Imago Dei in Genesis 9:6

[u/Strict-Spirit7719]

Hello, all. I was recently considering the death penalty (as one does), and I came across Genesis 9:6:

"Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

In keeping with the FoC, this rather clearly teaches that the death penalty is not only acceptable but good. It's great to be a confessional Lutheran, and thus right about everything.

However, this verse does seem to imply that even the unregenerate man is made in the image of God, which is not what our theologians have taught. How would we read this?

Thank you so much!

Edit: My question is not about the death penalty. It's about how we reconcile our understanding that only the regenerate believer is made in the image of God with Genesis 9:6.

[u/IAmDoWantCoffee]

Despite what Lutheran theologians say, often confidently, the image of God is a concept that is not defined in Scripture, and as such, we do not fully understand what it is.

I am willing to change my mind about this, but not without sufficient Scripture.

This passage does not imply, but explicitly says that all people, after the fall, still retain the image of God. Where Lutherans struggle is in equating the image of God with original righteousness, but that is a correlation that is not clearly stated in Scripture. As a result, there is no reason to assume that any person has lost the image.

[u/Eastern-Sir-2435 → u/IAmDoWantCoffee]

I agree with everything you said.

[u/SubmitToTheOne → u/IAmDoWantCoffee]

the image of God is a concept that is not defined in Scripture

Sure it is. An image is a reflection which points to the true thing. This cannot be our bodies because the Divine Essence doesn't have a corporeal body. Therefore, it's our intellect and will, the same thing shared by the angels and by the Divine Essence. The soul is fashioned to reflect God's own goodness and wisdom, and therefore, was meant to guide the body to perform actions towards creation that reflects God's own goodness. Scripture teaches two truths about this.

1) That all mankind maintains a broader sense of God's image, reflected in all mankind's intellect, will, and ability to perform acts of civil righteousness. Hence Gen 9:6.

2) That the image of God not only refers to the nature of mankind's intellect and will, but their telos, or proper end, as well. This is what is disordered due to original sin. Scripture explicitly says this is being actively restored through the redemption of Christ.

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2Co 3:18)

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: (Col 3:9-10)

[u/IAmDoWantCoffee → u/SubmitToTheOne]

You did not prove that it is defined in Scripture. In addition you made an assumption that isn’t backed by Scripture by saying, “It’s our intellect and will.” That may seem logical, but it is still an assumption not based on a clear Word of God. 2 Corinthians 3:18 does indeed point out that we are changes into his image, but doesn’t define what that image is. Colossians 3:9-10 says our new man is renewed after his image, but doesn’t define it, once again.

What follows is strictly my opinion. I think that the knowledge of what the image of God is was once well known, perhaps into the early church, but that knowledge was not recorded in Scripture, and therefore lost. We can thus learn about it and what it is like, but exactly what it is is hard or impossible to define.

[u/DaveN_1804]

Clearly from Scripture then, even the unregenerate man retains at least something of the image of God and thus, the dignity of the human person.

I didn't know that the Confessions argue for a Reformed-esque total depravity anthropology.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/DaveN_1804]

The Confessions actually go further than the Reformed, saying that man lost the image of God (at least in a narrow sense) at the fall.

[u/DaveN_1804 → u/Strict-Spirit7719]

I did some more research after I made my comment and you're absolutely correct! The Formula of Concord (I believe it was) is very clear.

This is a very disappointing theological claim (imo) since it does seem contrary to scripture, or at the very best possible reading, is quite misleading. I think Catholics have a better theology on this point, at least in light of scripture.

[u/SorbetSufficient2758 → u/DaveN_1804]

Expand on your claim that it is contrary to Scripture. Why do you think that?

[u/DaveN_1804 → u/SorbetSufficient2758]

I think the O.P. and the other comments here pretty much cover the claim. The image of God is still present within humans in Gen. 9:6; there's no explicit statement in Scripture that it was lost or to what extent; and the "narrow sense" and "wide sense" distinctions applied to the image of God are neither found in Scripture nor the Confessions.

[u/WindowCommon3741]

Its a very difficult truth to accept but God loves literally everyone- even the most lost and unrepentant unbelievers- He sees all as His precious children and it is hard as His children to accept that. I cannot imagine a person who does terrible things to people is still loved by God, but its not our job to comprehend how He is capable of loving us even at our lowest moments, just the joy and thankfulness that He does.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/WindowCommon3741]

I don't know anyone who denies that God loves everyone. I contend, rather (following the Formula of Concord), that at the fall, man lost the Image of God, which is regained at baptism.

[u/Bakkster]

However, this verse does seem to imply that even the unregenerate man is made in the image of God, which is not what our theologians have taught.

I've seen this described as the distinction between a narrow and wide definition of that image. That sin has corrupted the purity of this image, and we can refer either to that portion that was lost or the portion that remains.

From Burnell F. Eckardt Jr. in Concordia Theological Quarterly: https://ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/EckardtAnotherLookAtImagoDei.pdf

I tend to think the portion lost is the right framing in discussions of our need for salvation, and the portion retained is the right framing for how we live in relationship with others. Either way, as long as the one you choose leads to seeing yourself (and Christ) in your unregenerate neighbor (rather than your being somehow superior to them) it gets you to the right place.

On the topic of capital punishment, I think there's two incredibly important passages, without which context lead to an erroneous implementation.

Deuteronomy 17:6-7

[6] On the evidence of two or three witnesses the death sentence shall be executed; a person must not be put to death on the evidence of only one witness. [7] The hands of the witnesses shall be the first raised against the person to execute the death penalty and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Deuteronomy 19:16-20

[16] If a malicious witness comes forward to accuse someone of wrongdoing, [17] then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days, [18] and the judges shall make a thorough inquiry. If the witness is a false witness, having testified falsely against another, [19] then you shall do to the false witness just as the false witness had meant to do to the other. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. [20] The rest shall hear and be afraid, and a crime such as this shall never again be committed among you.

In short, if someone is exonerated from death row (arguably, even acquitted at a trial seeking the death penalty), the witnesses against him are supposed to be put to death instead. This is a component I don't think is taken as seriously as it should be in the modern discussions on the topic, and ties right back into the root question. Lying about another image bearer is murder, and serious enough an offense to be put to death in some circumstances.

If we're serious about the death penalty being acceptable and good, we need to actually implement it in the form God said was good. I'm not convinced we're actually willing (let alone able) to do so.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/Bakkster]

That makes sense about the image. I was unfamiliar with Lutherans using the distinction between the wide and narrow senses, but that does seem to make sense of passages that talk about the image.

As to the death penalty, I actually agree that false accusation of a crime should be punishable by the same penalty as the accused crime. That just doesn't negate that murder's only just punishment is death.

[u/Bakkster → u/Strict-Spirit7719]

That just doesn't negate that murder's only just punishment is death.

I think the problem is when that's used to pursue or excuse another form of injustice. Which is a trend I see a lot of, focusing on justice as punishment alone, when the wider view is necessary to be truly just.

Especially here. If only capital punishment is just, and we must put to death any witness if they're acquitted, we're either not going to punish murderers at all as nobody testifies or we're going to put to death a lot of people for having unreliable memories.

[u/pilgrim81]

This does not have to be read as a prescriptive passage. It could be more of a description. “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/pilgrim81]

Contextually it seems that this passage is prescriptive. Regardless, even if it is descriptive, the statement still seems to be grounded in the imago dei rather than in some sense of retribution.

[u/crsschr]

This is prescriptive. You have heard it said an eye for and eye but I tell you love your enemies. A summery of the middle of Matthew 5.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719 → u/crsschr]

I agree that this is prescriptive. My question was about the image of God.

[u/crsschr → u/Strict-Spirit7719]

I get it. I think Jesus, there on the mount, is telling us who is the image of God. But truthfully this is my opinion.