On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:49:44 -0500 Dick Fischer <dfischer@mnsinc.com>
writes:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
> 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 unique status for Israel as God's chosen people was rescinded, or at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.
>
> 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.
>
>
Here I thought that the cowboys, shepherds, dairy farmers and the like
who were neither Orthodox Jews nor orthodox Christians were legitimate.
But Dick has proved that they are all perverse usurpers who have no right
to the products of their efforts. I stand corrected. But I have a
nostalgic longing to have the Noahic covenant (Genesis 9) apply to them.
I am also somewhat worried that the divine promise that there would be no
more Flood applies only to the area around Mesopotamia, that is, the
Mid-East and Northern Africa, from Turkey to Persia to the Sudan. The
Americas, Australia, Antarctica, eastern Asia, central and southern
Africa and, probably, Europe, do not fall under the divine warrant. By
the way, will someone who knows a lot more about the history of
Mesopotamia than I please tell me the date of the last major flood on the
Euphrates and Tigris rivers? Then I can place an exact date on Noah. On
the basis of Dick's interpretation and God's promise, it has to be the
last one.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 04 2000 - 11:57:50 EST