Preston Garrison wrote:
>When I was a non-Christian, it says, then I was not Imago Dei.
>Then, sometime in 1960 or 1961 I became one, and your thesis
>says I then became Imago Dei.
>Hard to pick up on that one, Dick.
>I know, by my thesis Adolf Hitler was an Imago Dei. Well, as sick as he
>certainly was, I still think he was Imago Dei.
And then Burgy wrote:
>I agree with this. When Jesus was asked (in an attempt to put him in a
>bind) whether to pay taxes to Caesar, He responded that since Caesar's
>image was on the coin, to yield >the coin to Caesar. When he goes on to
>say that they should yield to God what is His, He is plainly implying that
>they should yield themselves to God, since God's image is on them. His
>questioners were not believers, or they would not have been trying to trap
>Him. I think this leaves inescapable that unbelievers are in the image of
God.
Reminds me of the American Express commercial where Jerry Seinfield is
doing stand up comedy in England and says, "...so I got off the elevator and
said, ''What is this the seventh inning stretch'"? When his audience doesn't
laugh he takes a quick tour of England, picks up on the lingo, and then ends
his comedy routine with: "...so I went up the pickles and pears and said,
'What is this the tea interval'"?
"Pickles and pears" is cockney slang. When they use an alliteration the
second word rhymes with the missing word, in this case "stairs." It comes
from the expression: "...so I went up the pickles and pears for some grunt
and grumble." "Grumble" rhymes with "crumble," which I am sure you all
know, is synonymous with "a little leg over," or "a bit of the other," or
"having
it away."
Once when I lived in England the same thing happened to me. I was in a
circle of English friends and started to tell a joke about a man who walks
into a bar with a German Shepherd on a leash. From the puzzled looks I
could see I wasn't connecting, so I asked what was wrong. Well, the dog
we call a "German Shepherd" they call an "Alsatian," and my friends were
trying to figure out what a Rhineland sheepherder would be doing on a leash.
Which reminds me. What did the bus driver say to the man at the bus stop
who had three heads, no arms, and one leg? " 'ello, 'ello, 'ello, you look
'armless enough, 'op in." (Say it a few times. You'll get the hang of it.)
The point I am leading up to is that we separated from the British only a few
hundred years ago, yet we have words and expressions unique to our
separate cultures. Some of the Hebrew terms we argue about were written
some 3,500 years ago in another language which had no vowels, no
punctuation, and no verb tense. Plus, we don't have the originals, and none
of the copies are identical. Yet, we Christians seem to think we know what
it
all means.
"Imago dei" is one of those terms that has been ripped out of context and
has been the subject of endless pontification. Needlessly, in my estimation.
I believe the term means simply that Adam was to represent God in similar
manner to the way that Christ represents God. Anything beyond that is
pure conjecture.
Bible expositors have taken the phrase "in the image of God" and blown it
into proportions far beyond the simpler intentions of the text. An "image"
is
a likeness or representation of something. In Leviticus 26:1, the children
of
Israel were told to make "no idols nor graven image." Idols themselves can
become objects of worship, obscuring the one true God who accepts
worship directly. "The image of Baal" (II Kings 3:2) was an object of pagan
worship, being a representation of that false deity.
In Genesis 1:27, Adam represented God, having been "created in His own
image." This status was passed through the godly line of Seth (Gen. 5:3).
Noah and his generations were God's chosen people, and thus were "in the
image" (Gen. 9:6). This status as representatives of God was conferred
upon the Israelites through the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:1-8).
Apparently, those outside the nation of Israel were outside the realm of
accountability. This can be inferred from Matthew 23:15, "Woe unto you
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make
one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of
hell than yourselves."
When one outside the Jewish faith was brought to the knowledge of God, he
became accountable. Because of false teaching, he was condemned. This
unique status for Israel as God's chosen people was rescinded, or at least
modified, at the cross. Christ was appointed by God as His representative.
The second Adam, Christ, was in the "image of God" (II Cor. 4:4) just as the
first Adam, and the mantle was passed to the followers of Christ.
In I Corinthians 11:7, Paul's instructions were not to unregenerate men, but
to the redeemed of the church at Corinth. According to Paul, they were in
"the image and glory of God." They received this authority as believers in
Christ, "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature"
(Col. 1:15). I submit that fallen man has no claim to God's image unless he
receives it through redemption.
Psalm 8 points to the coming Messiah. David affirms that Christ has
dominion over all things. This was given to Adam at his creation (Gen.
1:28), and was intended for his generations, but it was clearly in Christ's
hands after the Fall. "Thou madest Him to have dominion over the works of
thy hands: thou hast put all things under His feet: all sheep and oxen, yea,
and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea
..."
(Psa. 8:6-8).
Dominion over the lesser animals does not accrue to man. It was inherent
first in Adam, and then in Christ. Those who belong to Christ share in His
authority and in His dominion. Those who are not in Christ, though they
may act as if they have divine permission, merely usurp an authority not
granted by God.
The notion that all of mankind has "dominion" over the earth and were
created in God's "image" derives from the mistaken idea that Adam was the
ultimate progenitor of the human race. From this, Bible expositors have
gone overboard postulating the marvelous similarities between us and our
Creator.
In what manner are we, his stumbling creatures, like the Most High God?
Do we possess His holiness, or His righteousness? Can we boast of His
wisdom? Are we omnipotent? Can we transcend time? Is it in our power to
forgive sin? Can we grant immortality? No, we mere mortals presume too
much.
Our claim to being in His image is on the righteousness of Christ, not by
birth right, lest any man should boast. "For my thoughts are not your
thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord" (Isa. 55:8).
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 09:44:35 EST