John Day Against the “Functional View” of “Image” (צֶלֶם) in Genesis 1:27

  

[Scholars have followed this view] because in Gen. 1.26-28 the reference to humanity’s ruling the animals and the earth follows shortly after the allusion to humanity’s being made in the image of God. However—and this is very important—it is more natural to suppose that humanity’s lordship over the animals and the earth is a consequence of its having been made in God’s image, rather than what the image itself denotes. This is made clear by v. 28, where God’s command to humanity to rule over animals and the earth takes place only after God’s blessing of them and commanding them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, whereas humanity has already been made in God’s image in v. 27. This important point is often overlooked by defenders of the functional interpretation.

 

The conclusion that God’s image in humanity refers to something other than humanity’s rule over the animals and the earth is also supported by a consideration of the other Genesis passages which refer to the image of God. Thus, in Gen. 5.1-2, the statement is repeated that ‘When God created humanity, he made them in the image of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name humanity when they were created.’ Then v. 3 continues, ‘When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.’ Note the same language is used of Seth’s resemblance to Adam as is used of Adam’s resemblance to God. This resemblance clearly includes a physical resemblance and cannot have anything to do with ruling over animals and the earth. Again, in Gen. 9.6, we read, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall their blood be shed; for God made humanity in his own image’. These words are surely implying something about the inherent dignity over the animals and the earth. (John Day, “’So God Created Humanity In His Own Image’ (Genesis 1.27): What Does the Bible Mean and What Have People Thought it Meant?,” in From Creation to Abraham: Further Studies in Genesis 1-11 [London: T&T Clark, 2022], 25-26)

 

Against appeals to evidence from Egypt and the rest of the Ancient Near East for the “functional” view:

 

There are, however, some problems with this view. First, we have no evidence that the Israelite kings themselves were ever spoken of as being in the image of a god. The assumption has to be made that the Israelites borrowed the imagery either from Egyptian or Assyrian kingship and then democratized it to refer to humanity. But with regard to Assyria, it must be noted that the imagery is rare: only six references are known, and of those four come from a single scribe about three individuals in two letters from the time of Esar-haddon (681-669 BCE) and a fifth comes from the reign of his successor of Ashurbanipal (668-c. 627 BCE), while the other is from the time of Tukulti-Nunurta I (c. 1243-1207 BCE). It does not seem very likely, therefore, that P’s language was adopted from the Assyrians. What then of ancient Egypt? It is true that there are far more occurrences of the concept in Egypt, but although there are occasional allusions down to Ptolemaic times, they are overwhelmingly from the eighteenth dynasty (c. 1550-1290 BCE), about 800-1050 years prior to the time of the Priestly writer. Incidentally, although the Priestly writer probably wrote in the exilic or early post-exilic period, either during or not long after the Babylonian exile, no references to the king as the image of a god are attested in Babylonia at any period.

 

A popular variant of the functional view maintains that it was the custom of placing actual images of foreign kings in conquered territory as representations of their authority in absence that lies behind the alleged democratized representation of humans as images of the invisible God in Genesis. However, as noted earlier, the fundamental objection to any functional understanding of the image of God is that it does not fit any of the three passages in Genesis very well. Even in Gen. 1.26-28 humanity’s rule over the earth is more naturally a consequence of its being in the divine image, not what the image itself is.

 

Finally, those who adopt the functional view tend to argue that human beings are not said to be made in (or after) the image and likeness of God but rather as an image and likeness of God. This involves taking the preposition beth as so-called beth essentiae, ‘as’, hence ‘as the image and likeness of God’, not ‘in (i.e. after/according to) the image and likeness of God’. However, as J. Maxwell Miller (J.M. Miller, ‘In the “Image” and “Likeness” of God’, JBL 91 [1972], pp. 289-304 [296]) apply pointed out, this is improbable since the preposition beth is used here interchangeably with the preposition kaph, ‘after/according to’, but there is no kaph essentiae in biblical Hebrew. We thus have to conclude that humans are said to be made in (i.e., according to) the image of God (cf. Septuagint, kata, Vulgate ad), not merely as an image of God. (Ibid., 27-28)

 

Further Reading:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Chapter 7 of "The Instruction of Amenemope" and "Slippery Treasures"

The Instruction of Amenemope is an Egyptian text dating from the 13th-11th centuries B.C. This text was first made available for study in 1923 with the publication of manuscript B.M. 10474 in the British Museum. Chapter 7 of this work speaks of "slippery treasures," something one also finds in the Book of Mormon (Helaman 13:35; Mormon 1:18):

 

Chapter 7

 

Do not set your heart upon seeking riches,

For there is no one who can ignore Destiny and Fortune,

Do not set your thoughts on superficial matters:

For every man there is his appointed time.

Do not exert yourself to seek out excess

And your allotment will prosper for you;

If riches come to you by thievery

They will not spend the night with you;

As soon as day breaks they will not be in your household;

Although their places can be seen, they are not there.

When the earth opens up its mouth, it levels him and swallows him up,

They will plunge in the deep;

They will make for themselves a great hole which suits them.

And they will sink themselves in the underworld;

or they will make themselves wings like geese,

And fly up to the sly:

Do not be pleased with yourself (because of) riches acquired through robbery,

Neither be sorry about poverty.

As an officer who commands one who goes in front of him,

His company leaves him; (The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of Stories, Instructions, Stelae, Autobiographies, and Poetry, ed. William Kelly Simpson [3d ed.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003], 230)

 

Notes on First Apology 26 and 33

  

First Apology 26:

 

All who take their opinions from these people, as we said before, are called Christians, just as also those philosophers who do not share the same views are yet all called by one common name of philosophy. And whether they commit the shameful deeds about which stories are told—the upsetting of the lamp, promiscuous intercourse, and eating human flesh (ἀνθρωπείων σαρκῶν βοράς)—we do not know; but we do know that they are neither persecuted nor put to death by you, at least for their opinions. (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], 41)

 

These were the stock-in-trade of pagan stories about Christian gatherings (cf. Minuc. Felix Oct. 28; Tert. Apol. 7.1; Eus. H. E. 5.1.14—the Letter of the Church of Lyons and Vienne). A story was told of dogs tied to lampstands; crusts of bread were thrown to them, the lights went out, and dark practices began; Thyestes was tricked by an enemy Atreus into eating the flesh of his own children and Oedipus was similarly beguiled into committing incest with his mother Iocasta—OCD 747–48. Pliny Ep. ad Traj. 96.7 seems to know of the charge of cannibalistic meals. No doubt the secrecy of Christian gatherings, at first a necessity, had much to do with these accusations. For a good statement see P. Carrington, Christian Apologetics in the Second Century (London, 1921), 112–13, and J. H. Crehan’s note in ACW 23.126. It is a terrible fact that the same accusations were later made against the Euchites and other heretical sects. The story of Saint Hugh of Lincoln shows the same legend flourishing on Christian soil in England at the expense of the Jews. These calumnies arise and revive where color is given to gossip by secret meetings of both sexes. A. S. L. Farquharson, Marcus Aurelius, His Life and His World (Oxford, 1952), 144–45, thinks that the language of Christians about unorthodox sects may have been taken up by malicious or stupid antagonists: “It was their unhappy custom, inherited from the Hebrew prophets, to use terms of moral reprobation to characterize intellectual obliquity” (145)

 

First Apology 33:

 

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is also the first-born of God . . . (ANF 1:174)

 

A difficult passage that implies that, for Justin, the Spirit and the logos are two names for the same person. Cf. also 1 Apol. 33.9, 36.1, where he speaks of the logos inspiring the prophets while elsewhere holding that this was the function of the Spirit. However, the coming down of the logos and entry into the womb of Mary were central to Justin’s theory of the incarnation and, as the traditional account spoke of the Spirit and Power, it may be that this provided the impetus to identify them as regards function. This, however, does not exclude the belief that the Spirit was distinct from the Father and the Son; cf. 1 Apol. 60.6–7 where Justin clearly distinguishes between the logos and the Spirit who, although similar in nature, are unequal in rank. In strict logic, and with his Middle Platonist idea of God, there is no place in Justin’s thought for the Person of the Spirit as the logos carries out His functions. But the fact that he has so much to say about the Spirit and refers to the traditional formulas shows that he was strongly influenced by Christian experience and worship as he knew it in the life of the Church; Barnard, 102–06. The belief that the miraculous conception was wrought by the divine logos continued to be held in the Church until the mid-fourth century; Tert. Adv. Prax. 26; Cypr. De Idol. Van.; Hil. Trin. 2.24, 26. (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], Logos Edition)

 

Notes on Second Apology 5 and 6

  

Second Apology 5:

 

But if this thought should take possession of someone that if we confess God as our helper, we should not, as we say, be oppressed and persecuted by wicked people; this I will solve. God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected earthly things to men and women, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and change of the seasons, and ordered the divine law for them—these things also He made for people to see—and entrusted the care of men and women and of things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them. But the angels transgressed this order, and were captivated by love of women, and produced children who are called demons. And besides later they enslaved the human race to themselves, partly by magical writings, and partly by fears and punishments which they occasioned, and partly by teaching them to offer sacrifices and incense and libations,²⁵ which they needed after they were enslaved with lustful passions; and among people they sowed murders, wars, adulteries, intemperate deeds, and every evil. Whence also the poets and mythologists, not knowing that it was the angels and those demons who had been begotten by them that did these things to men and women and cities and nations, which they related, ascribed them to God Himself, and to those who were His offspring, and to the offspring of those who were called His brothers. For whatever name each of the angels had given to himself and to his children, by that name they called them. (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], 76-77)

 

Justin is following an earlier Jewish or Jewish-Christian interpretation of Gn 6:2–5, which is also found in the Ebionite Pseudo-Clementine writings (Clem. Hom. 6.10). The Hebrew of Gn 6:2–5 says that the children of God, having been attracted by women, united with them and produced giants. In the LXX huioi theou and aggeloi theou are synonymous and sometimes alternatives (see J. S. Sibinga, The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr: 1. The Pentateuch [Leiden, 1963], 146) and a tradition grew up in Hellenistic Judaism that it was the union of angels and women that produced giants (this was later challenged by Philastrius Haer. 107 and Chrys. On Gen. Hom. 6.22). Justin, in substituting demons for giants, is following another line of interpretation that may be reflected in Papias’s references to “the angels which had formerly been holy” (Frag. 4). Later Jewish tradition vacillated in its interpretation of Gn 6. In Bresh. R. on Gn 6:2 R. Simeon ben Jochai (c. 130–160 c.e.) pronounces a curse on “the sons of God,” whom he refers to as “leaders.” The Zohar on Gn 6:4 agrees with Justin—as do R. Judah (c. 200 c.e.) and R. Joshua ben Qoryah (Pirqe de R. Eliezer 20:2). For Bresh. R. in Hebrew, see Zohar. 2 vols. (Lublin, 1882) and Encyclopedia Judaica 16. 1193–1215 (Jerusalem, 1971), s. v. “Zohar.” (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], Logos Edition)

 

Second Apology 6:

 

But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him (διʼ αὐτοῦ πάντα ἔκτισε καὶ ἐκόσμησε); this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation "God" is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained. But "Jesus," His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons. And now you can learn this from what is under your own observation. For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs. (ANF 1:190)

 

Cf. Col 1:15ff.; Jn 1:1–3. Justin refers the title “Christ” to the office of agent in creation. The reference to Christ’s being anointed reads awkwardly in the context here as this has no obvious connection with His work in creation. There is, however, a close connection between chriein and kosmein; Blunt, 112. Kosmein covers the thought of “adornment” as well as “order” (cf. Theoph. Ad. Autol. 1.12) and it is just possible that kechristhai here is active in meaning—in which case we should read “with reference to God’s adorning and ordering all things through Him,” which makes better sense. (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], Logos Edition)

 

Leslie William Barnard on Jesus being called an "angel" in First Apology 63

In First Apology 63, addressing how God appeared to Moses, Justin wrote that "Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called Angel and Apostle (Ὁ λόγος δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, ὡς προέφημεν) . . . " (ANF 1:184). Commenting on Jesus being called an “angel” by Justin, Leslie William Barnard wrote that

 

The synonym “Angel” is, however, not applied in the New Testament to Christ. Holte, 126–27, following J. Barbel, Christos Angelos (Bonn, 1941), 50–51, is sure that Justin is influenced by Philo in describing the logos-Christ as “Angel.” It is true that Philo frequently gives the logos the epithet “Angel” and interprets all angelic visions in the Old Testament as visitations of the logos. However, in view of the prominence of the angel Christology in early Christian writers (Barbel, Christos Angelos, 18ff., 34ff.), which undoubtedly derives from the Old Testament, it seems unnecessary to postulate Philo as its direct source. In fact Justin bases his view on Ex 3:1, “the angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush”; cf. Acts 7:30ff., which follows the LXX in stating that the angel appeared at the same time as God’s voice was heard. In Dial. 60 Justin argues with Trypho, who claims that “angel” and “God” are two different persons; according to Justin they are identical, for logos is both God and Angel. It would seem Justin is simply basing his view on Ex 3 (cf. Is 9:6 LXX) interpreted from the point of view of Middle Platonism and the Wisdom literature, viz., that God is utterly transcendent and can come into contact with this world only through the medium of the logos, who is called “angel.” Philo, too, was influenced by Middle Platonism. (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], Logos Edition)

 

Justin Martyr's use of λουτρον for the baptismal font

Justin Martyr, First Apology 66:

 

. . . the washing that is for the remission of sins and for rebirth (λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν), and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. (St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies [trans. Leslie William Barnard; New York: Paulist Press, 1997], 70)

 

Justin Martyr: The Fulfillment of Prophecies is Self-Sufficient Proof for Christianity

All throughout his First Apology, Justin Martyr points to the fulfillment of prophecy as evidence for the truth of Christianity. In chapter 53, we read that fulfilled prophecies are "sufficient for the persuasion of those who have ears to hear and understand" (ANF 1:180). The Greek term translated as “sufficient” is αὐτάρκεις, a term that denotes something being self-sufficient. For Justin, the fulfillment of prophecies (e.g., Isa 7; 52-53; Psa 2 and 110) is not just evidence but proof of Christianity.

For a good scholarly work on this and other issues raised by Justin in his writings, see David E Nyström, The Apology of Justin Martyr: Literary Strategies and the Defence of Christianity.