Body Blow!

Let's start with a compliment. Skeptics, if you want to see the proper way to respond to an article on mine, check out how Kevin Graham does it. See those numbers in brackets? They're called endnotes. So the matching material at the end? Those are called sources. While of course I will dispute that Graham has successfully refuted me on this issue, in terms of his way of going about it, it is done is such a way to put just about the entire Skeptical community to shame. And now that the compliments are over, it's time to dig in, and I'll begin with a serious caveat. Graham I think will be the first to admit that he takes a while to be satisfied that any work he does is in a final stage. I had planned to wait until he had all his T's dotted and his I's crossed before responding, but due to requests by my readers, and due to certain busy issues in Kevin's own life that have hindered a final form, I have decided to respond now, and offer the note that readers should be aware that what is below may not reflect the final form of Kevin's essay. And if things change after this -- well, if you feel like combing through all these pages, I admire your stamina and will do the best I can to adjust. Many people assume that the more advanced a religion becomes, the more spiritual it will be. They think Christianity took many strides forward when it removed religion from the realm of outward rituals and rules toward inward spiritual and psychological states. They would be wrong. And by the paradigm of Semitic totality, no such distinction exists between state and ritual/action. But that's another chapter. They stress God's transcendence as utterly beyond the rational faculties, as impossible to contain in any form. The God of the Bible does not fit well with this theory of progress. He has no antipathy for flesh and blood; from first to last he has made himself earthly, material, and historical…Yahweh showed a human face. (Tim Stafford, Senior Writer - Christianity Today)[1]

Introduction

While many theological tenets are arguably unique to LDS Christianity, one remains beyond all doubt. It concerns the ontological nature of God, and in an LDS context, it is the belief that God the Father "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's."[2] Because this runs in direct conflict with traditional creedal Christianity,[3] it is one of the most condemned LDS doctrines. It is actually found in many places, offered by people who read the same passages the LDS do. Abrasive criticism in the form of anti-Mormon ridicule has been the common reaction, but on occasion we find respectful assessments by those who wish to be taken seriously on an intellectual level. Examples of these can be found in the scholarly writings of Craig Blomberg and Paul Owen, but even more recently in chapter one of The Mormon Defenders by Evangelical newcomer, James Patrick Holding. Thank you!

Holding believes Latter-day Saints have grossly misunderstood the Bible, But don't feel bad, I find a lot of people have! as he argues the Bible cannot be used to support unique LDS doctrines such as that of the divine embodiment of God. He has made an effort to provide arguments never before presented to LDS apologia, and I must admit that I have been unable to locate LDS responses to several of the arguments he presents. Skeptics could learn from this too. It's called "honesty". Accordingly, his challenge has prompted me to study this issue beyond the bounds of LDS literature, and after months of intensive study I am grateful for the opportunity to share what I believe to be a convincing counter-argument that puts the LDS position in a more favorable light than I had originally imagined. It is my hope that this review will serve as an aid for those who come across atypical objections such as those presented by Holding. In my opinion, his arguments reflect the best Evangelical scholarship has to offer, and I thank Holding for sharing these objections with us. My pleasure. I thank Graham for his reply as well.

His zealous efforts aside, however, I believe he has failed to vindicate the title of his book, by demonstrating how Latter-day Saints have neglected the biblical message through subjective misinterpretation. Well, of course he does. Concerning our topic at hand we should not be surprised that Holding believes biblical references to God's body should be understood as metaphor or an abstract quality, that the view of a corporeal God was not acceptable during first-century Judaism, and that the Christian concept of God was not corrupted by Greek philosophy. This review will address Holding's contentions point by point with the following layout. It will be argued that:

1)    Biblical anthropomorphic language should be understood literally. Provided will be an in-depth analysis of the Hebrew term tselem.

2)    Judaism initially believed in the divine body of a corporeal God.

3)    Greek philosophy played a role in corrupting the Christian concept of God, but is not the sole cause.

4)    The Jewish concept of God had experienced apostasy before the Hellenization period, and this will be evidenced by several Midrashic sources along with examples of redactions of scripture that were attempting to suppress an older tradition of the anthropomorphic God. Hmm. Using late midrashic sources to prove something about pre-hellenic times? I am already heading for the winner's circle...

5)    The fight over scholarship leans in favor of the LDS position. While theologians will naturally disagree with our conclusions by affirming their own theology, it is also true that there are non-LDS scholars on the Evangelical side of the fence who argue our point for us. In the end, scholars maintain that Gen 1:26 poses more theological challenges for Christian theology than it ever did for LDS theology. I will watch this carefully. Barry Bickmore mistook arguments for God's ability to "feel" for arguments in favor of a human body.

6)    Holding's various hermeneutical arguments and proof texts cannot be used successfully in proving an LDS misinterpretation of the Bible. It can only be proven that LDS theology runs in direct conflict with Holding's Evangelical interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself.

To say the least, biblical references to the image of God in mankind are intriguing, despite the laconic manner in which they appear. To overestimate the importance of the "image of God" in Christian anthropology would be a difficult task. Despite the plethora of interpretations in this phrase, one essential meaning is beyond dispute, namely that humanity's splendor is its likeness to God. The point of contention in an LDS/Evangelical context becomes evident when we ask the question, how does humanity reflect the image of God? This is a question that will continue to receive conflicting answers between Traditional and LDS Christianity, but I believe this point of contention lies at the heart of the division between LDS and Traditional Christians. From theosis to the Trinity, the true ontology of God will either make or break these doctrines.

Before we begin with the meat of the subject matter, I would like to address an assertion at the outset of this chapter as it pertains to Gen 1:26. It is assumed that LDS writers "almost universally" use this passage to argue that God has a body of flesh. However, this is only partially true. While LDS apologists typically argue that God has a "human form,"[4] I'm unaware of any, who, using the book of Genesis alone, argue for a particular physical composition of this form. Um, nitpick. I say nothing here about them using Genesis alone. I simply say that Gen. 1:26 is almost universally an arrow in their quiver, and my readings have confirmed this. I cannot think of one LDS apologist or scholar who engaged this issue without making some note of Gen. 1:26 and saying it indicates God has a body of flesh (albeit glorified, of course). Beyond that I can't help but ask, what's the deal here with "physical composition"? If not flesh, what is it they think the body is made of? Cotton candy?[5] This isn't to say no LDS apologists have ever made such a claim, but if they do exist, Holding fails to mention them. Hopkins. Watson. Griffith. I would also like to point out that I believe Holding is correct when he provides scholarship to prove Gen 1:26 "says nothing about the 'image of God' as to its ontological content,"[6] and that "image is not an identity of substance of being."[7] But this is really beside the point. In order to posit the material nature of God, (corporeality) one must first establish the basis for God's form, shape or bodily appearance, which is the general objective here in Genesis chapter one. So far as LDS writers are concerned, we generally believe the Hebrew tselem (image) "mean[s] that man resembles God as a statue resembles a person,"[8] and that it is only limited to a "generic resemblance."[9] In other words, God has a form and shape and the verses are to be understood literally. Arguing for a particular physical composition, however, would require that we import an unwarranted reading into the Bible, and I believe LDS writers have consistently avoided the temptation to overstate their case in this manner. Scholarly ones have. Stephen Robinson is an example. The popular ones did not. [10]

The obvious assumption at play is that LDS apologists hold to some form of sola scriptura. Meaning, Latter-day Saints are in some way obligated to explain explicit LDS doctrines from the Bible itself. Um, well, with books like Biblical Mormonism and Watson's huge tome out there, it's obvious that some do feel that they can make a case from the Bible...I am not at all working with the idea that the LDS hold to some form of sola scriptura, or that they (in their own paradigm) need the Bible. I think Graham is overrreading my intent here. I am only addressing those that use the Bible in support, whatever they think of it. While a tendency to seek out or explain LDS doctrines from the Bible may be hard for some of us to escape, LDS apologists understand very well the nature of the restoration, as it is grounded in scripture and revelation. On the other hand, Holding seems to have understood that this particular LDS belief does not rest in the Bible alone since he cites Doctrines and Covenants 130:22; 131:7-8. Yes, I was well aware of that. In fact I am well aware that given the two, D and C would be regarded as more relevant to the typical Mormon. The LDS belief that spirit is "finer" and "purer" than ordinary matter seems irrelevant to the belief that God is composed of flesh and bone, and Holding rightly argues that, "even if God as a spirit has a corporeal body, it does not follow that this corporeal body is composed of flesh and bone."[11] While true enough, it cannot be without significance that the church fathers, including Tertullian and Origen,[12] believed spirit to be nothing other than matter in and of itself, and that a God of spirit was understood as a God in body. I think it is without significance in the context of this discussion. If they regarded God as "made of" spirit, a form of fine matter, then this clearly offers no support for any idea of God as possessing a body of flesh, glorified or otherwise. This was the common understanding of those who resisted certain tendencies of hellenism - those who held to the older tradition of an anthropomorphic God.

I thought it was odd that Holding would render the patristic evidence irrelevant, and then attempt to thwart this evidence with the assumption that since spirit was used for phenomena like "wind or breath," then this supposedly, "suggests that those who originated the words did not have a concept of spirit as material."[13] But this assumption hardly explains why material could not be understood. I should think the answer is obvious. It is that there is nothing to see or hold. Thus: Was there a direct synonymy between invisibility and nonmaterial? No. The two go together. There is nothing to see OR hold. Did the proper usage of spirit forbid metaphorical application? Not sure what Graham is asking here. But if I read right, the answer is no, that the physicality needs to be proven, not assumed. If so, then evidences of these are absent in Holding's argument. Having established a more accurate summary of the LDS argument - that the Genesis chapter one describes a God in human form - we will now examine the extent of its validity.

Update, 9/7/05: We now respond to further comments by Graham. I will be saying nothing of his current introduction, and this for charity's sake -- I believe Graham has let his personal difficulties affect his better judgment and that there is no purpose in pouring our more spilled milk based on his discolored minsunderstandings. I also offer this with the point that Graham may say he is "not finished" -- well, I have come to the conclusion that Graham is one of those sorts who is never "finished" with anything, and so it is pointless and a counsel of despair for me to wait to reply until he says he has applied the final brush stroke to the Mona Lisa. I say this with no personal malice. I say it rather as someone who has work to do and doesn't have the liberty to wait around for Graham (or anyone) to dot every T and cross every I. Graham called in a team of his colleagues for his response and has his own liberty to do as he pleases, within the context of the project. I don't. So if indeed Graham is not "finished" then, well, so be it. I attach dates so that it may be known at what day I respond, in case something changes the next day.

Theomorphism: Created in the tselem of God

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:26-27)

In order to understand the intended meaning behind Gen 1:26, the question should be asked, "How did the early Jews understand tselem?" This objective can only be established in the course of diligently examining the Hebrew term tselem, and Jewish scholar Gershom Sholem cuts through the ambiguity when he says the meaning of tselem, "refers to a three-dimensional image or form." Unfortunately Sholem is not a Biblical scholar, and this is not an answer to any of my arguments; it is merely a repeat of the argument I have already refuted. Please understand that if I answer argument A with point B, it is not effective to reply by re-asserting point A. One must directly answer point B. This does not do it.[14] This gives us a mental picture that forbids any attempt to limit its definition in abstract terms. Further, complimenting Truman Madsen's interpretation above, The New Jerome Bible Commentary interprets the term as implying that, "The human is a statue of deity,"[15] clearly inferring that tselem refers to an outward visual appearance. Same thing. This is argument A that I have replied to. Reasserting it is not a response. This is essentially what LDS doctrine has maintained from the beginning (that this understanding was somehow lost in time is a forgone conclusion that will be addressed shortly). Clyde Holdbrook who says scholars tend to stress the "physical resemblance between God and man," prefers a literal understanding of tselem. Again -- this is just repeating A which has already been refuted by B, not answering B. Unless Holbrook, et al address my arguments, this is just hand-waving.[16]

It is little wonder Evangelicals find difficulty taking this passage literally since, "The idea that God is not embodied has been the stock-in-trade of theological orthodoxy for so long that it comes as a surprise to find that from the beginning it was not so."[17] According to popular Evangelical writer Tim Stafford, "The reflex action of some theologians is to safely relegate much of the Old Testament to antiquity and explain that we should not make too much of events that present so many philosophical and pastoral problems." Well, nice sound bite, but this is still not an answer. It does however suggest I may be mentally ill. [18] Indeed. To say the least, the notion of an incorporeal God has been taken for granted among traditional Christians. That this understanding is superior, however, is not the consensus of scholarship. I wonder if not. "Consensus" means little to me; if it did I would not argue for such things as early dates for the Gospels and against TULIP. I want to know if the consensus has answers to my position, but so far all we have is repeats of what I have already addressed. More to come... The myriad of interpretations leave us with Evangelicals who cannot deny the true meaning behind the Hebrew message. For example, Edmond LaB. Cherbonnier of Trinity College says that, "to use the forbidden word, the biblical God is clearly anthropomorphic (i.e. "in the form of man") - not apologetically so, but proudly, even militantly." As noted in my book, Cherbonnier never stumped for the "physical body" aspect of this. I have no problem with the sort of anthropomorphism he did stump for (God has feelings, reacts, etc.)[19] That this is what the author of Genesis intended to communicate is reinforced by Alon Goshen Gottstein who concurs, primarily because, "The bodily meaning is the only meaning of tselem in rabbinic literature"[20] and that "this suggestion is borne out in all tannaitic and amoraic sources." Once again, beg pardon. The rabbis are over a thousand years from the original meaning of tselem. All this could prove is that they made the same mistake Mormons do. In any event it is just reasserting A against B which has refuted A. [21]

To put it mildly, the Hebrew language that describes a God with form and shape like unto man, in the opening chapter of the Bible, is enough to give Evangelical scholarship vertigo. Well, the work of Ed Watson is what does that to me. David Clines is quick to make a similar observation: "Anthropomorphic language about God, rightly appreciated, is no distortion, but a perception of his reality that challenges many of the categories of traditional Christian theology." Nice bite, but not really an answer or relevant to anything I said.[22] This observation cannot be depreciated. For Evangelical apologists the necessary response is obvious since they emphatically declare God to be an incorporeal, bodiless spirit - a position that, as we will demonstrate, does not logically follow from the Hebrew Scriptures. I am a little disturbed here by Graham's retort that this is a "necessary response" which reminds me of atheists who claim that I defend certain Bible passages because I am afraid I will not live forever. It is polite ad hominem, but ad hominem nonetheless. An analysis of opponents' psychological motivations does not belong in a response like this. I have pointed this out to Graham and later readers may find that this line or others like it no longer exist in Graham's essay. Therefore, the normal reaction is to assume, as does Craig Blomberg, that "God's image does not refer to a physical image or bodily form." Once again, I am disappointed by Graham's resort to psychologization. This would not be accepted from Ed Decker, would it? "Mormons have to defend their temple rituals because they need it to affirm that they will make it to the celestial heaven." Enough said.[23] The argument begins with the assumptions of Nicean orthodoxy and then goes back into the Old Testament with these assumptions in mind. I'm sorry, but mine doesn't. I am disappointed here that Graham chooses to try to imply that I was biased. Latter-day Saints, however, progress forward using the Old Testament as a starting point. That is what I did, actually. Appreciating the manner in which Evangelicals try to make later theological concepts backwards compatible with earlier concepts, the consequential dilemma is clear in that traditional Christians are compelled to reinterpret tselem in a more profound manner that would allow these theological assumptions to coincide with previous scripture. Once again, the attempts at psychologization disappoint me. To be sure, a theological harmony with scripture is a must for sola scriptura advocates. I do not require it myself, actually. Graham is aware of this. The technique involved is to read an extended meaning into the word and then apply that meaning as a replacement for the literal meaning. It matters little if the meaning has adequate contextual grounding. This I showed with tselem, but we are not yet to that. As one Evangelical scholar explains, most are comfortable with the common explanation that the image of God denotes a, "mysterious truth, impossible to fully comprehend." That's not me. So why is this comment here?[24] But is this rationale justified?  This sort of approach to tselem will be shown to be a non sequitur and entirely insufficient for reasons soon to be revealed. But this is only one of several explanations offered by Evangelicals, as various avenues have been explored in search of an understanding more acceptable to the creedal statements of faith. Again I am disappointed by the implied ad hominem.

For surveying purposes we will list a few of the more common interpretations. I will have no comment on these. It is informative but serves me no purpose to reply to. One innovative explanation involves the union of tselem (image) and demuth (likeness). The assumption follows that their union signifies something distinct from their independent meanings. With this argument it is assumed that the follow up term "likeness" somehow projects an abstract meaning into "image," which will in turn conform to Evangelical thought.[25] However, as Gerhard von Rad illustrates, likeness only interprets image by, "underlining the idea of correspondence and similarity- [they] refer to the whole of man and do not relate solely to his spiritual and intellectual being: they relate equally, if not first and foremost, to the splendor of [God's] bodily form."[26] Henry Wheeler Robinson agrees that according to the ancient Hebrews, "the bodily form of man was made after the pattern of the bodily form of God (the substance being different)."[27] While scholarship has correctly determined the proper meaning of this phrase, even the amateur exegete will observe that this combination (tselem and demuth) is found elsewhere in scripture, and that it always denotes a visual representation, never precluding it:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" (Exodus 20:4)

 "Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female" (Deut 4:16,23,25; 5:8)

Contra Phyllis Bird, John W. Wright says that, "while not precisely a technical term for an idol, image is not merely 'a metaphor for likeness…concrete, formal, holistic-and 'empty,' lacking specific content.' The term primarily designates the physical, iconographic representation of another living being." Wright says so, but where is the actual argument proving Bird wrong? What about answers to the parallel uses of tselem and it's language equivalents, showing that it is not an "iconographic representation"? This is merely a sound bite reply, not an analytical one.[28]  Simply put, likeness does not alter the meaning of image abstractly, and one need not survey extra-biblical literature in search of plausible variant meanings since it is clear that the author of Genesis - who is presumably the same author of Deuteronomy and Exodus - used this phrase in a consistent manner. That, friends, just broke this camel's back as far as I am concerned. It is a slippery tactic to say that one "need not survey extra-Biblical literature." On the contrary! One MUST survey all relevant contexts, including how a word is used by others who are contemporaries. This is an approach that puts the head in the sand. It is not acceptable and is a begged question, contra: This step towards begging the question is common, Assuming that extra-biblical linguistic relatives do not inform the meaning is not begging the question? and is essentially what Hank Hannegraff and Erwin M. de Castro offer while criticizing Kenneth Copeland for his literal understanding of tselem. They assert that demuth "limits" and even "defines" the word image, "in order to avoid the implication that man is a precise copy of God." That of course is not my argument. I am wondering why Graham is hopping around from one person's arguments to another....[29] For them it must be understood as X instead of Y, since X doesn't conflict with an a priori position. Again I am disappointed by Graham's comments here. Even if Hank does this, it is beyond fair play to use this as a way of implying that I do the same.[30] Others have argued that tselem is to be understood as an abstract quality such as a "moral image" or that it merely consists of "communicable attributes." Rev. Dr. Charles A. Briggs disagrees As do I. :

Some theologians refer the form to the higher nature of man [that is, to that 'moral image' in likeness of which it is supposed man was created]; but there is nothing in the text or context to suggest such an interpretation. The context urges us to think of the entire man as distinguished from the lower forms of creation…The bodily form cannot be excluded from the representation. Once again, it is just said; A to B which already refutes A.[31]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia identifies four common interpretations for this text,[32] so for "Evangelical" apologia this remains an unsettled argument. Er, no it doesn't. Here again I am surprised to see Graham committing the same mistake as an atheist I know: assuming that diversity of opinion somehow clouds the issue and makes an answer not viable. Critical comparison is required. See my lesson here. We will not detail the reasoning by each explanation, but will instead move onto the arguments presented by Holding. He argues that, "Christian writers typically respond by arguing that this passage means that humans share in God's communicable attributes, such as personality and rationality. But at this point Genesis 5:3 is brought into play."[33] Actually, our argument doesn't need further proof texting since the meaning of tselem speaks for itself, and essentially proves our case for us. The argument Holding followed was from Richard Hopkins and his reference to Gen 5:3 was probably out of convenience, not necessity. No, it wasn't just for convenience. Hopkins used Gen. 5:3 to answer the Evangelical reply on Gen. 1:26. If Graham is going to assume malfeasance on my part I would hope that he would check Hopkins' book and explain why he cited Gen. 5:3 merely for "convenience". The key point to note in his use of scholars, is that Holding offers no support for the idea that tselem could ever mean something completely abstract. Hmm. There's a good reason for that: Actually what I argue is not that a tselem is always "completely abstract" but that the tselem is not automatically an iconographic representation of what it "tselems" for. I now wonder if Graham has properly understood what I am arguing! As we addressed already, his initial use of scholarship only undermines a straw man argument that has no reality in LDS apologia - they rightly point out that Gen 1:26 says nothing of ontological likeness. No reality? Not per Hopkins, Watson, and Griffith. Unfortunately, the primary usage of tselem in LDS apologia has been overlooked, and since Holding has misunderstood the LDS argument, no further attention to tselem is considered. Herein lies the problem with Holding's treatment of Genesis - as it appears to be a needless shift into an abstract A misapprehension of what I argued, as noted. - he fails to deal with the literal meaning of tselem head-on. Not so. I deal with it with extra-biblical parallels, coordinated with Biblical usages. As yet this has only been waved away, not addressed. It will be demonstrated that while abstract meanings may at times serve as consequential extensions of the tselem, these abstract qualities never overwhelm the tselem and strip it of its literal meaning. Again, as noted, this is a misapprehension of my positition.   To seriously address the LDS argument, Holding's presentation leaves much to be desired. Hmm. Given that Graham didn't get my argument right to begin with....sigh.

Primary Argument: The Ancient Near East

Avoiding a scholarly survey on the meaning of tselem, Avoiding! I do beg pardon. I did my survey; I simply had no need to include opinions that the best argument refuted. I surveyed numerous Genesis commentaries and articles. I will thank Graham again not to psychologize me! Holding begins to interpret the term according to its phrase "image and likeness." Perhaps realizing the weakness of standard explanations, And I'll thank him again to not do it. I did realize the standard ones were weak, because I did homework to find out. Holding opts for a different apologetic as he makes use of texts from the Ancient Near East which he believes "makes better sense" of the passage.[34] He follows Matthews and argues that since Ancient Near Eastern literature (contemporary with the penning of Genesis) uses "image" in an jurisdictional/rulership manner, then this should serve as an interpretive template for Gen 1:26.[35] The rulership element of image is true so long as it is recognized as a consequence or extension of the image, and not a basis for a redefinition; the primary definition being a physical representation of something. Note carefully: Graham has not actually answered that tselem is concerned purely with the jurisdictional element; he has merely reasserted the preferred underdstanding, then merely claimed that it remains intact and can be coordinated with the jurisdictional element! Note as well that this remains a misapprehension of my argument. Thus, "created in the image of God means that God created human beings as the physical symbol or icon of God to represent God's rule within God's good creation." Again, mere re-assertion of A to B and not an answer.[36] However, the difficulty we found with Holding's argument from a "Near Eastern connotation" is threefold.

The Chronological Dilemma. Moses was quoting God - or at least claims to be- who said,  "Let us create man in our image." Since this statement predates mankind (it is safe to assume) the meaning of this passage cannot be dependent upon or influenced by nuances of any human culture. GAG! This line of reasoning is patently absurd. Moses quotes God in the language of Moses' time! If, however, Moses had stated that we were created in God's "image and likeness," without attributing it to God, then this argument might hold water because it would be an idea of which Moses had in mind contemporary to Egyptian thought. So now it will be argued that Moses "translated" God's word using an entirely misleading word that did not mean what God intended? I am sorry, this is surreal! Apparently, this is what Holding intends to argue. No, it isn't. This is a very peculiar idea by Graham. However, This throws a big question mark over the first chapter of the Bible. Not only is the literal rendering of "image" questioned, but also the authenticity of Moses' story is undermined to at least some degree. I seriously doubt this is what Holding intended to do, but clearly, if we are to take the story literally, the "image" concept is what God had in mind before the creation of man. Further, it was something that described Him before the creation of man. In order for his explanation to work, we must assume one or two things, a) The Bible is not to be understood literally when it quotes God, and/or b) God made this comment because He knew this is how it would eventually be understood centuries later by the Egyptians and other neighboring cultures. These are only two of many begged questions that follow this line of argumentum. A) merely begs the question of the literal meaning. B) is not at all required.

Unwarranted Clarification. This argument seeks clarification of the text by relying on the assumption that such clarification is required. While the original argument merely assumes that the text can be read in plain English. What Graham here implies is fallacy is actual a process called "contextualization". This clarification is unjustified however, since the only need seems to involve a justification for the Evangelical interpretation. Once again Graham's psycholgization is disappointing. At this time another question is being begged: If Moses intended the verses to be understood literally, then why seek further clarification through extra-biblical means? Whether Moses intended the literal interpretation at hand is the very point at issue![37] As it is, a problem is being assumed so a clarification is sought. Once again, a disappointing psychologization. While I agree that the understanding of image in the ancient Near East is significant, I also concur with Clines who says, "Not every aspect of that significance is transferable to the Hebrew thought-world, but, as so often, Old Testament belief lays under tribute other ancient thought and freely borrows anything that is not incompatible with faith in Yahweh." This is in no way any direct answer to any point I have made. Again: the argument is from me that tselem's primary meaning is jurisdictional. The physical component is not required, but as a practical matter, a tselem is physical only because we live in a physical world. The nature of a tselem itself does not require any iconographic likeness to that being represented. Technically a rutabaga could have served as a tselem of a deity, but no deity would want to settle his presence in a rutabaga because it would be insulting. They would want a hunky statue of Arnold Schwarzenegger as a tselem. This is the subtlety that Graham misses in my argument.[38] Therefore, the "image of Marduk" in man was transferable so long as it was not incompatible with the Image of Yahweh. We will argue, however, that it was more compatible than Holding realizes since both denote a physical depiction. That is not the point. The point is that the depiction tells us nothing about the nature of the being represented by the tselem.

Ambiguity. Providing that the author of Genesis imported his own cultural understanding of "image and likeness," it remains unclear from the Egyptian references that image excluded the physical resemblance. Watch carefully here. Remember I have NOT said anything about the tselem not being physical. "Resemblance" is really all that is at issue. That said: After all, "In Mesopotamia and Egypt, kings erected statues of themselves at the farthest reaches of their empires to represent their dominion. In Akkadian, the word for statue is tsalmu, the same as Hebrew tselem." Of course it is. But this fits precisely in with what I said about the tselem being appropriate for the one whose power is represented. The kings here are not going to make statutes of a kidney bean and say, "That's a representation of my power and jurisdiction!" Heck no! They'll make it look like themselves, and probably also buff it up a bit to make themselves look meaner and more authoritative. Again Graham misses the subtlety of my argument. [39] If we are correct that the "image" consists of two elements (rulership and physical likeness), then how can we be sure the physical likeness was excluded in these instances? It's very simple: Because we found examples which I used in TMD which clearly show that a physical likeness was NOT an essential part of the definition. It would perhaps be well to speak of physical appropriateness, but not likeness.   In an attempt to show that only the ruling king held the image of God in ancient Mesopotamia, Holding provides only one of only two extant references to a human in the image of God. His reference speaks of the king, but in the other source, which he does not address, the image of God is clearly directed to the priest: "The exorcism (which is recited) is the exorcism of Marduk, the priest is the image (tsalmu) of Marduk." Bingo! Now did every priest look like Marduk? This cite only serves to refute the LDS interpretation further. In fact, if Graham thinks about it, those Akkadian et al statues that look just like the kings in question, paired with these image-priests who obviously do not all look like Marduk particularly, prove that representation, not resemblance, is what is being offered. If it were a case of resemblance, then the meaning of "resemblance" is so wide and general that it is worthless. [40] Here we find that both the king and the priest are in the image of God (Marduk). This causes problems for any approach that focuses solely upon rulership or jurisdictional interpretation. Uh, it does? Graham is apparently forgetting that priests were considered to be an arm of the state in ancient societies! No separation of church and state here! But even if not, one need not be a king to rule over something. Your local Elks Club president could make an "image" for himself after this fashion, too. I can make an "image" to give commands to my little dog.

Holding correctly points out that in ancient Egypt, "The primary function of the image was to be the dwelling place of the spirit or fluid which derived from the being whose image it was."[41] Clines argues that the Egyptian understanding of image did not carry over in the Old Testament: "Osiris is depicted as coming as spirit in order to descend upon his image in his shrine and thus unite himself with his form. It is precisely this belief, that images possess the divine fluid or spirit or breath, which Old Testament polemic denies by its claim that there is no 'spirit' in idols (Hab. 2.19; Jer. 10.14; 51.17)." Um, not quite! Clines is not saying that the meaning did not carry over, but that the specific application did not carry over into the OT. Rather, man was this dwelling place for God's authority on earth (which gains even more coherence in light of the NT idea of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit). This brings us back to the exorcism of the priest.

A human being could also be the dwelling-place of a deity. Religious persons, such as priests and prophets, could be temporarily possessed by a deity, and even a sick person could be indwelt by a deity in place of a malevolent demon. That is correct, and only agrees with what I have been saying. But of greater importance is the figure of the king, who was regarded at certain times in certain places as the life-long incarnation of the god.[42]

In the Ancient Near East, God would literally possess a physical body, usually the Egyptian king, but occasionally a priest in Mesopotamia. Of the Egyptian king, F. Preisigke wrote that he "is bearer of the divine fluid in its greatest potency…The visible and tangible body of the king is only the covering for the god or the dwelling of the god. The king's words and acts are expressions of the god dwelling in him." Exactly what I am saying. This king is the god's image. But does this mean that the king looked like or resembled the god? Not at all. And nothing Preisigke says here indicates that. [43] So the king or priest would allow their bodies to a temporary receptacle to be used by God in the most literal sense.[44] During this possession the king is no longer a spokesperson for God, the king becomes God, who now possesses a body of flesh. Does Holding really want to lay this theology onto the Old Testament? Does Gen 1:26 communicate an understanding that God's spirit penetrates every human being in a sense that would cause an endless act of divine incarnation? In a real sense, yes! We were made stewards over God's creation. Genesis also says that Adam's "breath of life" came from God! And in NT theology, the Holy Spirit literally DOES reside in our bodies! Neither this nor the example above is properly called an "incarnation"….one might properly use the word "possession" if that word did not imply a superior controlling influence. "Indwelling" is neutral enough to supply the meaning here. And yes, that is what I will read in Gen. 1:26, Graham's thought of my reservations notwithstanding.[45]

Since the essential element in the image is its possession of the divine fluid, Clines suggests "its representational quality as a likeness of the deity or the human being must play a secondary role." CORRECT! This is exactly what I have been saying. And thus the Mormon cannot automatically assume that Gen. 1:26 and like verses equate with us having a human body like God's.[46] With this we would agree, but we must keep in mind that this does not change the fact that this role exists. Holding states that "the image was not always molded in the most 'natural' shape of the god,"[47] but Clines reiterates that, "the obvious fact that most images do in fact look like something cannot be utterly insignificant, but must reflect some attempt to conform the appearance of the image to the supposed appearance of the being whose spirit it bears, and shares." Of course it does, as a matter of practical necessity, as noted above: an Akkadian king is not going to use an image of a kidney bean! He is also not going to use a statue of Joe the Farmer. He wants it to represent HIS authority to his people, so to have it look like him is the obvious choice. But Marduk has no need to pick priests that look like him; the priests represent his authority and through their active influence on the lives of the people.[48] This tells us that the Egyptian gods were assumed to have a literal form. Mark Smith also acknowledges the similarity with Egyptian texts, but he is not convinced that this negates the physical meaning behind image. In what way? Again, note that Graham has missed the subtlety in my argument.[49] Further, the king was said to have been created and even "begotten" by God. And this is significant how? Both sides agree that men were created and in some sense begotten by God; in what sense that is so is what is at issue, and this bare statement supports neither party. The king is "the shining image of the lord of all and a creation of the gods of Heliopolis… [H]e has begotten him, in order to create a shining seed on earth, for salvation for men, as his living image." Notice! This is followed, as Gen. 1:27 follows 1:26, by an indication that the "image" is "begotten" not having in mind any resemblance, but for the purpose of delivering a message![50] Amosis I is,  "a prince like Re, the child of Qeb, his heir, the image of Re, whom he created, the avenger (or the representative), for whom he has set himself on earth." Amenophis III is addressed by the god Amon as: "My living image, creation of my members, whom Mut bare to me." Amon-Re says to Amenophis III: "You are my beloved son, who came forth from my members, my image, whom I have put on earth. I have given to you to rule the earth in peace." All of which correspond to what I have been saying - and give not a hint that Amenophis in any sense is an image because he "looks like" Amon-Re.[51] Thus, we find that god had created the king literally. Interestingly enough, anthropologist Ewa Wasilewska shows that a much older 22^nd century BC document shows that the image of god pertained to all of Mankind Which is what I also noted in an endnote - and corresponds of course with Genesis 1.:

In ancient Egypt it was believed that people were created on a potters wheel, from clay and straw, by the god Khnum. However, to be fully alive they had to be animated with the ankh, the symbol of life, by the goddess Hathor. Another Egyptian account, Instructions for King Merikare, dating from the second half of the third millennium B.C., mentions that God created humans after heaven and earth were established and the battle with the water monster was won. Then, it says, God "made the breath of life [for] their [mens] nostrils. They who have issued from his body are his images."[52]

While there is no compelling reason to believe this source influenced Moses, we should point out that it is far more contemporary to the event spoken of in Gen 1:26. I agree. But the quote above (at least as far as Graham offered) does not say what being this image entails. Gen. 1:26 is followed directly by 1:27, a note that men would be stewards and representatives of God's will on earth. There is nothing there or in the above that gives any hint that physical resemblance is in any sense elementary to the definition.[53] But as we have stated before, these Egyptian elements are rendered irrelevant if we take Moses' statement as a direct quote from God, who spoke before the existence of mankind. As noted above, this is fallacious. It is also irrelevant because there is no difference between former and latter uses of the word.

Further, in the case of the Mesopotamian king and priest we should ask what they had in common that would validate their designation as the image of Marduk. One answer to this question might be found in their physical likeness, which remains consistent with the literal understanding of tselem and tsalmu. The begged question understanding, rather. But Graham has missed the commonality: Both king and priest were arms of the ancient state, where "separation of church and state" would have been cause for comedy! One might recall that the famous king Tutankhamun, for example, wore the headdress of Pharoah,[54] as other Egyptian kings wore headdresses of their gods, such as Anubis,[55] whose image was that of a Jackal's head.[56] The evidence shows that only the king and his priests were in the image of god, and only these persons were to wear such headdresses that depicted the physical image of their god. And so we turn in circles. It is precisely because the Egyptian gods had physical forms - the jackal for example - that these headdresses were appropriate for Tut's "image". And we can only say that Gen. 1:26 points to God as having a human body, IF we first assume that God has a human body. The point remains as I noted: the language here by itself tells us nothing to support the Mormon view. It must be reckoned with other, more direct statements. The Egyptian helmet, which was worn by soldiers carrying with them the authority of the king, did not bear the physical image as depicted in other regalia. If this is so, then this refutes the LDS contention, for since Graham has agreed that the authority part IS essential to the meaning of tselem. Thus it is clear that the authority these soldiers carried was represented either in themselves or their regalia as it was. And so any matter of "physical resemblance" being essential to the meaning is again defeated by reason that to cite this as "resemblance" would be to stretch the understanding of that word to the breaking point, such that it is obvious that it is merely a convenience and not rooted in an objective evaluation of the use of the word.[57] With these facts laid out on the table, Holding's argument from Egyptian sources seems to backfire, as it is hard to conceive of  "image" without physical representation, even in an Ancient Near Eastern context. To which I can only say, Graham lacks imagination. Here's a way to break that logjam. The American eagle: Is this an "image" of America or not? The Nazi swastika? Think it through.

Update 8/30/05: