Finally, I wanted to look at 1 Corinthians 11, and other New Testament passages that indicate that the image is only to be understood as a role man takes on, and cannot be taken also as ontological.
In 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, Paul, as I've argued in other posts, is arguing that gender roles have not been abolished by the new covenant, and therefore, the physical displays of gender distinctions, specifically hair length in the context, should still be observed. It is essentially arguing that women should look like women and men should look like men, and I would argue that this should be done to the most it is possible in one's culture to do so (but that's for another day).
In the process of making his argument, Paul ends up implying that the woman is not the image of God herself. He states:
"A man ought not to have anything hanging down from his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man."
The argument here implies that the man should not have long hair because he is the image of God. However, if the woman is also the image of God then this argument makes no sense. If she is the image of God then she shouldn't have long hair either.
Instead, he says that the woman, in contrast to being the image of God, is actually the glory of man who is the image of God. In other words, she is not the image, but does, in fact, participate in it by being the shine/glory of the image.
To quickly refer back to the ancient view of images, it is important to note that an image does not fulfill its role if defiled/unclean. An image that loses its glory does not function as the image and must be discarded. This is how Genesis sees the woman as well. She is man's helper by allowing him to fulfill the creation mandate given to him. She is thus his glory that allows him to function as the image. Hence, she is part of the image as the shine and glory of that image, but is not the image herself.
This is significant to our debate, as it indicates that the ontological view, that sees the image as various intrinsic characteristics given to humanity in general, such as intellect, affection, spirituality, etc. is false.
If the woman is not the image, and the image is parallel to what is human, then Paul would be saying that the woman is not human.
Now, one could simply retort concerning all of these biblical texts that the biblical text only addresses the righteous aspect of the image as a role in relationship with God, but there is still a part of the image they do not address, and this is the problem.
To say the Bible does not address an aspect of the image being assigned to it by theologians is to admit that the idea is not gained from the Bible. It is a philosophical idea. In fact, the reason why Berkhof cannot muster up verses that support his definition of the image as consisting of intellect, affections, moral will, etc. is because there aren't any.
The consistent image of God in Scripture is portrayed as only belonging to the righteous who enter into covenant with God and engage in creational activity (good, justice/righteousness/truth). Hence, the New Testament describes the image as a part of redeemed humanity's new nature (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24; Rom 8:29). Christ is the image of God, and hence, only those in Christ are the image. It is a role one takes on. It is a role in which women can participate as the glory of the image, but it is not to be defined as the ontological nature of a human being, regardless of whether he is a Christian or non-Christian.
do you take apologetics questions, even if they are about things not relevant to what you are currently posting on?
ReplyDeleteSure. What question are you thinking about?
ReplyDeleteThanks so much!
ReplyDeleteI have been working through an Old Testament issue found in some interpretations of Deuteronomy 32. Interpretations by Mark S Smith, Thom Stark, and some other liberal protestant/agnostic OT scholars say the Hebrew in Deut. 32:8-9 reflect an ancient Israelite belief that Elyon (the Most High) in v8 is a different deity than the LORD (YHWH) in v9. Thus the argument is that Elyon portions out the nations, and YHWH, the junior deity, receives the 'inheritance' (as Stark points out, an inheritance is something received).
They buttress this point by pointing out that Deuteronomy 32 is ancient poetry, and much much older than other portions of scripture like Deuteronomy 4 (which has the same portioning, but no mention of Elyon apart from YHWH).
When I look at Deut. 32, I do notice that v.43 points out that all gods should bow down to YHWH, which would contradict the interpretation. However, as Thom Stark pointed out, poetic-hyperbolic exaltation does not indicate a place in the pantheon, and plenty of Ancient Near East texts exalt a CLEARLY junior deity in a poetic way without actually showing that deity as elevated (like praising a lower politician "You are the slickest!" while knowingly perfectly well that they arent- regardless the point is something like flattery).
Anyhow, sorry for the ramble. This issue has bothered me alot, I have seen almost NO evangelical treatments of the passage, and would love if some can help me think about this in some DEPTH and not dismissal.
I should mention i have no theology or language degrees, or access of a strong library, so I feel like I don't have alot of resources here. Thanks again for being willing to hear the question, and I understand if its too much to engage in right now!
Why don’t you read these first and then we can discuss the passage further.
ReplyDeletehttps://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2012/07/yhwh-among-other-gods.html
For a critique of Stark's methodology,
https://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-human-faces-of-polemics-what-thom.html
Ok, I will start on that. Thank you, I did not realize you have already written on this topic. I appreciate that you have, because I don't know anyone who has really covered it before (outside of Richard Hess, whom I'm not brave enough to read yet). It is a really odd experience, reading a passage 'diachronically'. Its almost like the power of suggestion, i.e. 'have you every looked at the verse THIS way?' gets lodged in your brain, and you can't unsee it.
ReplyDeleteSo let me say how much I appreciated the papers. I definitely learned a lot, and have a lot to chew on. I want to skewer the argument for polytheism in Deuteronomy 32 more than I can, but then again I wonder if maybe the real problem is that I'm attacking the issue diachronically, and fighting on 'unbelieving turf'. I still would like to know if Deuteronomy 32 has language-elements that should let it be 'predated' to any other Hebrew text. At the end of the day, what I find most persuasive is Deut. 32:39-43 shows, in my mind, pretty clearly the absolute Kingship of Yahweh, and would contradict bringing any other 'higher' deity in verses 8-9. But I also know that the higher-critical school would say that is just a hymn-styled hyperbole (I saw that word in your paper, first time using it) and cannot be used to depose their interpretation of verses 8-9.
ReplyDeleteNone the less, I had good resources before reading your paper, and I should also mention that it is more persuasive than Heiser's. I would love to see you continue to write on the topic if you felt so inclined.
I meant to write I had 'no' good resources before reading your paper.
DeleteI think one thing that would be very helpful is to a see a comparison of other religious hymns (form other ANE religions) to old psalms/hymns/poems like Exodus 15, Deut. 32, etc. You showed a few in your paper, and I definitely agree that nothing would be 'proven' from them (as you pointed out, they are completely different contexts). But I did notice that some hymns that say things like "No divine powers rival your divine powers, O God X (Sin, Marduk, whatever god)", within the context OF THE HYMN ITSELF, statements like that are followed by "your father, Bull El (or whatever god), established you". In this case, the hierarchy in the Pantheon is OBVIOUS. But if we saw a hymn to a god that said something like "No other divine powers are like yours! You create and destroy, and all heaven bows to you", and there were NO OTHER GODS explicitly named, we would be right to infer that this was the chief deity, and nothing was quite on that deity's level. That's kind of how I take Deut. 32. But none-the-less with methodology, you are right, you cant just cut-and-dry import differing contexts.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad it was helpful to you. I do have a book in mind for the future that deals with interpretive methodologies in general, but it's much further down the line.
DeleteThe assembly of the gods motif is pretty common in the ANE. The issue is that Deut 32 is using poetry in the context of very literal statements that display YHWH as the only true God in the supreme sense. The other gods are shades/demons, which includes Baal and all of the gods the Israelites worship in their rebellion. That ultimately means that the context is the clear, literal and what is to be interpreted within that framework is the more mythical presentation, rather than vice versa. So I would argue that it is the context that first shows us what the poetry conveys. I would also argue, however, that it is used to show the supreme deity as in the text about Baal you cited. Baal is the supreme deity in Ugaritic religion, not because he is the first (El is the first), but he is the strongest and hence reigns as king of the gods. Think of Zeus, also the storm god, or Marduk, also the storm god. Each have parents and are not the first gods, but they are the supreme gods of the pantheon. In a monotheistic context, like that of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history, the implicature that there are others gods don't carry, so only the exaltation is expressed.