I think both of us are approaching Genesis differently.
While I think what the author understood is important, I believe the message itself is authored by the Holy Spirit and hence I look for what Genesis has to say in the context of the entire bible when I read it.
I allow scripture to interpret scripture. For example, I connect Genesis 1:26 to the Trinity and hence see a reflection of the relationship within the Trinity in marriage and by extension the human family and community.
It’s not at all clear whether original author knew of the concept of the Trinity, however the God who is revealing himself is triune.
This is why it often looks like we are talking across each other when interpreting Genesis.
So you will interpret Adams name as wordplay by the Author when writing the book.
I will see the name of Adam as having more significance because of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
This is a key point. There are many ways to understand the Image of God. It only makes sense to work out the details once we settle our meaning, at least for the purpose of that conversation.
Thanks for sharing the paper. Its very informative. My thoughts are as below -
1.Substantive view - The greatest strength of this view is that qualities such as intellect,an eternal Soul, rationality etc can be described as a basic requirement even in the other two views- i.e These qualities are necessary to exert Dominion over nature (i.e the functional view) and to have meaningful relationship (esp between Man and God).
The weakness imo are twofold -
These qualities cannot be unique. Angels have these in abundance (and they need to have these qualities to do their Job!) and hence if intellect or rationality is the image of God, then mankind shares it with Angels and Demons.
While the bible doesn’t rule this possibility out, there seems to be an unique destiny for human beings in Gods mind. Especially considering that Jesus was incarnate as a Human being and imo the fullness of the Godhead as well as the fullness of what a human being was supposed to be is found in Jesus. Jesus is the archetypal man from heaven! So there must be something about the image of God borne by Jesus and shared with humanity that is different from the qualities such as rationality shared by human beings with Angels (arguably in lesser degrees in that Angels are probably more intelligent).
The second weakness is mentioned in Philo’s argument about how the human Logos is not the same as the Divine Logos. This is further borne out by Biblical passages that testify that God’s thoughts are far superior and different to our own (Isaiah 58:8,9).
The above weaknesses can be Addressed by both the Functional as well as the relational model. The main arguments for these models is that they can be unique. Let me share what i see as the greatest strength of the two views-
The functional View- This views greatest strength is in the incarnation. We see God himself becoming Man in order to fulfill the calling of mankind.
The idea is also strengthened by the concept of representation. Throughout the Bible we See God appointing priests,kings etc to stand in his place and judge the nations or rule in his stead. Bearing the image of God becomes crucial as it will help show “God” to those who are being governed. So humanity itself representing God (in flawed way because of the fall) to the earth is not alien to the various narratives in the bible culminating in Jesus who is the perfect representative of the father.
So the image of God in humanity becomes unique in terms of mankinds calling/vocation in God.
The relational model- The greatest argument for this understanding is in the nature of God. God is triune. God can and has been described as Love in the bible. Being triune, the Godhead is eternally a community of Love. Loving relationships in a community is fundamental to who and what God is. Hence the relationship between human beings and God and within human families/communities is the image of God.
This idea is further strengthened when we consider Jesus prayer for the church in John 17 -
I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity.
i am not talking about an ecumenical unity. but a more holistic unity in love/ community with God that is the goal of Jesus for the church and thus humanity.
This is not something God plans for Angels in the Bible.
Because of the above reasons i lean towards a functional and relational interpretation of the image of God as more Christo-centric even though i acknowledge that rationality/intelligence are all important parts of what makes us human.
Edit: And i end up giving the relational understanding the most Significance because the earth and all things in it shall pass. But the relationship forged with God in Jesus Christ is eternal. Jesus is eternally the lamb slain for us, he will bear the marks of the nails on the cross for ever and we (the church) are eternally His Bride.Jesus, the second person of the Trinity has become the Second Adam and he will be so forever…
That blows my mind.
Okay @Ashwin_s, lets take that relational understanding forward, recognizing that we are only speaking in regards to this meaning alone. A coupe questions on the GAE.
Are the people outside the garden in the Image? Can know for sure or is it a guess?
If not, we should we be concerned they are no in the Image? If we could meet them by traveling through time, would we even be able to tell?
With a fixed definition of the Image, these become fairly easy questions. As long as we don’t let other meanings bleed in. We can rinse and repeat with another definition just as easily.
A question I have this morning as I just read this is, do we know that the Image of God has to be unique to us? In other words, Genesis says that Adam and Eve (and therefore presumably humanity) were created in the Image of God, does that preclude other creatures (angels for instance) from also being made in the image of God? Perhaps human = human body + Image of God . In that case angels could have one (Image of God) but not the other (human body) and still be distinct, right?
The bible doesn’t say anything explicit about the image of God being unique to us. In fact, if one holds to the substantive view, then it’s a given in most cases that we share the image of God with Angels.
My thinking on this is that the incarnation is unique to humanity. Jesus took the form of a man, not an angel. He is also the “the very image of God’s substance”; Hebrews 1:3. Since the incarnation is unique to us and the Bible tells us that God prepared our salvation in Jesus from the beginning; There is good reason to see the image of God Alos as unique. In short, humanity is special because of the incarnation.
Depends on how one views the fall and how retrospectively one is willing to apply the benefits of the cross.
Both options are possible as long as one holds to the federal headship of Adam. (I.e Adam represented all human beings who are are not in Christ (even those who existed thousands of years before Adam) and all humanity fell with Adam).
The main problem with this approach is that the fall which I believe is a historical event becomes kinda like an island in space/time whose consequences are felt both in the future as well as the past. But since cross is also something like this, there is precedent for the idea.
This is a general issue with any GAE scenario with a recent Adam and a more ancient Adam makes more sense for me. I would place Adam somewhere around the time human beings start living in communities and collaborating together more effectively… somewhere at the start of civilisation.
Again I guess , the only measurable difference would be
a) An awareness of God/eternity.
b) An ability to form effective communities.
c) A desire for God (as shown by the adoption of religious practices).
How far back do we need to go to see these things? I would hope not too far back.
@swamidass This post pretty much aligns with my thinking (with the exception of the sentence that ties Adam to the start of communities).
But while this make logical sense, it’s a big shift in thinking and understanding of parts of the bible that I still need to fully process before I’d be willing to say I’m in full agreement, or that it is biblical.
If you are referring to @Ashwin_s, the thinking is still pretty muddy there. I’m hoping my book will clear up where he is switching tracks, apparently unbeknownst to himself even.