[Music] what does it mean to be the imago day which is Latin for the image of God many Christians never asked this question and simply assume they know the meaning of it or never give it much thought but the idea is very important for Christian theology and understanding the relationship between God and humans of all the created beings mentioned in the Bible only humans are said to be the image of God so let's ask the question what does it mean to be the image of God how are we different from the rest of creation some
groups like the Mormons assume a part of it means we physically look like God but this is irrational since God is beyond space-time and not limited to physical form the book of John says God is spirit not a physical being he can take on the nature of a physical being but that is not his essence so it obviously cannot mean we physically look like God most Christians take the substantive view which believes the image of God means we spiritually or psychologically resemble God that our actual mental ontology matches the nature of God in certain ways
for example God as a rational being and he created humans to be rational as well God is a creative being so he made humans to be creative as well God understands right and wrong so he created humans to understand right and wrong as well under this view God created man differently than he created all other creatures the image of God is an ontological or biological claim meaning that to have the imago Dei means you are rational creative and can comprehend morality or something similar to this so under this view if god were to give the
imago day to another creature they would also obtain these features however there is a problem with this view if to be the image of God means your rational creative and understand morality then we have to ask if Satan is the image of God Satan and the other angels are rational creative and understand right and wrong so if the substantive view of the imago day was correct the angels would also have to be the image of God but the Bible teaches only humans were given the imago dei angels are never spoken of as the image of
God only humans are Plus as we went over in our video if Christians can believe in evolution or not some animals display rationality and creativity man is exclusive in the amount of intelligence we have over the rest of the species on earth that doesn't mean we are the only rational and creative creatures alive so since this is the case with angels and certain animals it can't be the case then man is singled out as the only rational being on top of that scripture doesn't differentiate between man and animals ontological scripture uses the same words when
it speaks of God creating man and animals the Hebrew word for soul is set up both humans and animals as well as the Hebrew word for spirit the phrase spirit of life is also used for both animals and humans the word for flesh is used for both humans and animals as well it is a reoccurring theme in Scripture that humans and animals are ontologically the same Ecclesiastes 3:18 2:20 goes so far as to say I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that
they themselves are but beasts for what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same as one dies so dies the other they all have the same breath and man has no advantage over the beasts for all is vanity all go to one place all are from the dust and to the dust all return so the Bible doesn't indicate we are biologically are ontologically different from animals but the Bible does say man is singled out as the imago day what does this mean how are humans different from the rest
of creation if it is not an auto logical or spiritual distinction while many scholars of genesis note the imago Dei is not a special creation point in other words it has nothing to do with our ontology or biology but has everything to do with our calling or the purpose given to us by God the scholar Joshua Moritz has been the most vocal about this and has published several papers and books arguing the imago Dei is a point of election in other words it means humans were called by God to be his representatives or image bearers
on earth the imago Dei means exactly the same thing it does in the New Testament when Paul says we are called to conform to the image of his son God calls humans into a relationship with him has us be the representatives of God to the rest of creation in his name and has us be his stewards or caretakers of creation to be the image of God has nothing to do with our material creation or material origin but when God called us to be his image bearers and when he first made himself known to humans so
that we could enter into a relationship or a covenant with him Joshua Moritz says as Abraham was chosen by God from among the nation's so humans are chosen by God from among the multiplicity of life forms to serve as priests of the cosmic temple and to represent God's purposes and will to their fellow organic co-heirs of God's kingdom humans are the image of God not by biological nature or right but through election from among the animals by divine grace as human animals by form in nature we are biological priests by vocation and as such are
called and anointed to be agents in the renewal of God's whole creation from Adam to Noah and from Abraham to Christ horse proof says humans were taken into service as the partner of God a word that probably best and most comprehensively translates the meaning of image and likeness these terms make no statements about the nature of human beings but rather intend to describe humanity's function as willed by God humans represent God in a prescribed realm and receive for this purpose certain qualities which do not make them godlike but rather elevates them to be the partners
of God J Richard Middleton says careful exegesis of Genesis 1:26 2:28 does indeed suggests that the imago Dei refers to human role that is the exercise of power on God's behalf in creation a royal functional reading of the imago Dei is essentially confirmed again many biblical scholars of Genesis point this out and this is far more consistent with how God acts in Scripture when God wanted this sort of family to bless all nations of the world did not make one literally out of dust he called Abraham who was already existing when God wanted to elect
the nation to represent him to the rest of the world he chose Israel to be his image bearer and in the New Covenant God elects Christians to be the image of his son who is also God or to be his body God is one who wants to work with humans his chosen representatives to make creation better which is a reoccurring theme in Scripture we also see in Scripture the idea that if one breaks their covenant with God as his image bearers there is an exile from his holy place Israel was exiled away from the holy
land likewise when Adam and Eve broke their covenant they were also exiled so there is consistency here as well so like Israel later on Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first priests of God for all of creation scholars note the Garden of Eden function as the first temple the place where the priests and priestess will go to commune with God when they failed as creations representatives all of mankind and creation fell with them and we were cut off or exiled from perfect communion with God in Eden this also explains why Paul is always
comparing Adam to Jesus Adam is the priest of mankind who failed whereas Jesus is the priest for mankind who succeeded both are different representatives for Humanity so if the image of God just means the purpose that was given to us by God or the point when we were elected to be his image bearers this opens up a far better understanding of Christian doctrine and why Adam is always contra and with Christ it also points out that if the imago Dei just speaks of the time when man was elected by God that would obviously mean humans
were already in existence in order for God to call them to be his image and that would mean Genesis 1 doesn't speak about the material origin of mankind but about what humans were first called by God Adam and Eve are not necessarily seen as the first humans but the first humans called the be God's image thus Genesis 1 would not be a claim about the origin of humanity and would be compatible with the current scientific views about the biological origin of humanity but does in the Hebrew word bara used in Genesis 1:27 to speak of
man being created mean to be created from nothing young earth creationists use this argument quite often but scholar John Walton points out the evidence in Scripture is just not there the word is used over 50 times in the Old Testament however its usage is ambiguous in terms of material creation in Walton notes that no clear example occurs that demands a material perspective for the verb in contrast a large percentage of the context require a functional understanding in other words the Hebrew verb bara speaks of something being given a divine function by God not necessarily speaking
of the material creation of something take for example Isaiah 65 18 where it says I create Jerusalem to be a joy obviously God did not create Jerusalem out of nothing he assigned it the function to be a place of joy or Psalm 51 where it says create in me a clean heart the context shows he isn't asking God to literally create a new material heart but to give his attitude a new function or purpose John Walton argues the word is primarily used for God assigning a function to something and the dictionary of the Old Testament
says the Hebrew verb bara is not necessarily physical manufacturing as much as assigning roles this direction is picked up nicely in Genesis 5 - where God creates people male and female with established roles in all of these cases something is brought into existence functionally not materially rare would the statement concern the issue of matter indeed the text never uses bara in a context in which materials are mentioned instead of suggesting manufacturing of matter out of nothing as many have inferred in the past this suggests that manufacturers not the issue the lexical analysis suggests instead that
the essence of the word that the text is chosen burrell concerns bringing heaven and earth into existence by focusing on operation through organization in assigning of roles and functions so since the hebrew verb bara is never used to definitively refer to a material creation although it might at times and more likely means assigning or giving something a function and given the context we already discussed in relation to the nature of the imago dei has a purpose and not a special creation point it is more likely the verb in Genesis 1:27 is being used for a
divine function or purpose being given to humans not that it means humans were materially created at this point so if the imago Dei passages in Genesis just mean an election point then it cannot be speaking of the material origin of humanity the only thing that happens before this on day six of Genesis is the creation of land animals this was significant to early Jews as Joshua Moritz points out we even find that humans and animals share the same day in the creation day which for early Jews was significant early Jews saw the days of Genesis
1 as representative of concentric circles of greater or lesser intimacy with God and so the land animals belong to the innermost circle of intimacy having been created on the sixth day together with humans humans don't even get their own day of creation they share it with the land animals let's assume for the sake of time this creation on day six is talking about the material creation of animals John Walton argues this isn't true but let's assume for the sake of time that it is the Hebrew word for create is a sob which is used several
times in the Bible to talk about something being made through a process like with a baby or Noah's Ark these things are made over time through processes not instantaneously the passage also says that God said for the earth to bring forth the animals so God used the earth to bring about the species of animals that we have so that would mean this passage can be read as saying that through natural processes the earth created a variety of animals that we have now and since we know the Bible teaches there is no ontological or biological difference
between man and animals with places like Ecclesiastes 3:18 2:20 this creation with the land animals would have to include humans which later on were divinely appointed to be God's image bearers so this would logically mean that Genesis is compatible with a multitude of views about the material origin of humanity
