Imago Dei and Communion

[py3ak]

Looking at Genesis it appears that the image of God is at the root of all distinctions between man and the animals. Do you think it's fair to say that the image of God is the foundation for the possibility of communion between God and man? If we were not made in His image, we could not love or intelligently obey Him.
Why or why not?
Thanks!

 

[no1special18]

The image of God does seem to be the only thing that separates us from the animals, and I think that it is safe to conclude that it is therefore the key factor to our being able to commune with God. However, what I think is interesting is how we come up with what being in the image of God means. If one looks carefully he will see that the Genesis account does not really come out and clarify what it means to be in the image of God. Are we just looking at what we have and the animals do not and saying that is the image of God? Actually, if anyone could tell me where our interpretation for the image of God came from I would appreciate it.

 

[py3ak]

Ah, James, there you have a question I have been asking myself. In Genesis 1 the image of God is connected with authority. In Ephesians 4 and Colossians it seems to have to do with knowledge, righteousness and holiness of the truth. It is what gives dignity to man (Genesis 9:6, James 3). But the problem I have is how to define it particularly if it is something the angels do not have.

 

[py3ak]

I found this in Calvin: Institutes, 2:16:6: (Emphases mine)

6. OSIANDER´S DOCTRINE OF THE IMAGE OF GOD
But the principle of which Osiander boasts is completely trifling. He asserts that man was created in God´s image because he was fashioned according to the pattern of the Messiah to come, that man might conform to him whom the Father had already determined to clothe with flesh. From this, Osiander infers that if Adam had never fallen from his original and upright condition, Christ would still have become man. All men endowed with sound judgment understand of themselves how trivial and distorted this is. Meanwhile, Osiander thinks that he has been the first to see what the image of God was: that God´s glory shone not only in the exceptional gifts with which Adam had been adorned, but that God dwelt essentially in him.
I admit that Adam bore God´s image, in so far as he was joined to God (which is the true and highest perfection of dignity). Nevertheless, I maintain that this likeness ought to be sought only in those marks of excellence with which God had distinguished Adam over all other living creatures. All men unanimously admit that Christ was even then the image of God. Hence: whatever excellence was engraved upon Adam, derived from the fact that he approached the glory of his Creator through the onlybegotten Son. "œSo man was created in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27); in him the Creator himself willed that his own glory be seen as in a mirror. Adam was advanced to this degree of honor, thanks to the onlybegotten Son. But I add: the Son himself was the common Head over angels and men. Thus the dignity that had been conferred upon man belonged also to the angels. When we hear the angels called "œchildren of God" (Psalm 82:6) it would be inappropriate to deny that they were endowed with some quality resembling their Father. But if he willed that his glory be represented both in angels and in men and manifested in both natures, Osiander is ignorantly babbling when he says that angels were set beneath men because they did not bear the figure of Christ. For they could not continually enjoy the direct vision of God unless they were like him. And Paul similarly teaches that "œmen are renewed "¦after the image of God" (Colossians 3:10) only if they consort with the angels so as to cleave together under one head. To sum up: if we believe in Christ, we shall take on the form of angels (Matthew 22:30) when we are received into heaven, and this will be our final happiness. But if Osiander is allowed to infer that the first pattern of God´s image was in the man Christ, with the same justification anyone can contend that Christ had to partake of the angelic nature because the image of God belongs to them also.

 

[biblelighthouse]

I believe the Genesis account does tell us what the image of God is in man:

Genesis 1:

26 Then God said, "œLet Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "œBe fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

According to this passage, I believe the image of God is:

1) Relationship - "in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them"

2) Rule - "Let Us make man in Our image . . . let them have dominion . . . over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."



In verse 27, we see a shadow of the Trinity in man. It says, "in the image of God He created him (singular); male and female He created them (plural)" A married couple is one. And in Adam and Eve's case, were actually of the same substance (she was taken from his side). Yet there is plurality within their unity. They are still two persons. And because there is a plurality of persons, they could have relationship with one another.

In verses 26 and 28, we see a shadow of God's universal rule in man. God says, "Let Us make man in Our image . . . let them have dominion". God is ruler over the entire universe. So man was given the earth to rule, as a microcosm of God's kingdom.

Relationship. Rule. The image of God.





[Edited on 3-5-2006 by biblelighthouse]