Sermon Tone Analysis

Sympathetic Rant

I want to take a minute to address an issue that I think is important before we move forward that may be lurking in the background of the minds of people who are hearing something that may be new to them for the first time.

I have not delusions about what I and many others who care deeply about the bible may ask others to consider when we “require” people to actually look at the text closely.

In our evangelical approach to learning, when we develop a doctrine based on a tradition, and that tradition slowly forms the basis of our faith, and then it is reinforced from the pulpit and/or Sunday school classroom throughout the years.

It can become a lens through which every verse of the Bible we read gets filtered, and this lens is revered by everyone they ever went to church with.

The lens can gets confused with the Bible itself.

Then someone comes along and tells them that the Bible can speak for itself, that they don't need that lens...or, more aggressively, you tell them that the lens is man-made and Bible-adjacent rather than biblical.

And in order to believe you...they have to give up everything they've framed their understanding on.

They will inevitably experience a deep and dreadful discomfort, even if they eventually accept what you said.

Even the most rational, reasonable, and emotionally stable person on the planet will feel that threatening discomfort when given a set of facts that contradict a previously held system of belief.

This is called cognitive dissonance and it is one of the most powerful emotional forces in the human experience.

People will get defensive, angry, deeply sad, or withdraw completely to avoid feeling it.

Add divine implications to the dissonance, and it becomes an order of magnitude more powerful.

It is like the analogy of an ancient building that over the years has accrued more and more scaffolding out of fear that it will fall over.

Whenever someone suggests removing the scaffolding in order to better appreciate the beauty of its architecture, some people will inevitably panic thinking that the building will fall over...

So I understand that looking at the bible really closely can make you uncomfortable.

But guess what?

That is what is supposed to happen.

But here is what we cannot do.

We cannot begin to summarily dismiss (or worse mischaracterize) a point of view that maybe thoroughly biblical without doing our homework just because it offends our sensibilities or better yet, our tradition.

This is where debating issues can go really bad.

What I mean by that is this?

Here is a quote from Dr. Heiser’s blog on this very issue.

The author of our study.

“If someone really wants to learn something, they’ll study and do research.

They won’t be content to be entertained.

Debates become a substitute for study.

Academic bloodsport — entertainment for both sides that allows both sides to avoid the hard work of studying.

I’m not an entertainer.

If you want to know what I think and why I think it, read what I write.

If you still want entertainment, get used to disappointment.

Don’t be lazy.”

He goes on to say…

“I will not spend my time shooting at other Christians.

I care only if the clarity of the gospel is present, and what the biblical text can exegetically sustain on all other matters.

I don’t care about anyone’s views of creation, end times, election, tongues, etc.

I want people to stop parroting the views of their traditions and get their noses back into the biblical text — and read that text in its own context, not some post-biblical context or tradition.

If it irritates you that I don’t have the gift of indignation and want to have a “ministry” that fights other believers, go somewhere else.

Again, I’m not here to entertain.

I’m here to help you become a better reader and student of Scripture.

I’m here to help people see when their views are possible, and perhaps plausible, or not.

I’m not here to tell people what to believe or gain followers.

I’ll let other “ministries” do that (sarcastic, but sadly true).

It’s that simple.”

And I agree with that sentiment.

Now let’s get back to our study......

The Imager of God

So I want to show you how looking at the text closely works using the example we saw last time about the image of God.

Grammer does actually matter when we look at the Bible.

We know that prepositions are words we use in english that show relationships between nouns and pronouns.

In Hebrew (the language of the OT) prepositions can be very elastic.

That can have a large, what is termed “semantic range”.

They can have a range of meanings based on how the preposition is used.

“Let us make man in our image” (Gen 1:26)

I have the esv open to Gen 1:26.

The verse is a familiar one, with a familiar phrase: “Let us make man in our image.”

Clicking on the word “in” reveals that the English is translating the Hebrew preposition בְּ (b).

That simple preposition has many nuances, and one of them is important for properly understanding this phrase, and this verse, and the theology that it conveys.

Flawed Ideas about “Image”

Christians of all denominational persuasions reference this verse and the “image” wording to talk about the sanctity of human life, but then proceed to equate the image with something put in humans—some quality, and typically a quality that involves conscious thought.

This view, though common, is deeply flawed, as the contents of the womb in the early stages of life have none of the qualities that theologians have said is the meaning of the image.

It does no good to argue these qualities are in each human as potential realities, because that would mean human life is only potentially sacred, and therefore not sacred until brain development.

Prepositional Help for Understanding “Image”

Now, this flawed thinking is remedied with more careful thinking about the preposition בְּ.

As we saw in the video lecture, בְּ can mean function or capacity.

In that case, we’d translate בְּ with the English word “as.”

I have a Hebrew reference grammar open to its discussion of בְּ, specifically to this functional meaning, called the “beth essentiae,” or the “beth of identity” by Hebrew grammarians.

If we view בְּ in this way Gen 1:26 would read, “Let us create man”—or humankind—“as our image.”

And in verse 27 we’d read, “So God created man”—humankind—“as His own image.”

Now this means that the image idea is best understood as a status, that of representing God—that would be its function—representing God in whatever place or sphere He puts us.

The idea becomes verbal, in a sense: we represent God on earth, we “image” God.

The image then is tied to humanity itself, not in some ability humans may or may not posses at some point, or posses unequally.

To be human is to be God’s imager, and life is sacred at all stages, regardless of attributes or not.

This understanding of the preposition בְּ has powerful theological and ethical ramifications.

In terms of preaching, people need to know their theology and ethics isn’t rooted in a tradition; it’s rooted in the biblical text.[1]

IMAGE OR IMAGER?

Identifying the nature of the divine image has preoccupied students and pastors for a long time.

Chances are you’ve heard a sermon or two on the topic.

I’m willing to bet that what you’ve heard is that the image of God is similar to something in this list:

• Intelligence

• Reasoning ability

• Emotions

• The ability to commune with God

• Self-awareness (sentience)

• Language/communication ability

• The presence of a soul or spirit (or both)

• The conscience

• Free will

All those things sound like possibilities, but they’re not.

The image of God means none of those things.

If it did, then Bible-believers ought to abandon the idea of the sanctity of human life in the womb.

That assertion may jar you, but it’s quite evident once you really consider that list in light of how Scripture talks about the image of God.

Genesis teaches us several things about the image of God—what I call “divine image bearing.”

All of what we learn from the text must be accounted for in any discussion of what the image means.

1.

Both men and women are equally included.

2. Divine image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of earthly creation (i.e., plants and animals).

The text of Genesis 1:26 does not inform us that divine image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in existence at the time of creation.

The plurals in Genesis 1:26 mean that, in some way, we share something with them when it comes to bearing God’s image.

3.

There is something about the image that makes humankind “like” God in some way.

4.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that the image has been or can be bestowed incrementally or partially.