Sounds like he's trying to make Moses, by calling man the "image of God," is putting a "truth-spin" on prevalent ANE politico-religious thought, when he speaks of the "king's statue" being a proclamation of dominion (and therefore man is God's similar proclamation). This is a certain slant being brough to the text. Is this always where we should begin?

When he says that male/female humanity "in itself has nothing to do with the divine image," I wonder what he means exactly? That God is neither M/F is strictly correct, however, he chooses to express himself mainly in male-language, and certainly the 2nd Person assumed a male body only. And M/F humanity is what embodies the image, individually and collectively. IOW, both are necessary, and indeed without whatever woman brings to the race, the image is "unsuitable".

I can understand wanting to get far away from sexist debates, so as to focus on more central issues, but this blurb has not hit the nail on the head. In trying to avoid trouble regarding a modern flashpoint, he has only succeeded in reducing a point the text actually makes explicit.

And by "objectifying" man as the image, it seems as though he is reduced to an existential quality with a few actions. Where is the emphasis on the moral nature? IOW, is man the image of God because he exercises a little authority? This misses many vital theological points. But the quote is an excerpt, so maybe my criticism isn't totally fair...

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --