Category Archives: Genesis

Image of God (part 3)

by

In the previous two posts, I’ve discussed what the image of God is and what it means to have the image of God. In this brief post, I’ll be asking this question, “Who has the image of God?”

The short answer to this question is every single human being on the planet. All humans are created in the image of God.

It makes no difference whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat. Gay or straight. Male or female. Gender binary or gender queer. A US citizen or an illegal immigrant. Young or old.

All human beings bear the image of God. All human beings have been created in the image of God.

But I want to close with this thought. There is one person who breaks this mold. There is one person who wasn’t created in the image of God. Who is that person? His name is Jesus.

Jesus wasn’t created in the image of God because he IS the image of God.

The apostle Paul writes these words in Colossians.

Colossians 1:15
15 He [i.e., Jesus] IS the image of the invisible God (emphasis added).

Jesus doesn’t merely bear the image of God. He IS the image of God. And he came into this world to rescue us from ourselves. He came to rescue us from our sin and from our alienation from God.

Our sin had separated us from God, and he made “peace [with God] by the blood of his cross” (Colossians 1:20).

And now, those who have trusted in Christ are being transformed day-by-day into the image of the Son “from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18).

So, remember this. We’re all created in the image of God, and we’re being daily transformed into greater and greater likeness to the Son of God.

If you haven’t done so already, find a Bible-believing and Bible-preaching church and join that church. Hitch your wagon to the other members of that church so you can join them in this wonderful journey of being transformed together more and more into the image of God.

Image of God (Part 2)

by

As we’ve previously argued, every human being bears the image of God. But what does that mean? What is the function of the image of God in the everyday lives of men and women? Let me suggest two:—dominion and dignity.

Dominion is easiest to see from Genesis 1 since the word is explicitly stated in the text.

Genesis 1:26b

26b And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (emphasis added).

To have dominion means to rule over something or to exercise authority over something. Notice how broad is the scope of mankind’s dominion.

Mankind has dominion over the creatures in the water, over the creatures in the air, and over the creature on the land. That pretty much covers every type of creature.

Unfortunately, some have taken their God-given dominion and used it in nefarious ways, but dominion doesn’t imply that we can be careless with God’s creation. After all, we do need to remember that this is God’s creation—not ours! We are merely stewards of God’s creation.

In being given dominion, we’re acting with authority as God’s stewards over his creation. So, for example. is it ok to go and kill an animal to provide food to eat? Yes, of course, it is. One may choose to eat vegan, but that’s not a requirement of bearing the image of God.

On the other hand, is it ok to hunt a species to the point of extinction? No, in doing so, we wouldn’t be exercising a proper dominion over God’s creation.

Or consider this scenario. What if we have to make a choice between killing an animal or killing a human being? What if we’re facing a moral dilemma?

Some of you may remember the incident with Harambe—a western lowland gorilla in the Cincinnati zoo—that happened a couple of years ago.

A three-year-old boy had somehow gotten into the gorilla enclosure, and Harambe, the gorilla, grabbed the boy and started dragging him around the enclosure. The zookeeper had to make a quick and devastating decision. He chose to shoot and kill the gorilla so that the boy could be saved.

It was all a very tragic event, and we won’t even get into the discussion about whether animal enclosures like zoos are good or about the boy’s parents and their complicity in allowing the boy to get that close to the enclosure.

It was a sad thing to have to shoot the gorilla, but it was the right call. The boy, not the gorilla, is created in the image of God. That means that the boy has more worth than the gorilla.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s OK to hunt gorillas for sport and put their heads on your mantles, but human beings have more inherent worth than other parts of God’s creation. Human beings are created in the image of God.

It always strikes me as strange when some “well-meaning” person has conflicting bumper stickers on their car—one championing the need to save the spotted owl, and the other championing a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

Without a doubt, we ought to exercise a stewardship over God’s creation to save as many animals that are nearing extinction as we can, but the baby inside the woman’s belly is just that—a human baby—a human person. And as such, that baby has worth and dignity.

A couple of years ago, the singer Beyoncé posted on social media that she was having twins and that she had “three hearts inside her.” Her post instantly became one of the most “liked” posts in history. Millions of people “liked” her post.

Yet, many of those same millions—including Beyoncé herself—advocate for a woman’s right to kill the baby in the womb. We can’t have it both ways.

We can’t celebrate the baby simply because it’s wanted. What’s in the womb is either a human being with human personhood or it’s not. We can’t have it both ways.

Biblical and modern scientific evidence conclusively shows us that what is inside the womb is a human being. And because it’s a human being, it has worth, which brings us to the second “D” word—dignity.

Because we are created in the image of God, mankind alone has a dignity that no other creature has. Furthermore, EVERY human being has that dignity—from conception to natural death.

The United States of America has some of the most liberal and inhumane laws regulating abortion in the world. We share the company of nations like North Korea, Vietnam, and China. The least safe place to be for many babies in the US is in the womb.

Lawmakers in New York recently celebrated the passing of a law that allows for abortion up until the moment of birth. The embroiled governor of Virginia even made public comments that sounded like infanticide!

Only a few states place bans on “sex-selection” abortions (i.e., choosing to have an abortion because the parents don’t like the biological gender of the baby). This is draconian! But, apparently, to those who want completely unfettered access to abortion, it’s too much to ask for a ban on sex-selection abortions. According to one organization that is openly pro-abortion, they say,

“Bans on sex-selective abortions place a burden on [abortion] providers.”

How petty is that argument? What about the burden on that little baby boy and that little baby girl? He or she has been created with dignity and worth, and their dignity and worth trumps the burden on the provider.

Human beings have dignity and worth. Human beings have dominion. That’s the function of being created in the image of God.

Image of God (Part 1)

by

The Bible declares the worth and dignity of every human being by declaring that humans have been created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:27). We see in this that human beings are categorically different than any other part of God’s good creation, and we can see this difference in at least two significant ways in Genesis, chapter 1.

First, for every other created thing, it starts like this. “And God said, ‘Let there be . . .’ ” We can see that in verses 3, 6, 9, 11, 20, 24, of Genesis, chapter 1. But when it comes the creation of human beings, God doesn’t say, “Let there be,” rather he says, “Let us make.”

This might seem like a small thing, but it’s actually quite important. Do we hear the personal nature of “let us make” as opposed to “let there be”? With the rest of creation, God simply spoke it into being—he spoke it into existence. With human beings, however, he crafted them. He made them. He fashioned them.

If we were to fast forward to Genesis, chapter 2, we’d see that God formed mankind from the dust of the earth, and God actually breathed the breath of life into his nostrils (2:7). This is categorically different than anything God did with the rest of his creation.

A second difference between human beings and the rest of creation is found here. All of the other living creatures in Genesis 1 were made “according to their kinds.” We see that twice in verse 21, twice again in verse 24, and three times in verse 25—“according to their kinds.”

With the creation of human beings, however, it wasn’t “according to their kinds.” Rather, when God created human beings, it was “in our image.”

So, if we were study a dog, we would learn something about “dog-ness”—or what it means to be a dog. And if we were study an elephant, we learn something about “elephant-ness”—or what it means to be an elephant. And if we were study an ant, we learn something about “ant-ness”—or what it means to be an ant.

But when we study human beings, not only do we learn something about what it means to be a human—or “human-ness”—but we also learn something remarkable about what God is like—because we’ve been created in his image, after his likeness.

N.B. We shouldn’t don’t read too much into that remark. We don’t believe that one day, we’ll be gods. “Godhood” isn’t in our future.

But, we’ve been created in God’s image, and that is packed full of meaning for us.

That word—“image”—it appears three times in Genesis 1:26–27.

  • “Let us make man in our image”
  • “So God created man in his own image”
  • “In the image of God he created him.”

And then, for good measure, one time at the beginning of verse 26, God also says, “after our likeness.”

So, what does it mean to be created in the image and likeness of God? Theologians have wrestled with that question for centuries. One might think that the answer is simple, but it’s not.

First, let’s make it clear what the image of God (or imago Dei) doesn’t mean. Whenever we hear the word image, we quite naturally think of a picture or a likeness. We think of physical qualities.

On my desk in my office, I have a picture of my wife and a picture of my children. One could say that those pictures are images of my family, and there wouldn’t be anything wrong with saying it that way.

But when we talk about the image of God, we’re not talking about a picture or a likeness. When we look in a mirror, our physical appearance isn’t the image of God. That’s not what it means to be created in the image of God. The Bible teaches us that God himself doesn’t have a body like we do. God is spirit (John 4:24). So, our physical bodies aren’t the image of God.

What, then, does the image of God mean? The image of God in us relates to various capacities that we have. Here are four of those capacities.

First, we’ve been created with a moral capacity. Our moral capacity is part of what it means to be created in the image of God. We are ultimately accountable to God for our moral choices.

No one, for example, chastises a lion when that lion attacks and kills another lion who was encroaching on his territory. No one says that the lion has committed an “immoral” act. That would be nonsense. Lions weren’t created to act morally or immorally. Lions do what lions do. It’s neither moral or immoral.

But suppose a businessman started canvasing the neighborhood where his competitor lived. If the competitor decided to shoot him because he was “hunting in ‘my territory’,” we would all consider that an immoral act. The competitor would go to jail, and rightly so. Human beings are moral creatures who’ve been created in the image of a moral lawgiver.

We even acknowledge that there is such a thing as a moral lawgiver. And when we live according to God’s moral standards, our likeness to God is reflected by our actions.

Second, we’ve been created with a spiritual capacity. Our spiritual capacity is part of what it means to be created in the image of God. No other part of God’s creation has a spiritual capacity.

The lion doesn’t stop and offer thanks to God before he eats the antelope! But we’ve been created to know that there’s something more to our existence. Romans 1 tells us that God has made it plain to everyone that he exists.

Romans 1:19
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Why we are here? Why is there something rather than nothing? If we were to believe in Darwinian evolution, we’d have to come to the conclusion that we’re all just a cosmic accident. If we believe in Darwinian evolution, human beings have no more dignity than houseflies.

But, because we’ve been created in God’s image, we have a spiritual capacity. Isaiah 43:7 tells us why we are here. We are here because God created us for his glory. We bring him glory by worshipping him.

Third, we’ve been created with a mental or rational capacity. Our mental or rational capacity is part of what it means to be created in the image of God.

The word of God commands us to love God with all our hearts, all our strength, all our souls, AND all our minds (Matthew 22:36–40)!

No other part of creation can do this. Dogs and cats did not get up this morning thinking grandiose thoughts of God. They get up in the morning and all they want was fresh water, fresh food, and some attention! That’s all that they want.

Human beings, however, have been created with the capacity to think rational thoughts.

Fourth, we’ve been created with a relational capacity, and our relational capacity is part of what it means to be created in the image of God.

Notice what the text says in verse 26. It says, God—singular—said, “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”—plural pronouns.

What are we to make of this? Are we to assume that Moses—who wrote the book of Genesis—didn’t know his grammar rules? That’s NOT what’s happening. This grammar is quite intentional.

This is an early hint about who God is. This is an early hint about the doctrine of the Trinity—one God, singular, in three persons, plural.

How does the Trinity relate to relationships? Since God is Trinity and the Trinity is eternal, that means that God has always been in relationship with himself.

There’s never been a time when God the Father wasn’t in a relationship with God the Son. And there’s never been a time when God the Son wasn’t in relationship with God the Holy Spirit. God is and always has been in a relationship with himself.

And so, since we’re created in his image, it’s reasonable to suggest that he’s given us this relational capacity as well.

The very first thing that isn’t good in all of creation is that man was alone. It’s not good for man to be alone. So, God created woman to come alongside man. God created woman to help complete the man.

We’ve been created for relationship. We’re not meant to be hermits. Some people have hermit tendencies, but it’s not good to be alone.

We’ve also been created to be in relationship with God. In Genesis 3, it’s God who comes looking for Adam and Eve in the garden. God wants a relationship with his creatures.

One final thought about these various imago Dei capacities. The image of God is lasting and enduring for all time to all people. Even after sin comes into the world and corrupts the world, human beings are still referred to as God’s image bearers. Sin doesn’t nullify the image of God.

Nor does a diminished capacity nullify the image of God in a person. Suppose, for example, someone’s suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease. She doesn’t remember her own name, much less her husband and children. One could rightfully argue that her relational capacity has been severally affected.

But is that woman still someone who’s been created in the image of God? Does she still possess the image of God? Answer. YES, she does. She is still a woman created in the image of God and she still has dignity and worth.

Did God really “hate” Esau?

by

Did God really “hate” Esau? This question was recently posed to me by a godly woman in my congregation.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the story of Esau, let me fill in a few details (Note: You can read the whole story for yourself in Genesis 25–36.)

Esau was the oldest twin brother of Jacob. Esau was the favorite of his father, Isaac, and Jacob was the Esau-and-the-bowl-of-soupfavorite of his mother, Rebekah. But even before they were born God told Rebekah,

“Two nations are in your womb,
And two peoples from within you shall be divided;
The one shall be stronger than the other,
The older shall serve the younger.”
Genesis 25:23

Esau would ultimately sell his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew (Genesis 25:29–34), and later Jacob would deceived his father so as to receive Esau’s blessing (Genesis 27). Did Esau get the raw end of the deal?

To the untrained eye this story reads like a transcript from the Jerry Springer show. But thankfully, for our sakes, God in his grace interprets the story for us.

In Malachi 1 we read these words,

“‘I have loved you,’ says the Lord. But you say, ‘How have you loved us?’ ‘Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?’ declares the Lord. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated.’”
Malachi 1:2–3a

Those are strong words, but they still don’t, by themselves, help us understand what is going on. So the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote these words in Romans 9,

6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Romans 9:6–13

Finally in this passage we begin to understand the reason why “the older shall serve the younger.” We begin to understand why God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” The context here in Romans is clear. The context is God’s free and sovereign choice in electing those whom he chooses to elect—not based on any foreseen merit in them, but purely based on his sovereign freedom.

This passage from Romans is part of a larger argument (Romans 9–11) on God’s sovereign choice of a people for his pleasure. There were those who thought that since not every ethnic Jew (i.e., an ethic Jew is a person who could trace his/her physical ancestry to Abraham) was being saved, God must have failed to keep his promises.

But Paul argues that they are not Jews who are only ethnic Jews, but they are Jews who have faith like Abraham. They are Jews only who are children of the promise.

Paul goes on to demonstrate this fact through two historical examples. One example is Isaac and Ishmael. Abraham fathered both Isaac and Ishmael, but only Isaac was the son of promise. The covenant blessings fell only to Isaac.

The second example is that of Esau and Jacob. Both of these men had the same father and mother. They were twins (fraternal, not identical). Yet before they were born, before they had done anything “good” or “bad,” God had chosen the one over the other.

The story is a story of God’s freedom in choosing (or “election”). Biblical theologian Thomas Schreiner writes, “the seed of Abraham are not the physical children of Abraham or the children of the flesh, but they are the children of Isaac and the children of promise. God never promised that all ethnic Israelites would belong to the true people of God. . . . [T]he children of promise are the true children of God” (Thomas Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 494).

New Testament theologian Douglas Moo writes,
“This brings us back to our original question: What does Paul mean by asserting that God ‘loved’ Jacob but ‘hated’ Esau? The connection of this quotation with v. 12 suggests that God’s love is the same as his election: God chose Jacob to inherit the blessings promised first to Abraham. God’s ‘hatred’ of Esau is more difficult to interpret because Paul does not furnish us at this point with contextual clues. Some understand Paul to mean only that God loved Esau less that he loved Jacob. He blessed both, but Jacob was used in a more positive and basic way in the furtherance of God’s plans. But a better approach is to define ‘hatred’ here by its opposite, ‘love.’ If God’s love of Jacob consists in his choosing Jacob to be the ‘seed’ who would inherit the blessing promised to Abraham, then God’s hatred of Esau is best understood to refer to God’s decision not to bestow this privilege on Esau. It might best be translated ‘reject.’ ‘Love’ and ‘hate’ are not here, then, emotions that God feels but actions that he carries out. In an apparent paradox that troubles Paul (cf. 9:14 and 19 following) as well as many Christians, God loves ‘the whole world’ at the same time as he withholds his love in action, or election, from some.”
Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 586–87.

Once again Schreiner is helpful. He writes,
“Does the text suggest double predestination? Apparently it does. We need to remember that in the Pauline view predestination never lessened human responsibility (cf. Rom. 1:18–3:20; 9:30–10:21), and the correlation between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is ultimately a mystery that is beyond our finite comprehension. We dare not conclude that human decisions are a charade, insignificant, or trivial. But we must also beware of a rationalizing expedient that domesticates the text by exalting human freedom so that it fits neatly into our preconceptions.”
Schreiner, 501.

The story of Jacob and Esau is a story of God’s free and unconditional election. God’s “loving” Jacob was God choosing Jacob. God’s “hating” Esau was God rejecting Esau. As finite human beings we may not understand why God chooses to act in this manner, but we know that God is always completely merciful and gracious. I would like to close this blog article with this lengthy quote from pastor and author John Piper.

“One of the ways God makes this [i.e., his free and unconditional election] clear is that when Abraham fathered two sons, God chose only one of them—Isaac, not Ishmael—to be the son of promise. And when Isaac had two sons, even before they were born, God chose only Jacob, not Esau, to continue the line of his chosen people. In each case, God acts in a way that highlights his sovereign freedom in election. In Isaac’s case the child is born by miraculous, divine intervention when Abraham and Sarah are too old to have children. The point is to show that God’s purposes in election are not limited by human abilities or inabilities. He is free to choose whomever he pleases, even if he has to create a child by miraculous birth.

“This is the truth that John the Baptist had in mind when he warned the Pharisees and Sadducees, ‘Do not presume to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father”; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham’ (Matthew 3:9). In other words, don’t ever think that God is obliged to choose you because of some human distinctive like your physical descent from Abraham. If God needs descendants from Abraham to fulfill the promises of election, he can create them out of stones. He is not boxed in. He is not limited to you. Beware of presuming on his electing grace. It is absolutely free.

“God makes the same point in the way he chooses Jacob and not Esau. In their case God choose the son who, according to all ordinary custom and human expectation, should not have been chosen, namely, the younger one. Thus he shows that God aims to undermine any attempt to limit his freedom in election. He is not bound or constrained by human distinctives. The apostle Paul stresses in Romans 9:10–13 that the reason for the election of Jacob, not Esau, and Isaac, not Ishmael, was to show that God’s election is free and unconditional. It is not based on Jewishness or primogeniture or virtue or faith; it is free, and therefore completely merciful and gracious.”
John Piper, The Pleasures of God: Meditations on God’s Delight in Being God, 114–15.

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

Who Are the Three Men in Genesis 18?

by

Genesis 18:1-5 (ESV)
1 And the LORD appeared to [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. abraham-and-the-three-angels
2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth
3 and said, “O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant.
4 Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree,
5 while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on- since you have come to your servant.” So they said, “Do as you have said.”

Who are these “three men” from verse two who were standing in front of Abraham? We know that at a minimum in some way these three men represented the LORD to Abraham since verse 1 tells us that “the LORD appeared to” Abraham. These “men” weren’t human men as the text of Genesis 18-19 make clear. They were heavenly beings.

But could one of these men have actually been “the LORD”? John Sailhamer argues that this could raise difficult questions since the Pentateuch specifically forbids any presentation of God in any physical form.

Moses spoke to God’s people in Deuteronomy 4:15, “Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire.”

This, of course, is a reference against idolatry, but does this mean that God would never appear in a physical form before man? The incarnation of the Christ in Jesus of Nazareth would appear to argue against that conclusion.

The second commandment (see Exodus 20:4) prohibits human beings from making an image of God. It doesn’t prohibit God from showing up in physical image. But, then again, God did tell Moses that no man could see God and live (see Exodus 33:20).

This, of course, brings us back to the incarnation. We believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and we believe that he was God in the flesh (see John 1:1, 14; Colossians 1:15-20; Hebrews 1:1-4; etc.). Jesus of Nazareth was clearly seen by others, even though he was (and is!) God.

Bruce Waltke argues that the three men of Genesis 18 are “actually the Lord and two angels” (page 266). He continues, “The later identifications of the ‘men’ (18:10, 13, 16-17, 33; 19:1) confirm their manifest difference. One man is none other than the Lord, as 18:2-3 and especially 10, 13-15 make explicit” (266-67).

This “Lord” would be none other than the pre-incarnate Christ, the second person of the Trinity.

For His Glory,

Pastor Brian