How far did the fall affect the imago Dei?

[Lamb]

How far did the fall affect the imago Dei?

What does scripture tell us about the fall and how it affected our being made in the image of God?

 

[psalms 91]

We are stil made in the image of God but are now born with a sin nature that Christ came to deliver us from

 

[hedrick]

Calvin's view is that the image isn't abolished, but corrupted. I would agree. In fact I don't know any theology that says the image completely vanishes. That would make us no longer human. After all, the image of God includes things like intelligence, will, and love. We're certainly not perfect at any of those, but they still are part of our nature.

 

[Lamb]

Bumping up a very old thread...

I was reading this morning about how the Restored Image of God Looks Like Christ.

That makes complete sense. The restored image of God doesn't look like us as some people would like to think...it's not about us better ourselves so that we can gain salvation/eternal life. It's about being covered or clothed in Christ (at our baptism) because the restored image of God looks like Christ. Jesus is the perfect man that we can never be so if we want to have our sinful selves restored we don't look to self for that but to Jesus.

 

[Josiah]

We are now born in the image of Adam.

The only ones born in the image of God were Adam and Eve. And they destroyed that.

 

[Lamb]

We are now born in the image of Adam.

The only ones born in the image of God were Adam and Eve. And they destroyed that.

Since Adam was born in the image of God, we still have some of that carried over. It isn't completely lost although it's corrupted.

 

[hedrick]

The NT speaks of us as the image of Adam, the image of Christ (both in 1 Cor 15:49) and the image of God (1 Cor 11:7 -- although women may not qualify).

For what it's worth Calvin seems to have believed that the image of God remains in us, but corrupted. "Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted"

 

[Cassia]

“God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” Genesis 1:27

The picture is complete with both, mankind as a whole, they are both created in the Image of God.

 

[hedrick]

Since Adam was born in the image of God, we still have some of that carried over. It isn't completely lost although it's corrupted.

Gen 1 seems to see humanity as a whole as in the image of God. That paragraph talks about mankind multiplying, being blessed, ruling over the earth. It's unlikely that it restricts the image to Adam.

Christians commonly speak of the image being either corrupted or lost. I see why people would say that. But I don't actually see it in Scripture. Rom 5 talks about sin and death coming, but it does't say that the image is lost. 1 Cor 11:7 sees it as present. 1 Cor 15:49 talks about us as bearing the image of the man of dust, and becoming the image of Christ. But this doesn't talk about removing the image of God.

 

[Lamb]

Gen 1 seems to see humanity as a whole as in the image of God. That paragraph talks about mankind multiplying, being blessed, ruling over the earth. It's unlikely that it restricts the image to Adam.

Christians commonly speak of the image being either corrupted or lost. I see why people would say that. But I don't actually see it in Scripture. Rom 5 talks about sin and death coming, but it does't say that the image is lost. 1 Cor 11:7 sees it as present. 1 Cor 15:49 talks about us as bearing the image of the man of dust, and becoming the image of Christ. But this doesn't talk about removing the image of God.

I think because of 1 Corinthians 15:49 that when it says we're in the image of the man of dust that it means that we now carry Adam's image which is truly fallen. There is no holiness left.

 

[Josiah]

“God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” Genesis 1:27

This refers to Adam.


But the first human BORN..... was he in the image of God (holiness) OR in the image of his fallen, sinful parents? See Genesis 5:3.


Now, there is a restoration IN CHRIST via His forgiveness (1 Corinthians 11:7) because our sin is forgiven. And Christians will be sinless in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:49) but that is future. But we are not born in the image of God. And the image of God does not apply to all homo sapiens. We are born sinful. We are born with Satan as our Lord. Thus ALL need to be SAVED. But there's good news on that point....

 

[hedrick]

I think because of 1 Corinthians 15:49 that when it says we're in the image of the man of dust that it means that we now carry Adam's image which is truly fallen. There is no holiness left.

The concept of image is a metaphor. It's not a literal statement. There's no reason both can't be used. We're in the image of God, but as fallen people we're in the image of Adam. The image of God isn't removed, it's just imperfect.

At the very least Christians are described as the image of God, but in 1 Cor 11:7 and Col 3:10. 2 Cor 3:18 says we are being transformed into the same image as Christ.

In the OT Gen 9:6 says that murder kills someone who is in the image of God.

 

[Cassia]

This refers to Adam.


But the first human BORN..... was he in the image of God (holiness) OR in the image of his fallen, sinful parents? See Genesis 5:3.


Now, there is a restoration IN CHRIST via His forgiveness (1 Corinthians 11:7) because our sin is forgiven. And Christians will be sinless in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:49) but that is future. But we are not born in the image of God. And the image of God does not apply to all homo sapiens. We are born sinful. We are born with Satan as our Lord. Thus ALL need to be SAVED. But there's good news on that point....

Hi Josiah, how’s things in California? The concern of the passages are about the spectacle being made in front of the witnesses of angels, mortals and the world 1 Corinthians 4:9 because the church is responsible for unfolding the mysteries of the church Ephesians 3:10. The purpose of the revealing the Son of God was to destroy the works of the devil 1 John 3:8 which, as you say, began with the children born after the fall.
Hebrews 2:14
Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,

Having rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, I really can’t understand where anyone would think that applies to some and excludes others in this time and place.

 

[Cassia]

Thought I should add to the topic of the imago Dei. Here’s a snip from an article that goes into quite a bit of detail:

Even though it is the relationships that primarily make a person human, it is in relating to God that full humanity comes. A human is only really personal by participating in God
The relationship between people is secondary to the fundamental relationship, which is with God.
Genesis 5:3 parallels Genesis 1:26- 28, and appears to mean that Adam passed the image to his offspring, he points out that on this point there is some debate. Thus although it is often believed that Seth is then in the image of God, Roberts (2006:10) is quite right to use the word ‘presumably’. Genesis 5 does not deal with the transmission of the divine image (Clines 1968:100). Indeed, Genesis rather describes the creation of humanity not as, but according to the image, who is Christ (Hill 1984:207).
The idea of the image then highlights not the nature reflecting the prototype, but the act of the making, or in this case the impartation of life. Here Westermann (1974:59) explains the fewness of references to the image as in the context of creation, and so suggests that it is only relevant to the creative act (or the act of re-creation in the last case, Genesis 9:6). Support for this may be found in that where Christ is referred to as the image of God, this is often in the context of creation (Col 1:15, Heb 1:3). Hoekema (1986:21) notes that Hebrews 1:3 describes Christ as the ‘exact representation’ of God’s being.
Both sexes are then equally in the image, as long as both have new life, which is what Paul also affirms in Galatians 3:28, as long as both the sexes are regenerate; indeed, for the Galatians, a return to law and circumcision would then also be a return to bondage to gender discrimination (Fatum1995:64). Børresen (1995:187) affirms that traditional Christian anthropology understands women’s parity with men in redemption. Fatum (1995:62) comments that in Christ, people revert to the original status described in Genesis 1:27. If they are not in Christ, then the woman is indeed subordinate, as evidenced in many religions. Incidentally, Grenz (2001:270) comments that the account of the creation of women is uniquely Biblical. Fatum (1995:68) then adds that 1 Corinthians 11 must be seen in the context of the three following chapters, so respecting difference but complementary (12), love (13) and empowering (14).
This means that there is then no difference, as regards the image, between male and female after their re-creation. 1 Corinthians 11:7 can hardly be a justification for any inherent subordination of women.
scriptura.journals.ac.za › pub › article › download