The worthlessness of Homo divinus

But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation.

So says John Stott (quoted by Terry Gray.) Ideas like this seem to be more prevalent and popular now than ever before. If I can paraphrase the idea in my own words it would be that God caused modern man, Homo divinus, to evolve from the aspiritual, non-image-bearing Homo sapiens. There is much disagreement about how quick that process was, whether it happened to one man or a community, and what their moral state was (did they stop their "sinful" ways, or did they continue once they became enlightened?) But the overall idea is the same.

I do not think this idea is even worth our time considering. No one I've seen propose this idea seems interested in doing the Biblical texts justice. Yes there is a broad spectrum of interpretations for Genesis 1-3, from the strictest 24 hour creationist to the allegorical frameworkist. But I think Homo divinus makes all interpretations of Genesis meaningless. What it proposes is so totally different to the text that any interpretation is both possible but also deeply disconnected from reality. It even loses its strength as a polemic, both in ancient times and now (for how can it be one, when it agrees in every detail with the theories of the day?)

Let me give one example to show why I think Homo divinus is worthless. In Genesis 2 God created the first human, Adam. In verse 7 God forms him out of dust and then "breathed into his nostrels the breath of life; and man became a living being." The Homo divinus interpreter would say that this refers to when man first became enlightened. Whether gradually or in an instant, God gives the man/humanity his breath or spirit, and man is made aware of God. It literally says that God inspired man! After this point man is fundamentally different from all the other creations, he is made in the God's image.

But wait a sec, what does the Hebrew say? It says that he became a לנפש חיה, a nephesh chay, or a 'living soul'. חי, chay 'living', is used to refer to all life. It is used throughout the Bible, mostly to refer to living creatures, but sometimes also to 'living water'. נפש, nephesh 'soul', refers not just to humans, but also animals. It is used through Genesis 1, in Genesis 9 when God gives the command to never eat blood, and then in the foundational Leviticus 17 which expands on that commandment, calling blood the "life (nephesh) of all flesh." Genesis 2:7 could just as literally be translated to say that "man became a living animal."

How can the Homo divinus interpreter read this meaningfully? They can't interpret it literally of course, that goes against the whole idea that Homo divinus wasn't created directly from dust. But how can they interpret it allegorically either? Yes God did inspire man at that time, but the end result was that man would be a living animal, exactly what he was before. Man's enlightenment produces no changes, or at least none the author of Genesis 2 thought worth mentioning. I'd be interested in hearing other interpretations of this passage, but I can't see how a Homo divinus interpretation could do it justice, when even interpreted in the most ahistorical way possible the Hebrew words just go against their whole premise.

Don't waste your time with Homo divinus. It's a pathetic attempt at an interpretive framework.

First translation

So I thought I'd practice some translation for my upcoming exam. Here's Luke 15:8-9:

8 Ἢ τίς γυνὴ δραχμὰς ἔχουσα δέκα, ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃ δραχμὴν μίαν, οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν καὶ ζητεῖ ἐπιμελῶς ἕως ὅτου εὕρῃ; 9 καὶ εὑροῦσα συνκαλεῖ τὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας λέγουσα· συνχάρητέ μοι, ὅτι εὗρον τὴν δραχμὴν ἣν ἀπώλεσα.

Ἢ τίς γυνὴ δραχμὰς ἔχουσα δέκα,
Okay, so the first thing I noticed was ἐχ, our favourite verb stem meaning to have. So I should be looking out for two nouns, one nominative and one accusative. γυνη is a singular nominative noun, which I looked up and means woman. δραχμας is a plural accusative which means silver coins.

I looked up δεκα cause I didn't know it. It's an adjective meaning ten, which is really obvious considering our English prefix deca-...

That leaves the first two words: ἠ τις. The first is a particle meaning something like or, and τις is an interrogative pronoun.
So my translation:
Or which woman having ten silver coins

ἐὰν ἀπολέσῃ δραχμὴν μίαν,
This time our silver coin is singular, but still accusative. Following it is an adjective meaning one.
ἀπολεσῃ looks like a feminine singular dative noun, apparently it's actually a subjunctive verb meaning destroy or lose.
And ἐαν means if.
There's no explicit noun here, but the verb has a 3sg form, so the subject is (probably) the woman.

Updated translation:
Or which woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one silver coin

οὐχὶ ἅπτει λύχνον
οὐχι is a negative marker. I thought I remembered learning οὐ in a class but I couldn't find it on our workbook...
-ει looks like a 3sg-PRES verb suffix, and the verb means ignite.
-ον is the m-sg-ACC suffix, and the noun is candle.

Or which woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one silver coin, doesn't light a candle

καὶ σαροῖ τὴν οἰκίαν
σαροι is a verb meaning sweep.
την οἰκιαν is easy: the house (accusative).

Or which woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one silver coin, doesn't light a candle and sweep the house

καὶ ζητεῖ ἐπιμελῶς
ζητει: verb seeks
ἐπιμελως: adverb diligently, carefully

Or which woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one silver coin, doesn't light a candle and sweep the house and carefully search

ἕως ὅτου εὕρῃ;
ἑως: until
οτου: relative pronoun
εὑρῃ: finds

Or which woman having ten silver coins, if she loses one silver coin, doesn't light a candle and sweep the house and carefully search until she finds it?

καὶ εὑροῦσα συνκαλεῖ τὰς φίλας καὶ γείτονας λέγουσα·
εὑρουσα: same verb stem as above, but with a different suffix. It's an "aorist" and a participle. Wikipedia tells me that probably means a past event
συνκαλει: call together, assemble. present tense, indicative
φιλας: friends
γειτονας: neighbours
λεγουσα: says

And when she finds it, calling together the friends and neighbours, says

συνχάρητέ μοι, ὅτι εὗρον τὴν δραχμὴν ἣν ἀπώλεσα.
συνχαρητε: rejoice with
ὁτι: because, since
εὑρον: find, aorist 1sg
ἡν: relative pronoun
ἀπωλεσα: lost, aorist 1sg

And when she finds it, calling together the friends and neighbours, says "rejoice with me because I found the silver coin which was lost."

That's not great English though. So here's a rewrite:

Or which woman who has ten silver coins, if she loses one, doesn't light a candle, sweep the house, and carefully search until she finds it? When she finds it she calls together her friends and neighbours and says, "Rejoice with me because I found the lost coin!"

Brief wrap-up

Mission in Japan was such an amazing experience. There are so very few Christians there (about 1 in 5000 where we were) that even the little we did was a huge help to the Japanese church. What did we do? We visited many preschools, ran a lot of English classes and helped the missionaries as they planted two new churches.

It taught me a few things: the huge cultural differences did not matter to the Gospel, these people are sinners and need to be told about Jesus and shown God's love. But the cultural differences also showed how mission must be made culturally appropriate, both in Japan and home in Australia. Most people in Australia are unwilling and opposed to talking about God and the gospel. Japan was very different in that so many people were willing to listen and ask questions about Jesus and the Bible, for to them it is almost entirely new. But despite how much interest they show and how much they learn, the Japanese people are sadly reluctant to confess Jesus and commit their lives to him. In Australian culture verses like Romans 10:9 are not too significant, for almost everyone who believes the gospel will confess Jesus. But in Japan they will not. We met a few who even after more than ten years contact with the church and learning and believing far more than many Australian Christians, will still not commit to and confess Jesus. Whether they feel pressured from their families or work or just don't want to, I don't know. But it is sad and something that definitely needs a lot of prayer.