Defining the image of God is not an easy task. A major reason for this fact is the lack of the phrase within the Biblical text. Even though the term is not found often within Scripture, many places do point to the idea of the image without using the exact words.
There is the possibility that Scripture often deals with the concept of the image of God without using those exact words, so that we surely should not a prior limit our investigation of the concept to considering only those places where the term itself is used.
When one looks at these different passages and places them together a view of the image can be developed that holds true to Scripture and includes all of humankind. This paper as pointed out many different views that theologians …show more content…
But that is not because Christ becomes something new. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever...God has always intended Christ to be the image of God, the standard of humanity, and the perfect lamb whose blood redeems believers.
Kilner draws the conclusion of Christ as the image by using both the Old Testament and New Testament. Many theologians, according to Kilner, make the mistake of starting the study for the image in Genesis 1, but Scripture points out that the beginning was not really the beginning. Places like Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:9, and 1 Corinthians 2:7 point to this idea. Christ has always been the image of God even though he was not reveled until the New Testament. After laying the foundation for Christ as the image, we then can turn to Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam. In this view of the imago Dei Adam should not be understood as a single man but as a represented of humanity as a whole. The use of elastic vocabulary in this text does not go against the original meaning. The Hebrew for the word for Adam, atham, can represent a single human being but it also can be translated to mean mankind. It is also important to note that the image of God was not a strange term for the original readers of Genesis. In the ancient near east kings and priests were often considered to be the actual image of God. The writer of Genesis adopts this phrase, but never states …show more content…
Because of the fall in Genesis 3 everyone has a sinful nature. The effects of this sin can be clearly seen within humans and the culture in which we live. This has led many, like Calvin, to assume the fall has affected the image of God within man. Scripture does not deny the marks sin has on man, but nowhere in Scripture is there mention of the image being lost or damaged. “The image of God is the standard of who people are created to be—embodied in the person of Christ—and that standard is not diminished in any way because of sin.” When fire damages a building the blueprint is not effected. In the same way when sin damages humanity, our blueprint, Jesus Christ is not affected. Because the image is not man or anything within man it cannot be touched by sin. We are merrily the image possessors and not the actual image itself. This view of the imago Dei and sin does not downplay the role of sin. Sin is very powerful and it destroys everything it touches. The results of sin are ungodliness and corruption that mark a life apart from the will of God. In the view presented here, sin does not remove ones connection with God. Instead it covers up any sign of the connection. Sin prevents man from becoming the full image of
There is the possibility that Scripture often deals with the concept of the image of God without using those exact words, so that we surely should not a prior limit our investigation of the concept to considering only those places where the term itself is used.
When one looks at these different passages and places them together a view of the image can be developed that holds true to Scripture and includes all of humankind. This paper as pointed out many different views that theologians …show more content…
But that is not because Christ becomes something new. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever...God has always intended Christ to be the image of God, the standard of humanity, and the perfect lamb whose blood redeems believers.
Kilner draws the conclusion of Christ as the image by using both the Old Testament and New Testament. Many theologians, according to Kilner, make the mistake of starting the study for the image in Genesis 1, but Scripture points out that the beginning was not really the beginning. Places like Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 1:9, and 1 Corinthians 2:7 point to this idea. Christ has always been the image of God even though he was not reveled until the New Testament. After laying the foundation for Christ as the image, we then can turn to Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam. In this view of the imago Dei Adam should not be understood as a single man but as a represented of humanity as a whole. The use of elastic vocabulary in this text does not go against the original meaning. The Hebrew for the word for Adam, atham, can represent a single human being but it also can be translated to mean mankind. It is also important to note that the image of God was not a strange term for the original readers of Genesis. In the ancient near east kings and priests were often considered to be the actual image of God. The writer of Genesis adopts this phrase, but never states …show more content…
Because of the fall in Genesis 3 everyone has a sinful nature. The effects of this sin can be clearly seen within humans and the culture in which we live. This has led many, like Calvin, to assume the fall has affected the image of God within man. Scripture does not deny the marks sin has on man, but nowhere in Scripture is there mention of the image being lost or damaged. “The image of God is the standard of who people are created to be—embodied in the person of Christ—and that standard is not diminished in any way because of sin.” When fire damages a building the blueprint is not effected. In the same way when sin damages humanity, our blueprint, Jesus Christ is not affected. Because the image is not man or anything within man it cannot be touched by sin. We are merrily the image possessors and not the actual image itself. This view of the imago Dei and sin does not downplay the role of sin. Sin is very powerful and it destroys everything it touches. The results of sin are ungodliness and corruption that mark a life apart from the will of God. In the view presented here, sin does not remove ones connection with God. Instead it covers up any sign of the connection. Sin prevents man from becoming the full image of