Imago Dei... is it at all physical?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

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'?
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top