Made in His image

I think it entails two things: 1) free will and 2) a conscience.

To be able to fully express the image of God in all of us we have to be believers in Christ, the exact image of God himself (Heb 1). In so doing we have removed from us more of the stuff that hinders God's image so that his image shines through.

 

Two things. The first is authority. Just as God has authority over all things, mankind was given dominion over the creation. That is part of the "image of God".

The second is relationship. God lives in relationship (the Trinity) and in perfect harmony. Mankind was created male and female to live in relationship (it is not good for the man to be alone). That is part of the "image of God".

peace to youraying:

 

I would agree with what has already been said. I think there is a lot here that we cannot really comprehend with our human minds.

In spite of the fall we are still referred to later in Genesis and in the NT as made in the image of God. So even though we are sinners and do not seem to look much like God at times, we are still are His children made in His image.

This would deal with our emotions, our will, our intellect, our reasoning abilities, our ability to have a relationship with God and others and probably many other things.

 

A bit of my own theology,lol.

God has 3 persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Man (if you subscribe to man being trichotamic being) Has body, soul and spirit.
I'm currently studying this subject, and am leaning towards man's being/self as a reflection and testament to the person's and nature of God, i.e., man's very makeup is a testament to God's personification in 3 forms.

 

What does it mean when He uses the plural "let US" and "in OUR"?

love,

Sopranette

 

To our Christian ears we hear a prefiguring of the Trinity.

However, to the Jews for whom Genesis was originally intended they would have likely understood God to be referring to his heavenly court with the use of the plural. We get a picture of this in Job where Satan is the accuser employed by God in his court of angelic servants. Sometimes the plural is referred to as a plural of majesty or a royal plural, two concepts that have to do with the heavenly court idea.

An analogy today would be the president saying "we" when referring to his actions. The "we" would refer perhaps to his cabinet and his closest advisers.

 

Interesting. Wouldn't the "heavenly court" include the members of the Trinity?

 

Besides what has been said here (all good, IMO), I believe we reflect God ("Us") as dichotomous...material and immaterial. I believe even our physical bodies are fashioned after God, as I believe Jesus has always existed in the body He ascended into Heaven in after the resurrection. The Bible states the Word became "flesh" (greek literally meaning "meat")..and flesh dies, but I believe our forms are what Jesus' form has looked`like.

 

I think that reading this as a Christian I see the Trinity here, but the original readers of Genesis would not have. That was my point. So it would be best to say that the Trinity, a later theological development, is pre-figured here in Genesis.

 

Good comments and ideas. But I think they are all secondary.

The primary meaning of the Image of God is this: We rule (have dominion over) the earth as His representatives.

Do you remember the fall of Baghdad? The tall statue of Saddam Husein? That "image" of Saddam and all the other pictures, placards, and statues was intended to show the people of Iraq who the ruler of the land was.

In the same way, we are created "in God's image" so that He can show who rules the world--namely Himself.

Our dominion of the planet is NOT inherent, it is derivative which means that we would have no dominion unless it was granted to us. And God did just that; He gave us stewardship of the planet.

Now a few caveats: The "Image" is now, because of the fall, hopelessly marred and flawed so that we do not rightly represent God or have just dealings with each other. And, we await the day where the Image will be restored in the Eternal Kingdom.

This idea of image is based on the biblical text and it is how the Israelites would have understood the idea of "Image," especially because Egyptian Pharaohs were well-known to carve their image into mountains in the lands they conquered (kind of like Mt. Rushmore), just to show the people of the newly-conquered territory who it was that now ruled the land.

Also, the "We" passages, in Hebrew, are referred to as "The Majestic Plural." It is kingly language (as someone has already mentioned). While it is possible to understand the language as being Trinitarian, the Hebrew text is not intending to show the Trinity. Certainly, through New Testament eyes, we understand there is a Trinity, but this passage, without the remainder of scripture, cannot argue for a Trinity (or pantheon), the Hebrew text really doesn't allow for it.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Can you show me how this is the primary meaning based on the text that was quoted in the OP?

You make that point that the Hebrew text will not allow for the Trinity there, and I am having a hard time seeing how it allows for this to be the primary meaning as well.

 

Can you give me some time? I have to do Romans 4 tonight (it is a surprise assignment as our pastor was called away).

In the interim, you can read Recalling the Hope of Glory by Allen Ross. This is a wonderful book on worship and Ross goes discusses the garden (this is not where I got the concept, by the way. The concept was further confirmed by my reading (I was taught the concept as part of my Seminary education).

The concept is not necessarily explicit in the text. But, understanding the historical context and some of the symbolism contained in the Garden (not that it is symbolic only!) brings the concept to light.

Many Blessings,

The Archangel

 

Sure.

Thanks for the recommendation. What seminary did you attend?

I still do not follow you on this. I do not understand why the Hebrew Text will not allow for the Trinity here, but you will go with this understanding even though it is not explicit in the text. Quite frankly, I think the text is clearer here on the Trinity than on your point. But I will await your further explanation.

 

This is just a quick "Drive By" before I get ready for church.

First, I did not mean to give the impression that the Hebrew would not allow for your interpretation--I think I said that, I should have been much more careful. What I should have said is that the "Majestic Plural" does not, alone, allow for the Trinity, which is to say this: IF we only had Genesis 1-3 in our Bibles, it would be impossible to conclude from this text that God is a Trinity.

Certainly using the entire Bible, we can see that the majestic plural may refer to something more--like the Trinity. However, on linguistic evidence alone, that passage is better understood to be a majesty of plural and not a trinitarian text.

Further, while I haven't yet gone to see the relationship of that passage to whole context (in Hebrew), there is something else to consider: One of the chief titles for God is "Elohim." In Hebrew this word has the masculine plural ending, yet we do not (nor should we) translate the word as "Gods." We do not cite (again, nor should we) the "Plurality" of God's title Elohim as a proof of the Trinity.

So, that's all I have for now.

Many blessings,

The Archangel

PS. If you visit my blog (see signature below) you can click on the "About Me" page and you will see my academic history.

 

Thanks. I would still like to understand how you feel your statement is the primary meaning.

 

This may be the perfect opportunity to write a more in-depth explanation and place it in my blog. When I do, I'll post to you (or PM you) to let you know.

To do a blog about this will allow me to keep the posting in my archives so that others can see it long after this thread dries up.

I hope you don't think this to be a cop-out. It'll probably be Friday or Saturday.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

I actually believe the image of God (the imago Dei) is a spiritual image which was shattered at the Fall in the Garden of Eden.

Particularly since God has no physical parts (including Christ until the incarnation) this lines up more with the intent of the passage. Just my opinion, this isn't something I'm dogmatic about.

I hope this becomes a good thread

 

ok thanks.

 

Curious how you explain OT Christophanies if Christ never had a body until 2000 years ago.