From: Somi Chuhon (
Date: Sun Oct 20 1996 - 19:48:48 EDT

At 08:51 AM 10/20/96 +0100, you wrote:
>> Somi wrote:
>>*Does eikwn HAVE to mean an exact representation here? There is
>>another word for that used in Hebrews 1, charakter (where we get our
>>English word, character). I wonder if the use of the word eikwn,
>>"image" is trying to tell us something about Christ's supremacy over
>>man and every other created being rather than equality with God. (This
>>is not to say that Christ is not equal with God. I'm just questioning
>>whether the purpose of this passage is to express this. There are other
>>passages which do that.)
>> Somi.*
>It seems to me that if, in Col 1.15, EIKWN TOU QEOU TOU AORATOU is only
>about *Christ's supremacy over man and every other created being*, then,
>since no-one can make an image of the invisible, EIKWN TOU QEOU TOU
>AORATOU is a logical contradiction and therefore false. On the other
>hand, if it is at the least about the invisible God choosing to make
>himself visible in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, then it is
>not logically contradictory and can make very real sense to the
>Christian believer.
>Brian E. Wilson
Yes, I see what you mean. And yet, the phrase EIKWN... does not deny the
full deity of Christ, I agree. I am just concerned that we are deriving an
"Image of God" theology from a passage that is not necessarily pointing to
such. It can help to form an "I of G" Theology together with other passages
but I do not think that it is sufficient to do so by itself. Christ IS the
image of God (and we are made IN the image of God) and this is final here.
However, the manner in which image of God is portrayed in Christ is not
defined but rather supported by His supremacy over all created things. Any


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:54 EDT