What is the Image of God?

I should admit that not everyone in my field is in agreement. Jack Collins, e.g., still focuses more in the ontological direction. But I’ve not read any specific reason why.

1 Like

As an aside, the functional view makes it much easier to allow for human evolution, because it allows for a point in time for God to designate a specific creature (human) as his image-bearer. Not all ECs see it this simplistically, but it makes it more acceptable/understandable.

2 Likes

I’m sure in evangelical Christian churches everywhere, forever, they understood image to mean the soul.
so our soul is eternal, intelligent(like God in wisdom, understanding, knowledge,) and understanding morality (except the original good/evil ignorance before the fall). In short as my paster said We are mini-Gods.
we really our. This also is why we have so much value. unlike animals etc.
Yes our bodies are just copys of primates because our gloriouds image could never be represented in the biology spectrum. Animals are their biology. We are not. We uniquely are renting another body. Not evolved but the best one for fun and profit. (Flying is cool but interferes with driving or keyboard punching)

You are completely ignorant of facts and logic.

3 Likes

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?

2 Likes

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).

2 Likes

@deuteroKJ, so what do you make about articles like this one, that Dr. Rana from RTB just published (ping @AJRoberts)?

Comparisons of human and hominid brains highlights our exceptional nature, strengthening the scientific case for the image of God.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10217220491975159&set=a.1387948629543&type=3&theater

Linking to: https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2016/09/21/blood-flow-to-brain-contributes-to-human-exceptionalism

It seems that they are taking a very strong structuralist view. Do you know why RTB would down that path?

I don’t know RTB’s biblical basis for image of God. But I’m generally disappointed in the exegetical stuff Ross produces. When he talks astrophysics, I’m mesmerized. Not so much on other topics. The writings I’ve read on Genesis and Job make me wonder if he ever consults standard commentaries and other scholarly material.

2 Likes

I’m curious what you make of Genesis 5:3. Seth is made after Adam’s image? If the text is intentional, not implicit, simply saying there is a link to the image of God through Adam is unsatisfactory.

“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.”

With Hebrew: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/5-3.htm

This goes back to the discussion about Koonin’s article. Given the ambiguities how specifically are you using “structuralist” here, and in general? Quite a rabbit hole, so easier if I familiarize myself with your usage.

OK, so I wasn’t expecting a photograph, but the discussion here demonstrates this topic goes a lot deeper than I expected.

Can I (unfairly) summarize that it has to do with human thoughts and actions, rather than physical attributes?

Structuralist in this context just means that The Image of God is associated with human uniqueness, and attributes that humans share with God, and these things arise at least in part because of our biological “structure.” It is not just that we have an immaterial soul, it is also that something in our actually biology is links us to these qualities.

As I understand it, at RTB they are concerned about common descent undermining their view of the Image of God. They take a structuralist view of the Image of God and identify it uniquely with Adam and his descendants. This is why “Humans” have to be Homo sapiens, and all Homo sapiens must descend from Adam, and Neanderthals must therefore by beasts.

Because the Image of God is so tightly aligned with biological form, it is hard to even grant that Neanderthals would be just a “different type of human”, and this is a different category than “beastiality”. I wonder if they fear such a move would undermine the their conception of the Image of God. (@AJRoberts, am I getting this right?).

I’m not sure your objection (as unsatisfactory) of seeing this as continuing the image of God. I’d think any view of “image” this would link back to image of God in Gen 1. How does Gen 5:3 change/narrow the possibilities on the meaning of “image” and “likeness”?

Why, then, do other YECs (e.g., Todd Wood) not follow RTB’s categorization of these other hominins? @Joel_Duff has discussed this discrepancy among YECs before.

At times YECs in the past have agreed with them. There was a large internal debate about what to make of Neanderthals. This largely resolved on concluding everything in Homo genus is human, and the rest is not. They will even be comfortable saying that Neanderthals are a different species of human than Sapiens.

This just pushes the problem back though. There is intense debate to this day within YEC about what is Homo or not. Had an interesting conversation with John Sanford about this. YECs usually hold that Homo erectus is human, but they can’t agree on what to do with, for example, the Dmanisi skull (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi). Human or ape? YECs can’t say for sure in a univocal way.

1 Like

I think that is mostly incorrect. We hold to a broader range of image of God that would entail functional, relational, and substantive views of the Image of God. Various RTB scholars would likely emphasize some of these over others. However it gets classified, the image of God is unique to Adam and Eve and their descendants and includes the fact that humans are not merely physical and soulish (which the animals are too) but spiritual beings as well. The spirit is unique to humanity’s image bearing and is innate in all human beings regardless of their physical or mental capacities.

1 Like

Huh? Not tracking this. Can you please elaborate as it seems to be very circular. Can you align your theology with the present understandings from science? For example, is Homo Erectus human? What is soulish?

what’s the basis for this trichotomous view? And how does RTB define “soul” and “spirit”? Does RTB realize this is a new/modern way of conceiving things?

I’d encourage a read of the series beginning here.

Not sure either. The notion that the image of God could have evolved is foreign to me. Not sure I buy it, but here’s my thoughts…

I see a tension between Genesis 5:1-5:3 (quoted below) and the idea that the image of God was maintained in humanity 100% of what it was pre-Fall. Adam was created spiritually alive, but Seth was born spiritually dead. How would Nicodemus look at these verses?

I see a symmetry between pre-Fall Adam regressing to worldliness at the Fall then the ability to have the 100% image only after the spiritual separation at the Fall was Atoned. Now we each march from complete worldliness at birth, being spiritually dead in our sins, back towards the 100% image of God only through Glorification. I think all humans are body and soul whereas if unbelievers are dead in their sins only Believers have a trichotomous body, soul AND spirit existence.

This allows for extra-Edenic populations to have had the worldly aspects of the image of God independent of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are the source of the Messianic line and the source of spiritual birth through Christ for all humanity.

Genesis 5:1-3 (ESV with links to BibleHub)
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Mana when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

Ok, that’s a more narrowly constrained use of “structuralist”. I think the paper I messaged you about balancing selection of psychiatric traits bears on this. Waiting for when I have more time to engage in a discussion of it. Or, maybe I should just post it and run for the hills?