A New Approach To The Image of God--and Satan's ongoing counter

[EarlyActs]

Let me ask the 'tohu wa-bohu' question the other way around: why use that expression in Jer 4 about the destruction of Israel? Was it just a matter of natural decay, disintegration, disorganization?

 

[jeremiah1five]

I have recently exchanged with a few scientists who are evangelicals here, but who may not realize they are 'neo-orthodox.' That means that they don't accept some of early Genesis as historical, but only for its theology, as though these things can be split.
In this post, I would like to revisit their questions on a new topic within early Genesis: the image of God. This is most often used as a general statement of human dignity.

The image of God is not Adam. Saul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians and Colossians as to Who the image of God truly is and it is not found in the natural man, but in the spiritual man.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1 Cor. 15:45–49.

Saul makes clear distinction between the earthy (man) and the heavenly (Christ, or the Lord from heaven.)
Man is earthy and the image of God is not natural, or earthy. The other is heavenly, and the Lord from heaven possesses the heavenly or spiritual.
Verse 48: "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. The "they" is plural that speaks of the heavenly and this speaks of the "new man" that comes into being with regeneration and conversion from the earthy into the heavenly by the new birth.

Saul also makes clear that Christ is the image of God being in heavenly and spiritual:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col. 1:13–16.

In our conversion from earthy to spiritual when we are born again we become a new man created in "righteousness and holiness:

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
Eph. 4:23–24.

The word "created" transliterated into the Hebrew is the word "bara," which by definition describes God who created the heaven and earth "out of nothing," which describes our being "created out of nothing," that is, God creating a new man and this "thing" which was "created out of nothing" is the human spirit within us as is the prior human spirit possessed by Adam at his creation, a human spirit that died "in the day" he ate from the forbidden tree. Thus, the born again possess the image of the heavenly as we are from that moment on being conformed into the heavenly image of Christ, not the earthy image of Adam.

There are two things in the early text, however, that pull us another direction. 1st, that the term 'tohu wa-bohu' means that a destructive event has taken place, for ex., as found in Jer. 4 and the destruction of Jerusalem. Details are scant. This does not settle well with the above readers and there is some denial that the expression can mean this, only that it means it was unfinished.

Jeremiah 4 is not talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, but of the world. Pay attention:

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled,
And all the hills moved lightly.
25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens were fled.
26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness,
And all the cities thereof were broken down
At the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
Jeremiah 4:24–26.

First, there was no man, or as the word used here, there was no Adam, which passage also mentions this destruction of ALL the cities "at the Presence of the Lord and by His fierce anger." This makes the destruction described as a personal destruction directly by God's terrible and Living Presence. And the only time God did such destruction upon earth in fierce anger was in response to the sin "found in Lucifer's 'heart.'"

13 For thou hast said in thine heart... Isaiah 14:13.

And I place God destroying the earth between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, before God created man (Adam.)
Details are not "scant" for Isaiah compliments what Jeremiah said:


1 Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste,
And turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
Isaiah 24:1.

This contains the same language found in Genesis 1:2 when Moses says the earth was without form and void.
Genesis 1:1 God creates the heavens and the earth. Verse 1:2 the earth is empty, without form and [a] void. In other words, verse one God creates the heaven and the earth complete, finished. But when we get to verse two something happened to the earth that rendered it empty, without form and void. The conclusion? God Personally destroyed the earth before the sixth day when "there was no man [Adam,]"
Joel talks about a theophany when God returns a second time, the sun does not give her light neither the moon which reflects the sun's light, and the powers of the heavens are shaken. This is because at the Presence of the LORD whether standing still or "coming" there will be signs in the sky, astronomical changes taking place. God Himself is coming. And the heavens fled away. Both times (Genesis 1:2) and second coming (Zech. 14:1-3; Rev. 19:11) God is exhibiting "fierce anger."

2nd, when God makes mankind, he is made in the image of God. This expression also may go in an unexpected direction--to be a representative of God. Images were used around middle east kingdoms to define boundaries. The earth was God's. This needed to be marked.
Now when we combine 1 with 2, we see that something was destroyed that was unacceptable to God, and there needed to be representation of God as the owner in this place that was subjected to ruination.
This, then, would be the "theology" of early Genesis on these two points. I'm a bit puzzled how we cannot have historic material when these items are the meaning of the passage.
This might seem palid until we go to the 10 Commands. In the 10 Commands, we have the repetition that God created the earth, etc., in 6 days and the 7th was meant to rest and worship Him. But that is not the only theme brought forward: man is not to make images of God. We should see the sharp contrast: man is an image of God (the lord of the world), but is tempted to make images of God, which are lies; they are false. This began verbally with Satan misrepresenting God, ie, creating an image of him.
To me, these hints show a conflict before the creation event (that made the biosphere inhabitable for mankind), about which we have very few details, but are solid links of history to meaning in early Genesis.
By way of continuity of the whole Bible, we should remind ourselves that Jesus was made (as far as humanity needed a demonstration) Lord and Christ in the resurrection. The world is His, says Ps 2 and 110. (The apostles did not start their Acts 4 prayer in Ps 2; they started in a psalm that asserted God made it all and was owner.) Anyone not accepting this is on notice, through the resurrection, that the Son will dash them to pieces on the last day.
The scholarly NET has this note for Acts 4:

• Acts 4:24 tn Or “Lord of all.”sn The use of the title Master of all (δεσπότης, despotēs) emphasizes that there is a sovereign God who is directing what is taking place.

But directing all affairs is not the pulse of early Acts; it is that he is owner; the earth is his property, in the sense going all the way back to the creation.
This may indirectly answer the question of why some Nephilim appear after the cataclysm. What God needed to do in the cataclysm was destroy the illusion that someone else was owner; it is not that God dislikes the earth. He restored that he is Master by getting rid of the bulk of the Nephilim. In the SW US, in about 1800, a last group (to my knowledge) of giants was defeated because of their barbarity by the Payute tribe. As in Ps 104, the cataclysm is something of a clue as to what happened in the creation itself; certain lines overlap or blur the two.

And another thing: The angels that sinned when there was "no man [Adam]" (Gen. 1:2) is they are "locked up!"

4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2 Peter 2:3–4.

Now you have the biblical exegesis on the "image of God" and the destruction of the earth and the angels that sinned "locked up."

 

[Sereni-tea]

In the Psalms it may be a figure of speech, but it still has the effect of chaos. God defeats it. Thus God is victorious over it.

God commands, He doesn't battle anything.

As Peterson says, Genesis tells us that the imprint of the divine is to take things that are chaos and make them workable or habitable.

I would agree with this.

To repeat some of the related features in the text:
representing (an image of God) is in the text and is about establishing territory. From whom we are not told, but it used that way in the ANE.

Being the Image of God is a vocation, not marking out territory. It is an active role in being like God

Subdue and rule over are in the text and used because of the previous condition in a 'mopping up' sense.

It seems you are thinking of subdue and rule as military terms. God's rule is not like that. It is benevolent, caring. We were to care for the rest of creation, not bring it under submission.

The same thing happens when the Nephilim are dealt with as the OT moves on.

In the cataclysm, there will be the demonic figures and their affect on mankind. They are defeated. This is why we read Ps 104 and it is difficult to tell whether he is referring to the creation or the cataclysm; they have important similarities.

As I said before, there is a lot of similarities because the Flood event was a type of re-creation event.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Where is the sea monster battle in Gen 1?

You might have noticed the inverted commas I used with "sea monsters". These are metophorical sea monsters. The watery chaos is the personified "sea monster".
The Bible Project has a great series of podcasts on the "Chaos Dragon" and explains it a lot better than me.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Let me ask the 'tohu wa-bohu' question the other way around: why use that expression in Jer 4 about the destruction of Israel? Was it just a matter of natural decay, disintegration, disorganization?

It is describing the state of the land, not how it came to be that way. Sure it came to be that way as a result of a battle. And I am sure Jeremiah deliberately chose that phrase, not because he linked it to a pre-creation battle, but because he saw it now as "un-workable" or "un-inhabitable".

 

[EarlyActs]

God commands, He doesn't battle anything.


I would agree with this.


Being the Image of God is a vocation, not marking out territory. It is an active role in being like God


It seems you are thinking of subdue and rule as military terms. God's rule is not like that. It is benevolent, caring. We were to care for the rest of creation, not bring it under submission.


As I said before, there is a lot of similarities because the Flood event was a type of re-creation event.

Re represent
You have to have a source. The one I read referred to stone markers in the ANE which kings used for their territory. I will try to find.

 

[jeremiah1five]

God commands, He doesn't battle anything.

It seems you are thinking of subdue and rule as military terms. God's rule is not like that. It is benevolent, caring. We were to care for the rest of creation, not bring it under submission.

You misunderstand Scripture. God does some serious battling and warring against His enemies:

14 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh,
And thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;
And the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and ethe women ravished;
And half of the city shall go forth into captivity,
And the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations,
As when he fought in the day of battle.
Zech. 14.

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev. 19:11–16.

Like David, Christ is a man o war. He rules the nations (Gentiles) with a rod of iron, and leads His people Israel with a shepherd's staff. Or haven't you read Psalms 23, "The Lord is my (Israel's) shepherd."

 

[EarlyActs]

God commands, He doesn't battle anything.


I would agree with this.


Being the Image of God is a vocation, not marking out territory. It is an active role in being like God


It seems you are thinking of subdue and rule as military terms. God's rule is not like that. It is benevolent, caring. We were to care for the rest of creation, not bring it under submission.


As I said before, there is a lot of similarities because the Flood event was a type of re-creation event.

Re battles:
As the Rev says, “there was war in heaven.”

Eph 4 “he led captivity captive… “ quoting psalm 68, which is all about battles.

Acts 13: His gave ancient Israel 7 kingdoms in the Cana area, mopping up to eliminate the Nephilim.

Ever read the account of Jericho? “I am not nor for you or against you; I am the captain of the armies of the Lord of hosts.”

 

[EarlyActs]

God commands, He doesn't battle anything.


I would agree with this.


Being the Image of God is a vocation, not marking out territory. It is an active role in being like God


It seems you are thinking of subdue and rule as military terms. God's rule is not like that. It is benevolent, caring. We were to care for the rest of creation, not bring it under submission.


As I said before, there is a lot of similarities because the Flood event was a type of re-creation event.

Re similarity of creation and flood:
That’s bc of purging out demonic entities

 

[EarlyActs]

God commands, He doesn't battle anything.


I would agree with this.


Being the Image of God is a vocation, not marking out territory. It is an active role in being like God


It seems you are thinking of subdue and rule as military terms. God's rule is not like that. It is benevolent, caring. We were to care for the rest of creation, not bring it under submission.


As I said before, there is a lot of similarities because the Flood event was a type of re-creation event.

Re care for original creation
The Hebrew phrase for all life created is that it would ‘swarm with swarms.’ It does that on its own. What is there to care for? And it was very good. It must refer to some other feature. It is not environmental policy. It is about representing Gods ownership, like the image term.

This is also found in ancient psalms. Ie, when the enemies of God are defeated in psalms, whether demonic or human, it is bc they are seeking ownership. When Christ comes , there is conflict with demons over ownership in the gospel narratives, even with Satan.

 

[EarlyActs]

It is describing the state of the land, not how it came to be that way. Sure it came to be that way as a result of a battle. And I am sure Jeremiah deliberately chose that phrase, not because he linked it to a pre-creation battle, but because he saw it now as "un-workable" or "un-inhabitable".

Ah you have been consulting directly with Jeremiah, and no one else has such access. Hmmm.

I didn’t know we had permission to avoid certain things about a text if it offended us.

 

[EarlyActs]

You might have noticed the inverted commas I used with "sea monsters". These are metophorical sea monsters. The watery chaos is the personified "sea monster".
The Bible Project has a great series of podcasts on the "Chaos Dragon" and explains it a lot better than me.

Good for the Bible Project unless they got it wrong.

I find it funny that a faith like Judaism would think that Gen 1 was a non-battle when the birth of the nation was an actual defeat of an actual army by supernatural control over a body of water, to re-enact to that enemy that God the creator sometimes drowns his enemies in a watery chaos bc that enemy thinks he owns the place. That would be Pharoah the sun god, creator and sustainer.

 

[EarlyActs]

When Acts 7 says Israel brought along Moloch and Rephan right in the middle of the exodus, it shows the persistent demonic presence in a portion of the people. Ps 106 uses ‘shedim’ (demons) to name the entity which some of Israel was actually worshipping, accrediting the exodus, and claiming ownership of the land they came to.

Hence mopping up was needed…

Creation, cataclysm and exodus all have important parallels. And mopping up is one of them.

The defeat of a sea monster is in many cultures—Hindi and Persia (Waltke, Wakeman), obviously above in the psalms about the exodus, and local to me in NW US native (clever Raven the creator also defeats a sea monster as part of creation). But proper credit for victory over its attempt to own the earth is only found in Genesis.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Good for the Bible Project unless they got it wrong.

I find it funny that a faith like Judaism would think that Gen 1 was a non-battle when the birth of the nation was an actual defeat of an actual army by supernatural control over a body of water, to re-enact to that enemy that God the creator sometimes drowns his enemies in a watery chaos bc that enemy thinks he owns the place. That would be Pharoah the sun god, creator and sustainer.

The whole point of Genesis 1 is to show that Yahweh, the Creator God, does not need to battle anyone. The whole repetition of "God said "Let there be ..." and it was so." should give that away. Whatever wars and battles are in the rest of the Bible, they are not there in Genesis 1.
"God saw all he had made and it was very good." Yahweh is all powerful. Nothing can stand against Him.

The Bible records rebellions - in heaven and on earth. There is no doubt about that. It records battles. But it is not there in Genesis 1. This is God's creation and He made it the way He wanted. He did not have to battle anyone to do it.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Job 38:4-7

Does that sound like there was a battle when the earth was created? It sounds to me like all the spiritual beings were joyful at its creation, not rebelling.

 

[CrowCross]

Does that sound like there was a battle when the earth was created? It sounds to me like all the spiritual beings were joyful at its creation, not rebelling.

Post 6 in this thread explains a lot.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Post 6 in this thread explains a lot.

You are right that there is no evidence from the text that Satan's rebellion was before Genesis 1:2.

 

[CrowCross]

You are right that there is no evidence from the text that Satan's rebellion was before Genesis 1:2.

To show that I've looked at both sides and to be fair...even though I agree with you I have to say yes and no.
The pre-Adamic Racers like to point at Jer 4:23 and onwards as a description of what happened to the pre-Adamic earth but there are other ways to see that verse....such as the destruction of the land of Judea was describe like the original with out form and void ("tohu" and "bohu") creation.

 

[EarlyActs]

The whole point of Genesis 1 is to show that Yahweh, the Creator God, does not need to battle anyone. The whole repetition of "God said "Let there be ..." and it was so." should give that away. Whatever wars and battles are in the rest of the Bible, they are not there in Genesis 1.
"God saw all he had made and it was very good." Yahweh is all powerful. Nothing can stand against Him.

The Bible records rebellions - in heaven and on earth. There is no doubt about that. It records battles. But it is not there in Genesis 1. This is God's creation and He made it the way He wanted. He did not have to battle anyone to do it.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Job 38:4-7

Does that sound like there was a battle when the earth was created? It sounds to me like all the spiritual beings were joyful at its creation, not rebelling.

They were celebrating the victory.

 

[EarlyActs]

The whole point of Genesis 1 is to show that Yahweh, the Creator God, does not need to battle anyone. The whole repetition of "God said "Let there be ..." and it was so." should give that away. Whatever wars and battles are in the rest of the Bible, they are not there in Genesis 1.
"God saw all he had made and it was very good." Yahweh is all powerful. Nothing can stand against Him.

The Bible records rebellions - in heaven and on earth. There is no doubt about that. It records battles. But it is not there in Genesis 1. This is God's creation and He made it the way He wanted. He did not have to battle anyone to do it.

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
Job 38:4-7

Does that sound like there was a battle when the earth was created? It sounds to me like all the spiritual beings were joyful at its creation, not rebelling.

His winning a battle by speaking order and sanity into it is the exact situation of Jesus calming a storm with nearly-instant result, and commanding evil spirits to be gone in a moment. Perhaps you are too literal about the word battle.

Another piece of information to evaluate is that there is no time frame for the Is 14 passage. We simply have a super-human being who is a problem, and who, by the way, made the earth a wasteland, v17. We don't even know when Jesus was referring to, when, in the middle of ministry, he said he saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening. (He would later say that in the Gospel events, the prince of this world would be driven out.) I assume he was referring to the past tense of earth.

Some have commented that the form of a crawling serpent in Gen 3 was a sign of this; he is already in diminished form from whatever form he was before (which Is 14 says is loftier than that). Others, that the circuiting of earth in Job is also a term of displacement, "homeless" if you like.

Another passage is that the 'blackest darkness' (of space was a prison of rebellious angels, 2 Peter 2 and Jude. If you look carefully at Gen 1, the earth is unlit (dark) and the surround of water is often a reference to a judgement site. The solar system around earth will not exist until day 3, so it could be called a 'blackest darkness' at that point. This may be why a concept of a lake of fire exists at all--from the center of the earth. There psalms and Isaiah that speak of cities under the earth in prison already.

Notes from the NET:

1. 2 Peter 2:4 tn Grk “casting them into Tartarus” or “holding them captive in Tartarus.” This verb, ταρταρόω (tartaroō), occurs only here in the NT, but its meaning is clearly established in both Hellenistic and Jewish literature. “Tartarus [was] thought of by the Greeks as a subterranean place lower than Hades where divine punishment was meted out, and so regarded in Israelite apocalyptic as well” (BDAG 991 s.v.). Grammatically, it has been translated as an indicative because it is an attendant circumstance participle.
2. 2 Peter 2:4 tn Grk “handed them over.”

2 Peter 2:4 tc The reading σειραῖς (seirais, “chains”) is found in P72 P Ψ 33 1739 M vg sy, while σιροῖς (sirois [or σειροῖς, seirois], “pits”) is found in א A B C 81. The evidence is thus fairly evenly divided. Internally, the reading adopted here (σειραῖς) is a rarer term, perhaps prompting some scribes to replace it with the more common word. However, this more common term is not a synonym and hence does not follow the normal pattern of scribes. As well, the use of the genitive ζόφου (zophou) in “chains of darkness” is a bit awkward (a rare genitive of place), perhaps prompting some scribes to change the imagery to “pits of darkness”

We should also note v5, in that the imprisonment/incarceration of v4 had to have been before the cataclysm. (I P 3 already has spoken of the preaching of Christ to those who perished in that).

The Tartarus reference shows an affirmation of a narrow slice of Greek mythology: that the evil of the past must have been punished/incarcerated. But of course Greek myth is so hopeless and unworkable, I'm not sure it helps very much!

I also notice the use of the term "battle" may not be the best for 1:2. It would be better to refer to an act of punishment, which Jer 4 is about Jerusalem, though it was through a battle (a 3rd party force). The army of the Lord of Hosts certain does punishments but is sometimes (Is 14) involved in a mortal battle if God is changing the tables of mankind's powers-that-be.

All of which lead me to retain that it was a judgement, that an image is for declaring property ownership, and that subdue/rule over is mopping up after God has acted.