>>> gordon brown <Gordon.Brown@Colorado.EDU> 6/9/2008 11:33 PM >>> writes:
Particular opinions as to what imago dei means have led to the idea that
it is not unique to humans since some see some evidence of such traits in
other species. However, whatever imago dei means, the Bible appears to say
that it is confined to humans. In the passage in Genesis on which it is
based it appears to be a quality that qualifies man to be put in charge of
the rest of creation. The Biblical references indicate that it is a matter
of having it or not, not of having some degree of it. Since God doesn't
have a physical body, His image isn't physical, nor should it be
physically produced. Thus the possession of the imago dei should not be
related to man's physical origin.
Ted comments:
I agree with all of this, Gordon, but a couple of months ago I sat in on a
course on Genesis taught by Steed Davidson
(http://www.plts.edu/davidson.html), apparently a Methodist scholar at a
Lutheran seminary, and his opinion is that the Hebrews *did* think that
humans look like God. Or vice versa. This puzzled me, and I didn't have
time after the class to question him about it. Perhaps George Murphy can
tell us how far off the norm (if at all) Prof Davidson's view is?
My very strong sense is, that the story in Genesis One (where we find the
imago dei) has one of the most powerful pictures of a transcendent God that
we have in all of Scripture--the God who made the heavens and the earth is
not a visible creature, unlike the sun & moon that were widely worshiped in
the Near East. This would seem to refute Prof Davidson's view. But I'm no
Hebrew scholar.
Ted
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 10 09:05:08 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 10 2008 - 09:05:09 EDT