The Shadow of God - Dr. Wesley Muhammad

Thus, the composite narrative (Gen. 1-2) 92 presents us with a picture strikingly reminiscent of ANE cult
tradition: a ßelem is made for/by the deity from mundane materials into which that deity subsequently
enters and dwells. 93 This indwelling enlivens the ßelem, making it god and king. 94 Adam, as the ßelem of
God, is himself the very body of God. 95 We may thus have here the biblical justification for the later
tradition of Adam‟s heavenly enthronement and worship by the angels. 96 In the Latin Life of Adam and Eve
(Vita Adae et Evae) God commands the angels in heaven regarding Adam: “Worship the Image of Yahweh
(14:3)!” As the very Imago of God, Adam is here the object of cultic veneration, as the temple language
and imagery makes clear. 97
Crispin Flectcher-Louis describes Genesis 1 as an „incarnational‟ cosmology. 98 If our reading of P‟s
imago Dei theology is correct, this characterization would be justified. 99 What is important here also is that
Adam, as ßelem of God, is the abode of God as well: “the image of a god was to be looked upon…as a
temple, where this god could be both encountered and truly worshipped.” 100 Adam/Aaron is therefore the
first divine sanctuary. 101 It may well be this Priestly “Adam-as-Tabernacle” tradition that lay behind
Philo‟s and the NT‟s “Temple of the Body” metaphor, and not the Hellenism of the Stoics. 102 If so, the
Gospel of John‟s presentation of the possibly high priestly Jesus as “the living abode of God on earth, the
fulfillment of all the temple meant” 103 should not be seen as a “decisive break” with or “radical revision” of
92 As arranged by the final redactor. On reading Genesis I and 2 as parts of a (redacted) whole v. Sawyer, “Image of God,” 64-5.
93 On the divine “entering the form” of the statue v. Winter, “ „Idols of the King‟,” 23; Dick, “Relationship,” 113-114; Curtis, “Man as
Image of God,” 97-99.
94 On “made from dust” in Gen. 2 as a biblical metaphor for enthronement v. Walter Brueggemann, “From Dust to Kingship,” ZAW
84 (1972): 1-18. I. Engell already read Gen 1:26-8 as a description of a divine, enthroned Adam: see “Knowledge and Life in the
Creation Story,” in M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas (edd.), Wisdom in Israel and In The Ancient Near East Presented to Harold
Henry Rowley (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1955) 112. On the ritual attribution of the creation of the cult statute to the deity v. Walker and
Dick, “Induction”; Dick, “Relationship,” 113-116. On the materials for the construction of the idol see Victor Hurowitz, “What Goes
In Is What Comes Out – Materials for Creating Cult Statues” in G. Beckman and T.J. Lewish (edd.), Text and Artifact – Proceedings
of the Colloquium of the Center for Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania, April 27-29, 1998, Brown Judaic Series, 2006 (in
press). My thanks to professor Hurowitz for providing a manuscript copy of this work.
95 See Stendebach (TDOT 12:389 sv. םלצ): “The cult statue of a god is the actual body in which that deity dwells.” See further above
n. XXX.
96 D. Steenburg, “The Worship of Adam and Christ as the Image of God,” JSNT 39 (1990): 95-109; Pace Jarl Fossum, “The Adorable
Adam of the Mystics and the Rebuttals of the Rabbis,” in Peter Schäfer (ed.), Geschichte, Tradition, Reflexion: Festschrift für
Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag Band I: Judentum (Tübingen : J C B Mohr, 1996) 529-539 (533) and Alexander Altman, “The
Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends,” JQR 35 (1945): 382.
97 As persuasively argued by Corrine L. Patton, “Adam as the Image of God: An Exploration of the Fall of Satan in the Life of Adam
and Eve,” SBL 1994 Seminar Papers: 296-98.
98 “Image of God,” 84, 99.
99 We thus need to amend Norbert Lohfink‟s statement that “P‟s conception of God‟s nearness in cult must be supplemented by the
New Testament‟s conviction of God‟s nearness in the person of Christ.” “Creation and salvation in Priestly theology,” Theological
Digest 30 (Spring, 1982): 5. P combines God‟s nearness in cult and person, the person of the high priest.
100 Frederick G. McLeod, “The Antiochene Tradition Regarding the Role of the Body within the „Image of God‟,” in Broken and
Whole; Essays on Religion and the Body (Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1993) 24-25. See also ABD 3:390-91 s.v.
“Image of God (OT)” by Curtis. Gebhard Selz remarks as well: “Late texts provide evidence that the statue of Šamaš was considered
to be a place of ‘epiphany’ of the sun-god” 100 : the parallel with the Israelite Tabernacle/Tent of Meeting cannot be missed. “The Holy
Drum, the Spear, and the Harp. Towards an Understanding of the Propblem of Deification in Third Millennium Mesopotamia,” in I.
Finkel and M. Gellers (edd.), Sumerian Gods and Their Representations (Grönigen: Styx Publications, 1997) 183.
101 This may support Michael M. Homan‟s suggestion that Aaron‟s name, אהרן, be taken as an Egyptianized form of Semitic ,אהלtent,
with an adjectival or diminutive suffix –ōn; hence Aaron is the „tent-man.‟ See his discussion in To Your Tents, O Israel! The
Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 120-
23.
102 Pace K.G. Kuhn, “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre de Qumrân” RB 61 (1954): 203 n. 1 followed by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Qumrân and the
Interpolated Passage in 2 Cor. 6,14-7,1,” CBQ 23 (1961): 277. On Philo v. Somn. 1.21-34, 146-149, 225; Opif. 145f; Sobr. 62 (soul as
temple of God); see also R.J. McKelvey, The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1969) 54-5. Paul: 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Col. 1:19; see also McKelvey, The New Temple, 98-107; Jennifer A. Harris, “The Body as
Temple in the High Middle Ages,” in Albert I. Baumgarten (ed.), Sacrifice in Religious Experience (Leiden: Brill, 2002) 232-256.
Gospel of John: 1:14; 2:19-21; Alan R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus‟ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (JSOT
Supplemental Series, 220; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 2002); Mary L. Coloe, God Dwells With Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth
Gospel (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 2001); Jarl E. Fossum, “In the Beginning was the Name: Onomanology as the
Key to Johannine Christology,” in his The Image of the Invisible God (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995) 121ff;
McKelvey, The New Temple, 75-84; Harris, “The Body as Temple”; Lars Hartman, “ „He spoke of the Temple of His Body‟ (Jn 2:13-
22),” SEÅ 54 (1989):70-79.
103 D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 182. Whether or not John presents a high priestly
Jesus is debated, but we are persuaded that he does. See Kerr, Temple of Jesus‟ Body, 314-370; Coloe, God Dwells, 201-206; John
Paul Heil, “Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John,” CBQ 57 (1995): 729-745. See also Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus the High