Thesis (D.Min.)--Liberty University, 2008. / The full-text of this Submission is currently under embargo. It will be available for download on Thu Sep 17 2009. Includes bibliographical references.

Mankind’s scientific, technological, artistic, and intellectual capacities are complemented by an impressive list of physical achievements; nevertheless, it is the remarkable inner abilities that testify to the human being as God’s crowning creation. The single most distinctive aspect of Adam’s creation is that he was created in the image of God and his nature bears that image. But what exactly is the image of God in man? The image of God consists of the spiritual part of a human that reflects the character of God and is the only firm basis for advocating human dignity and the gracious redemption of sinners. Although modern scholarship, particularly Old Testament scholarship, have argued for man’s function through his physical body as the meaning of or forming an integral part of the image of God, the view that God’s image is found in the spiritual aspect of the human being is more faithful to the biblical text. This dissertation argues for the spiritual interpretation of God’s image by providing a historical-grammatical reading of the relevant texts and a proper theological understanding of the image and likeness of God. The first chapter provides the history of interpretation by describing the important personalities and their methods, and explaining the evolution of the topic that has lead to the modern departures from the traditional view. The second chapter discusses the data that supports the thesis by analyzing selected issues in current scholarship that leads to a physical and functional view of the image of God and why I disagree with their conclusions. The third chapter provides a historical-grammatical reading of selected texts that demonstrate the reasonableness of a spiritual interpretation of the image of God, and why it should be defended. The fourth chapter examines the counter claims to the thesis and presents a defense to the findings of this study. The fifth chapter briefly summarizes the most important findings and provides a conclusion.

Abstract Divine Substitution: Humanity as the Manifestation of Deity in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, by Stephen L. Herring, is an investigation of ancient conceptualizations of divine presence. Specifically, this thesis investigates the possibility that the ancient Mesopotamian conceptualization of cultic and royal statues, thought to actually manifest the presence of gods and kings, can likewise be found in ancient Israel. Despite the overly pessimistic view of the later biblical authors, material objects were almost certainly believed to extend and manifest the presence of God in pre- exilic Israel. Likewise, the later polemics against such cultic concepts demonstrate Israel's familiarity with this type of conceptualization. These polemics engaged in the rhetoric of mutilation and destruction of cultic representations, the erasure and re- inscription of divine names, and the rhetorical deconstruction of the specific Mesopotamian rituals thought to transform the dead statue into a living god. Though the biblical reflection of these concepts is more often found in the negative commentary regarding "foreign" cultic practices, S. Herring demonstrates that these opinions were not universally held. At least three biblical texts (Gen 1:26f.; Ex 34:29-34; and Ezek 36-37) portray the conceptualization that material images could manifest the divine presence in positive terms. Yet, these positive attestations were limited to a certain type of material image - humans.

In this thesis, I make the following case. (1) While instances of the imago Dei in biblical and second-temple Jewish sources are diverse and pluriform, they are nonetheless illuminating for Paul's imago Dei theology. (2) However, this theology is best explained on the hypothesis that Paul, like Philo and the author of Wisdom, made use of ‘intermediary speculation' in which the kosmos came into being via an intermediary ‘figure': in the latter's case sophia and/or the logos and in Paul's case the pre-existent Jesus. (3) In this connection, while the resources of the Jewish wisdom tradition (e.g. Prov. 8; Sir. 1; 24; 1 En. 42; Wis. 7; and Bar. 3–4) did not provide Paul with the precision afforded by the ‘prepositional metaphysics' of the philosophical tradition (cf. 1 Cor. 8.6; and Col. 1.15–20; cp. John 1.3, 10; and Heb. 1.2), the general contours of that tradition—in which sophia attended to the creation, maintenance and salvation of the kosmos—were appreciated and appropriated in Paul's imago Dei theology. (4) Beyond this, a few features of Paul's imago Dei theology—especially his collocation of εἰκών (‘image') and πρωτότοκος (‘firstborn') (cf. Rom. 8.29; and Col. 1.15) and his ‘teleological' construal of the imago Dei conception, in which Jesus serves as the archetypal ‘image' to which believers will ultimately be conformed (2 Cor. 3.18; Rom. 8.29; cp. Phil. 3.21)—strongly suggest that Paul was here influenced (directly or indirectly) by Middle Platonic intermediary doctrine. (5) On the basis of points (2) through (4), therefore, it is wisdom christology, rather than Adam (and/or ‘imperial') christology, which serves as the principal background of Paul's ‘image christology'. This ‘image christology', furthermore, in which Jesus serves as the protological and cosmogonical image of God, is an instance of ‘christological monotheism'. In this regard, Jesus is included in the one activity (creation) which most clearly demarcates the ‘unique divine identity' in second-temple Jewish thought. (6) Finally, my argument concerning the way in which Paul adapts certain features of the philosophical imago Dei tradition encourages a fresh reading of two major Pauline texts: 2 Corinthians 2.17–4.6; and Colossians 1.15–20; 3.10. In these texts, I contend, Paul casts essentially inner-Jewish debates in philosophical dress. While the substantive issues are ‘inner-Jewish' issues, Paul presents his opponents and/or opposing views as bound up with a futile and/or deceitful philosophy, while he presents himself and his sympathisers as people who attain to the telos of true philosophy: the image of God (2 Cor. 3.18; and Col. 3.10; cp. Rom. 8.29).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 280-288). Available also in a digital version from Dissertation Abstracts.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 209-220)

Thesis (M.A.)--St. Bernard's Institute, 1997. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 68-72).

Thesis (M. Div.)--St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary, 1997. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 39-42).

Thesis (M. Div.)--Emmanuel School of Religion, Johnson City, Tenn., 1997. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 50-52).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1993. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 98-106).