Examining the Physical Nature of the Imago Dei - Part 2b

8/8/2019 Examining the Physical Nature of the Imago Dei - Part 2b

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/examining-the-physical-nature-of-the-imago-dei-part-2b 1/9

Examining the Physical Nature of the ImagoDei

Part 2 – The Plausibility of the Physicality of Bearing God’sImage

Part 2b – The Form of YHWH

“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness...”

In Part 1 – The Words God Used , it was demonstrated that theconsistent – and therefore, natural – meaning of the Hebrew wordtranslated “image” is that of a visual representation. Exegetically, wehave to start with an understanding that our bodies (the only visible

part of us) is crafted to “look like” God.

But is this understanding plausible?

At first, it would seem implausible that a spirit being could have anyform at all. However, in Part 2a – God as Spirit , it was demonstratedthat scripturally, spirit beings evidently do have spatial dimensions(form) for they are constrained by both time and space. Consequently,it must be concluded that the clear declaration that “God is Spirit” in John 4 does not by itself preclude the possibility that God has a formwhich could be represented by the physical human body.

God is not bound by space or time, so we cannot assume that God hasform simply because other spirits evidently do. At the same time, itseems clear enough from Scripture that God chooses to operate withinboth time and space. Therefore the next logical step in examining thisplausibility is to see if God is portrayed in Scripture as having form.

The Form of God

To start with, it is worth saying that the descriptions of God in “humanform” are so numerous in the Scriptures that we have severaltheological terms for them:

• Theophany – The temporary appearance of God in some sort of human or other visible manifestation.

• Christophany – The pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus as a man.

• Anthropomorphism – The usage of human terminology toreference the expression of an attribute or action of God.



The scriptural reality of what these terms describe is not in dispute.However, the blanket application of these terms to any and allinstances of God’s appearances has two undesirable consequences: 1.It has the potential of dismissing revealed truth without honestexamination of the text; and 2. It assumes that God has no form at all,

the very assertion that we are seeking to test. This assumption mustbe reexamined.

A safer strategy would be to take each scripture passage at face value,then apply these theological terms only when the context demandsthat we should.

The general understanding regarding theophanies andanthropomorphisms is that God used them in order to be more“tangible” to man. Because man is physical, it is taught, God describesHimself in physical terms.

It would be impossible to step through every instance in the Scriptureswhere theophanies occurred. What follows now is a sampling of passages where God is portrayed with some sort of form. I will presentwhat the natural meaning of the text would lead us to understand,then I will demonstrate how the assumption that it is only a theophanyor anthropomorphism seems to be contrary to the Scriptural context.

• Genesis 3:8-10 – “They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and hiswife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongthe trees of the garden. 9 Then the LORD God called to the man,

and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ 10 He said, ‘I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so Ihid myself.’”

o Again, the plain reading of this account is that God was not

with Adam and Eve, but then He approached. Thisapproach is described as “walking.” Naturally, walkingrequires legs. This would then suggest that Godapproached them in some sort of tangible form, and thatform included legs.

o This “form” of God was tangible enough in the Garden thatHe was approaching Adam by walking, and that walkingactually generated an audible sound… possibly by foot-fall,or by brushing against trees and shrubs.

o Furthermore, Adam immediately recognized the sound as

God approaching. This implies that this was not the firsttime he had heard God make this sound while “walking.”



o If this is true, then it means that before the fall, it wasprobably customary for God to “walk” this way in theGarden; perhaps God visited with Adam in the Garden “inthe cool of the day” every day. Therefore, the sound wouldnot have been unusual to Adam, and perhaps not at all

unexpected.

o Admittedly, some of this is speculation, but none of it isbeyond reason. They are nothing more than the reasonableimplications of the Scriptural facts which are not speculative at all.

o As to the suggestion that this was only a Theophany, it

doesn’t seem to fit the context. Before the fall, God wouldhave no reason at all to “appear” to Adam and Eve in anyform other than He is, for there was no sin in man todarken his ability to respond to God exactly as He is. In hissinless state, Adam would not have needed to “see” God inorder to adequately “relate” to Him or perceive Hispresence. Yet, according to the theology of the Theophany,this is precisely the reason that it is “required.” If God didnot appear to and walk with Adam in some sort of tangibleform before the fall, then there is no reasonableexplanation for how Adam knew the sound he heard wasactually God approaching.

• Numbers 12:5-8a – “Then the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the doorway of the tent, and He called Aaron

and Miriam. When they had both come forward, 6 He said, ‘Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD,shall make Myself known to him in a vision I shall speak with himin a dream. 7 Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in allMy household; 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly,and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of [YHWH].’”

o God is speaking directly to Aaron and Miriam. While doing

so, He manifests Himself in the pillar of cloud. In Hisrebuke, He describes in His own words how He meets withMoses.

o God acknowledged that with other prophets, He revealedHimself only in visions and dreams. This is in directcontrast with how God declared that He met with Moses,for with him He met and spoke directly “mouth to mouth”(“face to face” – NIV). Clearly Moses’ experience with Godwas unique, even as compared to other prophets.



o By God’s own declaration, Moses actually saw the LORD’sform. God is saying very clearly that He does have form.

The word translated “form” here is tĕmuwnah(H4327).

Wherever this Hebrew word is used in the OT, italways refers to a visible shape.

o God interacted with Moses in some sort of visible form, andGod said that form was His own. It simply cannot beclaimed that God has no form at all or else we risksuggesting that God misrepresented the truth. For thisreason, to discount the reality of God’s literal form bycalling this nothing more than a Theophany is to contradictthe testimony of God Himself.

•

Matthew 18:10 – “See that you do not despise one of these littleones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually seethe face of My Father who is in heaven.”

o These are the words of Jesus. He is telling His disciples that

the angels continually see the face of God. All of the beings Jesus is speaking about are spirits. Yet Jesus still says thatthe angels see God’s face. This means that angels can see,and that God has a face that can be seen.

o Since Jesus is speaking about what happens in the spiritrealm, there is no “need” to describe it in “human” terms. Jesus could have just as easily said “the angels in heavencontinually serve in the presence of My Father…” and themeaning of His words to the disciples would not havediminished at all. Therefore, we must take Jesus’ words atface value, and understand that it happens exactly as Hedescribed it.

o Because what Jesus is describing is not at all a matter of

God “appearing” to man, it cannot at all be considered a“theophany,” and Jesus had no cause to invoke ananthropomorphism. It must be read and understood

according to the plain meaning.

• John 5:37 – “And the Father who sent me has himself testifiedconcerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen hisform.” (KJV – “shape”)

o Again, these are the words of Jesus. He speaks of God’sform in the same way as He speaks of His voice.



o To deny that God has “form” would also deny that God has

a voice. Scripturally, it is impossible to deny God’s voice. Therefore, we cannot deny that He has form either, else weinvalidate the words of Christ.

These are certainly not the only passages where God is portrayed inhuman terms or human form, but these all have unique characteristicswhich make it unreasonable to dismiss the idea of God having “form”by invoking the label of “theophany” or “anthropomorphism.”

The next example is, however, the most compelling of them all. It isalso the most extensive passage.

• Exodus 33:18-21 – 18 “Then Moses said, ‘I pray You, show meYour glory!’ 19 And He said, ‘I Myself will make all My goodness

pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and willshow compassion on whom I will show compassion.’ 20 But Hesaid, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!’ 21 Then the LORD said, ‘Behold, there is a place by Me, and youshall stand there on the rock; 22 and it will come about, whileMy glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. 23 ‘Then Iwill take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My faceshall not be seen.’”

o Clearly this is a “Theophany” in that it is an appearance of God to a man, but if we claim that that means God wasappearing to Moses in some sort of visible “form” that isnot actually the reality that is God, then we render God’swords in this passage as empty and meaningless, if notoutright deceptive.

o To demonstrate the truth of that point, I will quote each

phrase from this text, then comment on why it must betaken as God’s revelation of His true reality or else we riskblaspheming Him by calling the truth of His words intoquestion.

Scripture: How the belief thatGod has no form

must understand it

Comments

18 Then Moses said,‘I pray You, show meYour glory!’

N/A This beautiful prayer of Moses comes fromone who already knew God well. He wasnot asking God for an “approximation” of His glory in some form that he as a mancould comprehend, he was asking to be



shown the true glory of God. If he wasshown anything different than God’s trueglory, it would not be a real answer to hisprayer.

19 And He [God]said, ‘I Myself willmake all My goodness passbefore you…

Since God isomnipresent, He cannotliterally make “all Hisgoodness” to passbefore Moses, for God isnot localized anywhere.

Here and in the verses that follow, if wedeny that God really did what He said Hewould do, we are calling His words untrue.If our theology requires us to explainaway the plain meaning of God’s wordsabout Himself, it is time to reevaluate ourtheology.

20 But He said, ‘Youcannot see My face,for no man can seeMe and live!’

This is onlymetaphorical becauseGod has no form andtherefore does not havea face which actuallycould be seen by humaneyes.

This would make the words of Godmeaningless. If God has no face, thenwhat possible purpose could there be indeclaring that if a man were to see a faceGod does not have, that man could notlive? If we claim that it was simply the“appearance” of a face that God would

call His own, but actually was not, thenwe are suggesting that God is only puttingon a display of a human idea about whatHe is like but which in truth is not who Heis. Furthermore, we would be claimingthat God fabricated a “face” for Himself which He then told Moses that he couldnot see.

22 and it will comeabout, while My glory is passing by,that I will put you in

the cleft of the rock and cover you withMy hand until I have

passed by…’

This again is onlymetaphoricaldescription of God notallowing Moses to see

His face, since God doesnot have a “hand” perse. The “cleft of therock” however, can beliterally understood asexactly that, but theobscuring of Moses viewwithin the cleft of therock by God’s “hand”cannot be literal.

Can we really be so sure that we haveinsight to say which words of God in thispassage are literal and which are not? Inall the Scriptures, there are countless

passages which reference the “hand of God,” yet never once are we ever toldthat God does not have hands! It is onlythe presumption of our traditionaltheological understanding which requiresus to do so. And when we apply it to apassage like this, we are forced into theduplicity of declaring parts of it as literaland parts as non-literal with absolutely no

justification within the text to do so!

‘Then I will take My hand away and you

shall see My back,but My face shall not be seen.’

God allows Moses to seethe “afterglow” of His

presence. Because Godis only spirit, God doesnot really have a face,nor a “front”… nor aback.

Here again, the traditional theology forcesus into treating God’s words as

disingenuous since they cannot be takenliterally. God speaks of His face as if it isreal. God speaks of His hand as if it isreal. God even speaks of His back as if itis real! Dare we suggest that these wordsof God are mere pretense?



Our hermeneutics tell us that the Scriptures mean today what theymeant to the people to whom they were originally written. By the sametoken, we have to conclude that God’s words here to Moses in this veryprivate and personal revelation actually mean what they would havemeant to Moses.

Must we assume that Moses prayed to see God’s glory, but then wasfully “aware” that God’s words about seeing His face were not literal;God’s description of how He would use His hand were onlymetaphorical; and that the “back” of God was only a visual display of something not God’s back, but an “afterglow” of God’s pretending to“pass by”? Was this what Moses had to accept as the answer to Hisprayer to see God’s glory?

Moses had already seen the glory of God through His manysupernatural works… starting at the burning bush, the leprous hand,and the rod that became a serpent. God’s glorious works continued

and Moses watched YHWH humiliate the gods of Egypt and embarrassPharaoh into submission. God’s glorious deliverance was visibly seen ina fearful pillar of fire behind Israel and in the walls of water on eitherside as they traversed the dry floor of the Red Sea. God’s gloriousprovision came in the form of daily manna, a flock of birds, and waterthat flowed out of the rock which followed them in the desert.

Moses was not asking God for one more private “light show.” Mosesknew that all of those miracles displayed the glory of God’s power, butthey were not themselves God’s Glory. His prayer was to see God Himself!

And that is the prayer that God answered.

This is why God had to say – in essence – “I will grant your request, butthere is a limit to how much you can see.”

Moses understood that God’s words meant exactly what they soundedlike. And that’s what they must mean to us today. God literally showedHimself to Moses because there really is something of God that can beseen by human eyes. God literally prevented Moses from seeing Hisface because He really has a face which cannot be literally seen by aliving man. But God did show Himself to Moses and God does have

form. Moses saw it.

Significantly, the words that described what Moses was going to see –before he saw it – were directly from God’s mouth; Moses onlyrecorded what God said. These words are not the feeble attempt of aman to describe an indescribable experience (Moses doesn’t evenrecord his own response to the experience!); they are God’s owndescriptions of Himself and His own actions.



Conclusion

Yes, God has form. But we have no need to wonder what form God has,for the words of Scripture in Gen. 1:26-27 tell us precisely what theform is… it is the form which is physically visible in the bodies of mankind – male and female. While this is certainly hard to fullycomprehend, we have absolutely no biblical basis to interpret thesewords any other way.

How have we as Bible-believing Christians allowed ourselves to rejectGod’s image as literally portrayed in the human body? For reasons thatare biblically indefensible and with high-sounding but utterly man-made words, we have written it into our systematic theology that Godhas no form. Therefore, we have concluded, our bodies cannot possiblyrepresent him visually. In so doing, we have rejected this very personalself-revelation of our God: His very image stamped on our bodies.

As a result, we have devalued the human body and subtly descendedinto the Gnostic heresy, for we have counted the body as animpediment to righteousness while only truly valuing the soul andspirit of man.

What’s more, we have redefined the viewing of God’s image in thehuman form as a sexual experience. Seeing the human body isevaluated solely by its impact on the human libido and its supposedlyinescapable enticement to sensual indulgence.

This perspective is deeply insulting to the One whose image we bear.

Of all the people in the world who should know and understand this,Bible-believing Christians should be at the top of the list. We haveGod’s clear revelation in the Bible. We have a dependable hermeneuticby which we can reliably understand it.

We should know the truth, but instead we’ve embraced and promotedthe lie.

That lie has had a profoundly damaging impact on our understandingof our Creator, ourselves, our nature, and our purpose as humanbeings. Embracing the truth instead will free us from its bondage and

lead us to healing, purpose, and a deeper and richer understanding of God.

Correcting this error can and will have a profound impact on how weunderstand the rest of Scripture. In fact, this reordered understandingwill unlock insights into God’s purpose for mankind as fully integratedbody-spirit (or body-soul-spirit) beings that we’ve never seen before.

Amen. Lord, may it be.

Examining the Physical Nature of the Imago Dei - Part 2b

Documents

Transcript of Examining the Physical Nature of the Imago Dei - Part 2b