God's image is both a complicated and simple idea that can be both easily understood in one sense and deeply thought-provoking in another. The simple idea is that we, as human beings, are bearers of God's image (Gen 1:26-27) and thus have value that no other creature has. The complex idea is that...we'll cover that in the next post. The first part of this series on God's image in man is what that image is not. Next week's post will cover what that image is and the next week we'll discuss how that ties in to the big picture of creation, the fall, and the parts of salvation (justification, sanctification, redemption/glorification).
The negative description of God's image in man is twofold: i) God's image is not physical and ii) God is not male and female due to His image being borne by both men and women.
1. God's image is not physical
a. This is really simple when you look at the Bible and connect some dots. John 4:24 says that "God is spirit...". Luke 24:39 says: "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” Jesus says in Luke that a spirit does not have a physical body. Since God is spirit, He does not have a physical body either. It follows then, that human beings who bear God's image, are not made to look like God in the physical sense.
Some of you may be thinking about the descriptions of God that assign Him human features at this point. I believe these are anthropomorphism's that merely describe God in ways that make sense to us, because if He truly showed His fullness to us we would be utterly inept at comprehending His infinite vastness of being and character. If you are studious, I think you would find that most of these types of descriptions of God wherein He is described as having human or animal parts of in the poetic and prophetic books which are filled with rich metaphorical imagery. This would be another post in and of itself, so I will direct you to a great explanation of this idea from William Lane Craig.
b. Another problem with the idea that God has a physical body is that everything came into being when God created it. The traditional understanding of Gen 1:1 is that God created ex nihilo which means out of nothing. There was no matter, space, time, or energy before God spoke it into existence. If that is the case, that no material was present before God created it, then by default He cannot be physical. That would lead to the absurd conclusion that God created Himself out of nothing. If, on the other hand, God is a physical being, then the objection; "Who made God?" has some merit because something would have had to have made the material being we call God.
c. Yet another problem with the idea of God having a physical body is His attribute of omnipresence, which means God is at every point of space with His whole being. Psalm 139:7-12 describes His omnipresence well: "Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there! If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light about me be night,” even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is bright as the day, for darkness is as light with you." God's omnipresence precludes His being physical. If He was a physical being, He could not be everywhere at once. It would be impossible for a collection of matter forming a body to be everywhere at once. Inferentially, this tells us that God, in order to be omnipresent, must be a non-material being that is not constrained by physical limitations.
2. God is not male and female due to His image being borne by both men and women
a. Gen 1:27 says: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Both males and females bear God's image. I have recently seen it taught that this means that God is both male and female. This is an absurd concept. God is neither male nor female. Descriptions of Him as a father are His revelation of Himself to us in a way that we can understand Him. Why did He choose to reveal Himself as a father (male)? I have no idea, but that is the way He chose to do it, so it must be correct because He cannot make any mistakes.
b. The image of God is not physical, so this cannot mean that God has both male and female anatomy. It has already been shown that God is not a physical being.
c. This also cannot be talking about the attributes of men and women in terms of temperament and personality. Did God give attributes that He has to man and woman? Yes, however, the communicated form of these attributes that we possess are not the same thing as what God possesses. For instance, do we love the same way that God loves? No. His love is perfect, holy, and unconditional. Ours is imperfect, unholy, and conditional. Is our knowledge the same as God's? No. His knowledge is unlimited, perfect, and immediate. Ours is limited, imperfect, and mediate. This means that our characteristics as both men and women come from God, but are not the same thing. This doesn't mean that God is male and female, it means that God has chosen to accentuate various attributes in the different sexes in order to create a complementary set that can partner for His glory and the advancement of His kingdom. God does not express these attributes the same way as either men or women. To say that God is both male and female for this reason is to say that God is modeled on us. This is clearly false, since it is not our image that God is made in the likeness of, but the other way around.
Now that we have a clear understanding of what God's image in man is not, next time we will take a look at a positive description of what God's image in man entails. Happy Thanksgiving!
No comments:
Post a Comment