Q: In Genesis 1:26, God said ..."let us make man on our image". Yet in Genesis 1:27, G-d is referred to as a singularity. However again in Gen.11:5 and 7, God is referred to in the singular and plural respectively. Again in Deut. 6:4 both singular and plural references to God are used in the this verse. How do modern day Rabbis view the word Elohim which appears over 500 times from Genesis to Malachi?
A: Elohim does not denote the notion of plurality of "Persons" as many Christian thinkers have advocated for centuries. English and Hebrew are two distinctive languages, and they do not operate by the same laws of syntax. It is characteristic of the Hebrew language to express' extension, magnitude and dignity, as well as anything in the abstract by the plural form.
Ibn Ezra observed that in other Semitic languages, an inferior speaks to his superior in the plural. Such a form of address is what is known as "plural of majesty.'"This custom still persists even in modern countries like Britain, where the royal "we" is still commonly used which originates from the Bible! The significance of the plural form in the Hebrew usage suggests a plentitude of power and majesty (a pluralis excellentice) or of intensification, i.e., the superlative "God of gods," "the absolute highest God," "quintessence of all divine powers." Therefore we must say that the plural form of Elohim connotes the plural of fullness; God is truly is in the fullest sense of the word, God Almighty.
Elohim' when used, also represents God as he relates to all the creatures of the world at large. Elohim describes God as the Creator and Providential Ruler in the affairs of humankind, and controlling every movement of nature in accordance with the laws He established in nature
Now, let us examine the second part of your question: What is the meaning of "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness (Gen.1:26)
For the past 2000 years, commentaries wondered: "Why does God speak in the plural (us/our)? Why did he not say, "Let me make man in my image? Who was God speaking to? There are many answers to consider:
(a) "Let us" may convey a plural of majesty (Saadia), i.e., the English royal "we" see notes on Gen. 1:10.
(b) Some see in this expression, the plural of self-deliberation. God did not say, "Let the earth bring forth," as He did with other creatures; instead, Man was brought into being with careful planning. (Abarbanel)
(c) Others see it as a plural of the fullness of attributes and powers. (Keil & Delitsch)
(d) Philo of Alexandria, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Midrash, and Rashi were all of the view, God was speaking to His angelic host. By involving these beings in humankind's creation, God sought so to minimize any envy the angels might feel regarding humankind. Some modern scholars concur, for there are ample Biblical passages that would suggest that ancient Israelites were familiar with the notion that God took counsel with the heavenly host even though there is no clear-cut mention their creation in the early chapters of the Genesis creation narratives. Some of the ancient commentators see an allusion to the heavenly host"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their hosts" (Gen. 2:1).
(e) Ramban and Kimchi were of the opinion that God was soliciting creation itself to participate in giving a part of themselves in the creation of man. Some modern scholars concur
(f) Those who argue a Trinitarian view of the Deity, are as nearly all modern Christian scholars reject this old polemical interpretation. One of today's finest Christian scholars, Victor Hamilton bluntly said that Christians who wish to read in this verse the presence of Trinity are in effect, "reading more into the text than was originally the intention and understanding of the Biblical writers."
With regard to your last question concerning So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God he created them (Gen. 1:27) Kimchi and Rashi both note that the plural of majesty is never said with verbs or pronouns, but only with nouns. Nothing you cited from the Zohar would indicate the contrary.
Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel
If you are interested in some new ideas on religious pluralism and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.
ReplyDeleteMy thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.
In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universe Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.
The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:
1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the "body of Christ" (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.
Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.
* The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.
** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.
For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca
Samuel Stuart Maynes
when God speaks, God use We/I/Us/Me, but you can NEVER find verses referring to God as “They/Their”.
ReplyDeleteThen God said, “Let Us make man ‘in Our image, according to Our likeness’; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26
God was speaking with majestic authority thus using Us/Our in Gen1:26.
God said clearly “in Our Image according to Our likeness” referring to mankind becoming rulers and creators on earth. Not by any means using the physical of God to create shape of man and female, but rather figure-like to that of God having dominance over universe, but for mankind they having dominance over other living creature on earth.
(followed by singular third person verse) And God created man ‘in His (notice verse do Not use THEIR) own image, in the image of God’ created He him; male and female created He them. Genesis 1:27
And if we use Pauline-Christian logic. Who’s image was the verse referring to? Father? As Christians should know that Word and Spirit do not have image.
Do Christians believe Father/Word/Holy Spirit have image or all three were imageless?