RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Sat Oct 10 2009 - 15:09:49 EDT

Thanks for the info, Janice. Here is a journal article explaining it:

It is another (different) take on the 'relationship' meaning of the 'image of God' (or 'image for God'). It sounds interesting, because considering ANE thought seems to be critical in understanding what was in the mind of the original writer... as is true with lots of origins issues.


From: janice matchett []
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] The image of God- question for Lamoureux

At 12:52 PM 10/10/2009, Dehler, Bernie wrote:

George Murphy said: "The perfection of his humanity is shown in his perfect trust in God as his Father"

Unfortunately that is incomprehensible to everyone since, although he is not the Father, Jesus is fully God (the incomprehensibility of the trinity). Since Jesus is fully God it is akin to trusting fully in himself, unless Jesus (as son of God) has a different job description than God the Father. So it appears that the 'image of God' is a mystery in itself, and now it is tied-up and bundled into another mystery of the Trinity. (To say that Jesus emptied some of Himself, Philippians, is also a mystery since He is fully God.)
I guess it would be unfair to say Jesus is the perfect example of what "the image of God" looks like in a man because while Jesus is fully man, He's also fully God. In other words, He is infinitely more than 'Adam' would be had Adam not sinned and somehow darkened (or degraded) "the image of God" in all of us today. To demonstrate what it would mean to have the "perfect image of God" within a man, it would have to be demonstrated by someone who is also only a man, and not also part (or whole) God.
That's how it seems to me.

ASA list 04/05/2006 FYI:
"Image FOR God" = Proper translation of Gen 1:26
From Janice Matchett <<;Image%20FOR%20God&quot;%20=%20Proper%20translation%20of%20Gen%201:26>>
Date : Wed Apr 05 2006 - 18:14:54 EDT

Scott N. Morschauser, a Presbyterian Theologian, has recently used the evidence from the Ancient Near East to argue that Gen 1:26 should be more properly understood as, "Image _for_ God." In this way, many theological stumbling blocks can be diverted since man isn't really in the image _of_ God.
S.N. Morschauser, "Created in the Image of God: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Imago Dei," Theology Matters, Vol 3 No.6 Nov/Dec 1997.

In addition:
"..In the ancient world they believed that something existed when it had a role and a function in an ordered system. This is in stark contrast to our way of thinking, that something exists when it has material properties. .."
4<> posted on Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:51:43 PM by Matchett-PI

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:09:49 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 10 2009 - 15:10:54 EDT