Jeremy Christian's Take on the "Image of God"

[Jeremy_Christian]

Continuing the discussion from When do Humans Arise?:

@Jeremy_Christian

With as little as we know, @Jeremy_Christian, we know the image of God is not a pro-rata concept… subject to dilution. You either have it or you dont.

Gen1:26 - Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, both male and female he created them.

Let me explain my reasoning. See if we can crack this nut.

In both mentions of “God’s image” here in early Genesis, they closely mirror each other. First, Noah’s sons are given the same blessings as Gen1 humans, “be fruitful” and “increase” and “fill the earth”.

Then it again reiterates the hierarchy in the animal kingdom, specifying humans over all others, plants and animals.

This, to me, is a clear indication that this is a continuation of the end of creation in Gen1.

It seems to be stating that God’s “image” in this case is the authority in the hierarchy being stated. Like the way management is established in a business. We’re the managers. God demands an accounting from every animal in the chain of responsibility. He is the authority, but punishment will be carried out by the managers.

Whatever it is, it seems it is what distinguishes us from the animal kingdom we evolved from.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Thanks for starting a new thread.

@Jeremy_Christian

Whatever it is, it seems it is what distinguishes us from the animal kingdom we evolved from.

Do you know the three views on the Image of God? This article is important, and @deuteroKJ might help you out too.

@dga471

I asked John Hilber this question at the ASA workshop last July and he referred me to a paper by D. J. A. Clines as representing the dominant consensus in the field of OT studies. I haven’t had time to read it in full though.

@dga471

while old, that paper is still relevant and essentially sums up the view I hold.

It’s interesting that a 1965 paper can actually still accurately summarize the consensus of a field, especially in the humanities. Is this because the Image of God is regarded as a “solved problem” that everybody agrees upon, or there just hasn’t been much research interest in it in the last few decades?

@deuteroKJ

As I said, not everyone agrees, but it remains the majority opinion. i’m not sure how to fully answer the question(s) except to say that there’s logically a limited number of options. The evidence from cognate languages hasn’t changed much in 50 years, so there’s not much extra data to take into account (for those who even care or are aware of this angle). The biblical data itself is fairly sparse. IMO, the tricky thing is figuring out the distinction between “image of God” (which we are) and “image of Christ” (which we are growing into or progressing toward).