8:6; 1Th_1:9
> (2) Isa_48:12
> (3) Exo_3:14; Job_11:7-8; Job_26:14; Psa_145:3; Rom_11:33-34
> (4) Joh_4:24;1Ti_1:17; Deu_4:15-16; Luk_24:39; Act_14:11, Act_14:15; Jam_5:17
> (5) Mal_3:6; Jam_1:17; 1Ki_8:27; Jer_23:23-24; Psa_90:2; 1Ti_1:17; Gen_17:1; Rev_4:8; Isa_6:3; Rom_16:27; Psa_115:3; Exo_3:14
> (6) Eph_1:11; Isa_46:10; Pro_16:4; Rom_11:36
> (7) Exo_34:6-7; 1Jo_4:8
> (8) Heb_11:6; Neh_9:32-33; Psa_5:4-6; Nah_1:2-3; Exo_34:7




And the Westminster Confession of Faith 



> 2:1 There is but one only (Deu_6:4; 1Co_8:4, 1Co_8:6) living, and true God (Jer_10:10; 1Th_1:9): who is infinite in being and perfection (Job_11:7-9, Job_26:14), *a most pure spirit* (Joh_4:24), *invisible* (1Ti_1:17), *without body, parts* (Deu_4:15, Deu_4:16; Luk_24:39; Joh_4:24), *or passions* (Act_14:11, Act_14:15), *immutable *(Mal_3:6; Jam_1:17),* immense* (1Ki_8:27; Jer_23:23, Jer_23:24), *eternal* (Psa_90:2; 1Ti_1:17), incomprehensible (Psa_145:3), almighty (Gen_17:1; Rev_4:8), most wise (Rom_16:27), most holy (Isa_6:3; Rev_4:8), most free (Psa_115:3), most absolute (Exo_3:14), working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will (Eph_1:11), for His own glory (Pro_16:4; Rom_11:36); most loving (1Jo_4:8, 1Jo_4:16), gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin (Exo_34:6, Exo_34:7); the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb_11:6); and with all most just and terrible in His judgments (Neh_9:32, Neh_9:33), hating all sin (Psa_5:5, Psa_5:6), and who will by no means clear the guilty (Exo_34:7; Nah_1:2, Nah_1:3).


----------



## fredtgreco

ImagoDei said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how your own view avoids this problem. You think that the image of God is physical because God has appeared in sensual forms, sometimes with human traits.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I never said that. I believe that our bodies somehow visually look like God's form because that's what God's Word says. That's what _tselem _means. And nobody in this forum has made the first attempt to give the any evidence that it does not. It is consistent every time it is used, and even in Gen. 5:3 it is obviously used to mean that Seth looked like Adam.
Click to expand...



Actually, that is not what _tselem _must mean. It is also not what _eikon _(the LXX translation) means in Greek either. That is why you can have in Hebrews 10:1, the _eikon_ of "good things" or heavenly blessings. Must the law have physical form? How about Col. 3:10, where the _eikon_ of God consists of knowledge? Is knowledge physical? What does it look like? Is it blue? Red? Wood-like? Steel?

Why is it that 2 Cor. 3:18 talks about the _eikon _we are being transformed into as the Spirit - and references the glory of the Lord? If a physical image is implied, how then can Paul in 1 Cor. 15:49 refer to Adam and Christ as having different images (likeness, _eikon_)? Didn't they each have the same physical image? But yet Paul seems to thing that their image/likeness consists in something different. Again, if image is a physical likeness (all the time, as you suppose), then how can we be in the process of being "conformed into the _eikon_ of Christ (Rom 8:29) ?


Sorry, I'll stick with the Children's Catechism - "God is a Spirit, and _doesn't have a body like men" _and leave the exegetical gymnastics to the Joseph Smith cult.


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how your own view avoids this problem. You think that the image of God is physical because God has appeared in sensual forms, sometimes with human traits.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I never said that. I believe that our bodies somehow visually look like God's form because that's what God's Word says. That's what _tselem _means. And nobody in this forum has made the first attempt to give the any evidence that it does not. It is consistent every time it is used, and even in Gen. 5:3 it is obviously used to mean that Seth looked like Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "form" if it isn't physical - corporeal? Please explain.
Click to expand...

We know very little about the spirit realm or how beings exist there. If God says that he made us to look like Him, then we have to believe Him. We have to try and comprehend realities that exist outside the 4 dimensions of reality that we know and live in.

But to give an example that helps me make some sense of it, consider a candle flame. It has no substance that you can grasp, hold, weigh or quantify like you would any other material. It is quite literally a point in space where chemical changes are occurring and light is being emitted. As soon as those changes take place, the material in the flame cools and rises to mix into the atmosphere above while the same chemical change continues to happen and the flame persists. 

But the flame itself has no mass or substance of its own. _It is not an object by any definition at all. But it does have form. _And I could draw a picture or model that form in clay and you would not have any question what was being drawn or modeled.

How is it that something which is NOT an object have form? Well, the candle is an example in the physical realm. Why can't that happen also in the spirit realm? 

God has no body. But that doesn't mean He has no form. God's own words tell us that He does. And His own words tell us that He fashioned us physically in that image.

As inadequate as that is, that is the best I can explain it. Because it is the stuff of GOD, there is no way I nor any other man can fully grasp this reality, but we dare not deny for that reason.

I.D.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I never said that. I believe that our bodies somehow visually look like God's form because that's what God's Word says. That's what _tselem _means. And nobody in this forum has made the first attempt to give the any evidence that it does not. It is consistent every time it is used, and even in Gen. 5:3 it is obviously used to mean that Seth looked like Adam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "form" if it isn't physical - corporeal? Please explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We know very little about the spirit realm or how beings exist there. If God says that he made us to look like Him, then we have to believe Him.
Click to expand...


Where does God say that he made us to LOOK LIKE him?



> But to give an example that helps me make some sense of it, consider a candle flame. It has no substance that you can grasp, hold, weigh or quantify like you would any other material. It is quite literally a point in space where chemical changes are occurring and light is being emitted. As soon as those changes take place, the material in the flame cools and rises to mix into the atmosphere above while the same chemical change continues to happen and the flame persists.
> 
> But the flame itself has no mass or substance of its own.



You should check your science out before you make such an analogy. What do you think a flame is? It is light being emitted by glowing....something. Hmmm. Glowing gas? The flame cannot exist without substance doing the glowing. Sorry, bad analogy.



> Why can't that happen also in the spirit realm?
> 
> God has no body. But that doesn't mean He has no form.



You're not even making sense. Form MEANS physical extent, topology and shape.



> God's own words tell us that He does. And His own words tell us that He fashioned us physically in that image.



Where? Where exactly are you getting this?


----------



## ImagoDei

fredtgreco said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how your own view avoids this problem. You think that the image of God is physical because God has appeared in sensual forms, sometimes with human traits.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I never said that. I believe that our bodies somehow visually look like God's form because that's what God's Word says. That's what _tselem _means. And nobody in this forum has made the first attempt to give the any evidence that it does not. It is consistent every time it is used, and even in Gen. 5:3 it is obviously used to mean that Seth looked like Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is not what _tselem _must mean.
Click to expand...

You have offered absolutely no support for that claim. 

Show me one place in the OT where that _tselem_ does not indicate a visual representation of something. 


> It is also not what _eikon _(the LXX translation) means in Greek either.


God did not use the LXX to communicate this truth to us. He did not use Greek. As instructive as the LXX might be as a comparative resource, it is not the text that God gave us. Therefore, we cannot depend upon it to define a Hebrew word for us. That is to be found in the OT usage alone. 

It is quite evident that _eikon_ is used many different ways (including visual representations), but it proves nothing in regards to _tselem._



> Sorry, I'll stick with the Children's Catechism - *"God is a Spirit, and doesn't have a body like men" *and leave the exegetical gymnastics to the Joseph Smith cult.


I completely agree with the statement in bold. I have never suggested otherwise. 

But what you call "exegetical gymnastics," I call "rightly dividing the word of God." 

I.D.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> How are MEN more in God's image than the angels?



Let's see. Perhaps because God SAYS men are God's image, whereas of angels this is not said? 

More distinguishes angels from men than physical substance and body, ID.


----------



## VictorBravo

ImagoDei said:


> But to give an example that helps me make some sense of it, consider a candle flame. It has no substance that you can grasp, hold, weigh or quantify like you would any other material. It is quite literally a point in space where chemical changes are occurring and light is being emitted. As soon as those changes take place, the material in the flame cools and rises to mix into the atmosphere above while the same chemical change continues to happen and the flame persists.
> 
> But the flame itself has no mass or substance of its own. _It is not an object by any definition at all. But it does have form. _And I could draw a picture or model that form in clay and you would not have any question what was being drawn or modeled.
> 
> How is it that something which is NOT an object have form? Well, the candle is an example in the physical realm. Why can't that happen also in the spirit realm?
> 
> God has no body. But that doesn't mean He has no form. God's own words tell us that He does. And His own words tell us that He fashioned us physically in that image.
> 
> As inadequate as that is, that is the best I can explain it. Because it is the stuff of GOD, there is no way I nor any other man can fully grasp this reality, but we dare not deny for that reason.
> 
> I.D.



I'm sorry. Whatever you are trying to say, it would help to use English the way everyone else does. An object is something perceived by the senses. Candle flames are obviously objects. You can focus their images on a wall using an *objective* lens.

Your own image does not have mass or substance, either. Hmm. 

If there is no light, your image disappears. I wonder what implications that has for the "stuff" of God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

ID You have a PM. Please read it.


----------



## fredtgreco

You are not rightly dividing the Word. You show your inability by dismissing the Greek, when the NT clearly speaks of the "image/likeness of God" and uses the inspired term - _eikon_. It also does so in a way that clearly indicates it is not physical. You fail to interpret both Gen. 1:27 and 5:3 in the light of Col 3:10, Hebrews 10:1; 1 Cor 15:49, Romans 8:29 and other Scriptures. In fact, _eikon_ most often excludes physicality. 

Or does 1 Cor. 11:7 not appear in your Bible? What does image mean there? Or maybe 2 Cor. 4:4?

This is hermeneutics 101. It is why the Confession takes the position it does (contrary to yours). It is further backed up by an explicit reference in 1 Tim 1:17 (and also Col. 1:15 and John 1:18) which state that God is invisible - which by definition means, has no physical form that can be seen. It is literally "not subject to being seen" (_aoratos_)


----------



## ImagoDei

> 2 His essence cannot be understood by any but himself.3* He is an absolutely pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions.*


I have not been suggesting anything contrary to #3 above. If you believe that I am, then you do not yet understanding what I'm trying to communicate.

I will, however, remind everyone that #2 is also there in the confession... and THAT'S what it seems to me that many people are forgetting. _We simply cannot fully understand the essence of God!_ It is only as God reveals Himself that we can understand anything at all. And one of the ways He has revealed Himself is in the _Imago Dei._

I.D.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> 2 His essence cannot be understood by any but himself.3* He is an absolutely pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions.*
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been suggesting anything contrary to #3 above. If you believe that I am, then you do not yet understanding what I'm trying to communicate.
> 
> I will, however, remind everyone that #2 is also there in the confession... and THAT'S what it seems to me that many people are forgetting. _We simply cannot fully understand the essence of God!_ It is only as God reveals Himself that we can understand anything at all. And one of the ways He has revealed Himself is in the _Imago Dei._
> 
> I.D.
Click to expand...


So in other words because we can't fully understand the essence of God, you think it's our right to go into all kinds of speculation about his 'form'?

Speculation is rarely worthwhile - Scripture has told us one thing about God's form - it's that he doesn't have FORM. He's spirit, which exactly DENIES any FORM. (and please don't answer this with some repetitive speculation about five and six dimensional space... you have no reason to go there, and it's completely unprofitable)


----------



## toddpedlar

I'm not sure going much further in this discussion is worthwhile, ID. You seem not to be able to grasp the fact that when you claim God has some kind of "form" while at the same time claim that he is pure spirit (which has no form), you are contradicting yourself. I don't know how to convince you otherwise.


----------



## toddpedlar

I do suggest that before going much further you address Pastor Greco's points about the NT instances of image (since they are equally important in understanding the Biblical usage of the concept of man being created in God's image).


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> Where does God say that he made us to LOOK LIKE him?


As I've said before, that's what _tselem _means every time it's used in the OT. Check it out. One place it refers to drawings on a wall. One place it refers to the clay models of tumors. In every case, it is is a visual representation of something.


> You should check your science out before you make such an analogy. What do you think a flame is? It is light being emitted by glowing....something. Hmmm. Glowing gas? The flame cannot exist without substance doing the glowing. Sorry, bad analogy.


Come on, try to understand what I'm saying here. I know the analogy is not perfect and I admitted as much because this is an example from the physical realm, but the point that you cannot grasp a flame still stands... a flame is not a tangible object, yet is has a discernable shape... _that _was my point.


> Why can't that happen also in the spirit realm?
> 
> God has no body. But that doesn't mean He has no form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not even making sense. Form MEANS physical extent, topology and shape.
Click to expand...

In the physical realm, yes, but we are talking about the spiritual realm and we cannot be sure what form a spirit takes in its native environment!


> God's own words tell us that He does. And His own words tell us that He fashioned us physically in that image.
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Where exactly are you getting this?
Click to expand...

I've referenced it several times:

Numbers 12:8... God's own words about Himself: "With him [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, *And he beholds the form of the LORD.* (NASB)

(You can check out how that word "form" is used elsewhere in scripture... it has to do with shape.)

And in Gen. 1:26, again, God's own words: "*Let Us make man in Our image*, according to Our likeness;" (NASB)

"Image" (_tselem_) means a visual representation. Others have claimed that it does not mean that, but the word study on the Hebrew term proves they are mistaken. 

I.D.


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are MEN more in God's image than the angels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see. Perhaps because God SAYS men are God's image, whereas of angels this is not said?
Click to expand...

Exactly my point! Therefore it is only true of mankind, NOT of angels!


> More distinguishes angels from men than physical substance and body, ID.


I agree. But what I said was that everything the traditional view claims as our "image bearing" (volition, moral being, intelligent, eternal spirit, etc.) is ALSO true of angels. The very things we have always claimed set us apart as the image bearers are also true of angels. Therefore, there must be something more involved, or else we do not have that distinction as being image-bearers when angels are not.

I have yet to find one person who can suggest anything that would fulfill that distinction except our bodies as I have suggested.

I.D.


----------



## Herald

ImagoDei,

You are going to respond to Pastor Greco's last post ---> here before you post anything else. I strongly suggest you consider your response carefully. You are dangerously close to being unconfessional and contrary to accepted orthodoxy. If you continue in this personal diatribe you will be subject to infractions. If that happens, considering the short amount of time you have been here, you may want to consider if the PB is the place for you.


----------



## toddpedlar

> God's own words tell us that He does. And His own words tell us that He fashioned us physically in that image.
> 
> 
> 
> Where? Where exactly are you getting this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've referenced it several times:
> 
> Numbers 12:8... God's own words about Himself: "With him [Moses] I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, *And he beholds the form of the LORD.* (NASB)
> 
> (You can check out how that word "form" is used elsewhere in scripture... it has to do with shape.)
Click to expand...


And you can be certain that the usage of 'form' to translate the underlying Hebrew of Num. 12:8 does not imply that Moses saw any physical form of anything with his eyes, since we know God to be invisible from other Scripture texts... so it must mean something else. 'form' in old translations was translated 'similitude' - which does NOT mean "physical shape".



> And in Gen. 1:26, again, God's own words: "*Let Us make man in Our image*, according to Our likeness;" (NASB)
> 
> "Image" (_tselem_) means a visual representation. Others have claimed that it does not mean that, but the word study on the Hebrew term proves they are mistaken.
> 
> I.D.



First, you can't dismiss the inspired Greek instances in the NT which use the word _eikon_, so you'd better expand your word study.

Second, the word _tselem_ indeed used of physical representation - usually of idols. So? Is there no use to understanding the word when used in Genesis 1 in the context of the rest of Scripture which clearly denies that God has any physical form? And again, is there NO help to be had from reading the NT parallels?

God was pleased to make man in His image, as the Scripture says. Period. Since God has no physical form, the physical form of man cannot represent anything physical in God (since God is incorporeal, is spirit, period). I don't think there is ANY edifying purpose to speculations about "spirit dimensions" and what have you, when there are much fuller understandings possible about what "God's image" means through the study of Scripture.


----------



## Herald

ImagoDei,

Your signature needs to include the name of your church and the city in which it is located unless you were granted an exemption by an administrator. Please correct this ASAP.

Thank you.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> How are MEN more in God's image than the angels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's see. Perhaps because God SAYS men are God's image, whereas of angels this is not said?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly my point! Therefore it is only true of mankind, NOT of angels!
> 
> 
> 
> More distinguishes angels from men than physical substance and body, ID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree. But what I said was that everything the traditional view claims as our "image bearing" (volition, moral being, intelligent, eternal spirit, etc.) is ALSO true of angels. The very things we have always claimed set us apart as the image bearers are also true of angels. Therefore, there must be something more involved, or else we do not have that distinction as being image-bearers when angels are not.
> 
> I have yet to find one person who can suggest anything that would fulfill that distinction except our bodies as I have suggested.
> 
> I.D.
Click to expand...


How bout the fact that we are redeemable? Even the elect angels are not redeemed by Christ, and the fallen angels are not redeemable. The angels are not "Christ's brethren" as we, God's chosen, are.


----------



## ImagoDei

fredtgreco said:


> You are not rightly dividing the Word. You show your inability by dismissing the Greek,


You were using the LXX to bring definition to a Hebrew word. The LXX only reflects what the translators in Egypt thought the best Greek word was to translate the Hebrew words were at the time they constructed the translation.

How many years was it between the time Moses penned the words of Genesis until the time the LXX was translated? We cannot use the LXX to bring clear definition to a Hebrew word.


> when the NT clearly speaks of the "image/likeness of God" and uses the inspired term - _eikon_. It also does so in a way that clearly indicates it is not physical. You fail to interpret both Gen. 1:27 and 5:3 in the light of Col 3:10, Hebrews 10:1; 1 Cor 15:49, Romans 8:29 and other Scriptures. In fact, _eikon_ most often excludes physicality.
> 
> Or does 1 Cor. 11:7 not appear in your Bible? What does image mean there? Or maybe 2 Cor. 4:4?
> 
> This is hermeneutics 101. It is why the Confession takes the position it does (contrary to yours). It is further backed up by an explicit reference in 1 Tim 1:17 (and also Col. 1:15 and John 1:18) which state that God is invisible - which by definition means, has no physical form that can be seen. It is literally "not subject to being seen" (_aoratos_)


I have not once stated anything contrary to the confessions or in conflict with Paul's writings in the NT.

You have yet to demonstrate that my word study on _tselem_ is in error. You're only recourse is to turn to a completely different language written to a completely different culture/time under a completely different "dispensation" and a new understanding of the workings of God.

The fact that Paul brings deeper spiritual definition to the "image" does not disqualify the literal meaning that Moses intended when he penned Gen. 1. (Just as Paul's teaching on "circumcision of the heart" in NO way means that God did NOT command literal physical circumcision in the OT.)

Word studies are "hermeneutics 101" Finding a concise and consistent definition of an original language word and sticking with it is "hermeneutics 101." Following our exegetical process to whatever end it leads us no matter what our preconceptions were is "hermeneutics 101" This is what "rightly dividing" is all about. 

"tselem" means what it means every time it is used... therefore, we must exegetically conclude that our bodies somehow visibly resemble God (although I cannot explain or understand how). God's Word says that it is so.

I.D.


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> ImagoDei said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 His essence cannot be understood by any but himself.3* He is an absolutely pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts or passions.*
> 
> 
> 
> I have not been suggesting anything contrary to #3 above. If you believe that I am, then you do not yet understanding what I'm trying to communicate.
> 
> I will, however, remind everyone that #2 is also there in the confession... and THAT'S what it seems to me that many people are forgetting. _We simply cannot fully understand the essence of God!_ It is only as God reveals Himself that we can understand anything at all. And one of the ways He has revealed Himself is in the _Imago Dei._
> 
> I.D.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in other words because we can't fully understand the essence of God, you think it's our right to go into all kinds of speculation about his 'form'?
Click to expand...

Indeed any attempt to try and explain God's "form" is squarely in the realm of speculation. But so is the claim that God _cannot_ have form, especially in light of Numbers 12:8!


> Speculation is rarely worthwhile - Scripture has told us one thing about God's form - it's that he doesn't have FORM. He's spirit, which exactly DENIES any FORM.


Where does the Bible tell us that "spirit ... DENIES any FORM"? We do not know the essence of spirit nor how the spirit realm works! Your claim ALSO is really only speculation! 

Again... read Numbers 12:8... if God has no form, why did he tell us that Moses saw the "form of the LORD"? God is no liar. 


> (and please don't answer this with some repetitive speculation about five and six dimensional space... you have no reason to go there, and it's completely unprofitable)


LOL! I know nothing about any dimensions except height, depth, width (a little too much width at that...) and time. That's the realm we live in.

I.D.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are not rightly dividing the Word. You show your inability by dismissing the Greek,
> 
> 
> 
> You were using the LXX to bring definition to a Hebrew word. The LXX only reflects what the translators in Egypt thought the best Greek word was to translate the Hebrew words were at the time they constructed the translation.
> 
> How many years was it between the time Moses penned the words of Genesis until the time the LXX was translated? We cannot use the LXX to bring clear definition to a Hebrew word.
Click to expand...


Your exegetical standards musn't be as high as you might claim. The words of the Greek LXX AND NT bear GREAT WEIGHT when understanding allusions to or quotations of the OT. It is VERY helpful - not that the LXX is inspired, but it is helpful in understanding the usage of words in the OT. 



> "tselem" means what it means every time it is used... therefore, we must exegetically conclude that our bodies somehow visibly resemble God (although I cannot explain or understand how). God's Word says that it is so.
> 
> I.D.



Why must it be "resemblance"? I don't see the texts requiring that. Rather, in every case tselem is "REPRESENTATIVE". This, I believe, is the core meaning.

The golden calves were images - I'm sure you'd agree. They were presented as "JEHOVAH". Now if you believe that images must always be physically resembling the things they are made of, do you HONESTLY think the Israelite idolaters thought that God looked like a cow? Or were they presenting something to REPRESENT God? Not to make an image that "looks like" God, but to be visible for their faithless eyes?

Do you really believe that the reason they were condemned for this act was because they got the wrong image in mind? Perhaps if they had made golden Oscar statues they'd have been okay? God wouldn't have minded, since they got the physical resemblance right? Do you understand the implications of what you're trying to teach here?

Why can't "image bearing" be like the REAL situation in the Israelite camp? Clearly these calves were images (though the word tselem is not used in that passage) and there can be NO question about any attempt being made to form something that looked physically like God. 

You see, making images is NOT tied to physical resemblance, necessarily. It certainly was not in the case of the golden calf - what was going on there (and in other places where images are made - if not all of them) is that representation was being done...and that is NOT required to have a physical connection at all.


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> How bout the fact that we are redeemable? Even the elect angels are not redeemed by Christ, and the fallen angels are not redeemable. The angels are not "Christ's brethren" as we, God's chosen, are.



Let me see if I understand what you are suggesting...

The fact that we are redeemable is something we get by way of being in God's image? 

To be redeemable requires that we be sinners. They cannot be separated. We did not get our sinfulness (which is what makes us redeemable) from God!

Otherwise, the act of redemption is God's alone! It has nothing at ALL to do with my character (aside from my sinfulness).

I.D.


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> Where does the Bible tell us that "spirit ... DENIES any FORM"? We do not know the essence of spirit nor how the spirit realm works! Your claim ALSO is really only speculation!



Spirit is contrasted with body all over the place. It is presented to us as being not physical, period. It is invisible. Spirit doesn't have physical limitation or extent. Yes, it's pretty clear what spirit is, at least insofar as we are concerned when comparing it to physical matter and form, shape and substance. Spirit does not have these things. 

how far down this road are you going to go?



> Again... read Numbers 12:8... if God has no form, why did he tell us that Moses saw the "form of the LORD"? God is no liar.



Of course he's no liar. But he is invisible, and has no physicality whatsoever. So perhaps you have to look a little deeper in this verse and find out what really was being said about God in context?


> (and please don't answer this with some repetitive speculation about five and six dimensional space... you have no reason to go there, and it's completely unprofitable)
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! I know nothing about any dimensions except height, depth, width (a little too much width at that...) and time. That's the realm we live in.
> 
> I.D.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's NOT the realm God lives in.

What might that have to say about this issue? Perhaps God wanted someone to represent him in this space and time. Someone to act as his viceregent. Hm. Perhaps it is good to look at a bigger picture sometimes. How is it that image-bearing is used when Adam is discussed? What jobs were Adam given? What role does he play in the covenantal administration of God's purposes?


----------



## toddpedlar

ImagoDei said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> 
> How bout the fact that we are redeemable? Even the elect angels are not redeemed by Christ, and the fallen angels are not redeemable. The angels are not "Christ's brethren" as we, God's chosen, are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand what you are suggesting...
> 
> The fact that we are redeemable is something we get by way of being in God's image?
> 
> To be redeemable requires that we be sinners. They cannot be separated. We did not get our sinfulness (which is what makes us redeemable) from God!
> 
> Otherwise, the act of redemption is God's alone! It has nothing at ALL to do with my character (aside from my sinfulness).
> 
> I.D.
Click to expand...


God doesnt' redeem the fallen angels. Christ did not stand in their place. Christ is not their brother - nor is he the brother of the holy angels.

Are you telling me that the fact that God acted to redeem men suggests nothing about the difference between men and angels as to image-bearing?


----------



## Herald

North Jersey Baptist said:


> ImagoDei,
> 
> Your signature needs to include the name of your church and the city in which it is located unless you were granted an exemption by an administrator. Please correct this ASAP.
> 
> Thank you.



Last warning. Fix your signature now. You're still online posting in this thread. Fix your signature.


----------



## ImagoDei

toddpedlar said:


> Your exegetical standards musn't be as high as you might claim. The words of the Greek LXX AND NT bear GREAT WEIGHT when understanding allusions to or quotations of the OT. It is VERY helpful - not that the LXX is inspired, but it is helpful in understanding the usage of words in the OT.


My standards are VERY high. When understanding "allusions to or quotations of the OT" is exactly what I believe the LXX is so helpful for. It helps us connect NT words to OT words, yes, but to provide us with a word study in the OT, it is of no real help.


> "tselem" means what it means every time it is used... therefore, we must exegetically conclude that our bodies somehow visibly resemble God (although I cannot explain or understand how). God's Word says that it is so.
> 
> I.D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why must it be "resemblance"? I don't see the texts requiring that. Rather, in every case tselem is "REPRESENTATIVE". This, I believe, is the core meaning.
Click to expand...

Now that's a worthwhile suggestion that should be examined more in-depth! But at this moment, I still see it as a "picture" or "model" as it is used in specific instance in the OT.


> The golden calves were images - I'm sure you'd agree. They were presented as "JEHOVAH". Now if you believe that images must always be physically resembling the things they are made of, do you HONESTLY think the Israelite idolaters thought that God looked like a cow? Or were they presenting something to REPRESENT God? Not to make an image that "looks like" God, but to be visible for their faithless eyes?


No, it was an "image" of a calf. It looked like a calf. It was not made to look like God.


> Do you really believe that the reason they were condemned for this act was because they got the wrong image in mind? Perhaps if they had made golden Oscar statues they'd have been okay? God wouldn't have minded, since they got the physical resemblance right? Do you understand the implications of what you're trying to teach here?


No, again, the 10 commandments forbid any attempt to make any sort of image to represent God. But if our bodies are an "image" of God as I believe, that is the handiwork of God Himself, and not in violation of the Law.


> Why can't "image bearing" be like the REAL situation in the Israelite camp? Clearly these calves were images (though the word tselem is not used in that passage) and there can be NO question about any attempt being made to form something that looked physically like God.


No, there is much question about that... true they wanted to have something to look at in order to worship God, but I see no indication that they were attempting to actually capture YAHWEH's likeness. They only copied the ways of the nations that surrounded them.


> You see, making images is NOT tied to physical resemblance, necessarily. It certainly was not in the case of the golden calf - what was going on there (and in other places where images are made - if not all of them) is that representation was being done...and that is NOT required to have a physical connection at all.


But in the case of _tselem,_ it IS the case.

I appreciate you acknowledging that the golden calf "image" was not the same "image" as found in Gen. 1. I am not trying to define that word. And I would further suggest that since there were TWO words used for "image" in the OT, it means that they very likely had distinct (yet similar) meanings. 

Unless I remember incorrectly (a distinct possibility!), the other "image" always means an idol of some sort. But _tselem_ even includes artwork on a cave wall! 

_tselem_ is the word that God used. And he was not crafting an idol.

I.D.


----------

