The Human God
Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Genesis 2:7 NASB
Formed – The three verbs of creation each have unique features. Bara’ is exclusively a verb of divine action, a verb used of creative acts only God can perform. Asah’ is a completely common verb for making or forming. It is used hundreds of times to describe all kinds of actions. There is nothing particularly exceptional about this verb. Its only importance lies in who performs the act, not how the act was done. But yatsar is somewhat out of place in the creation account. Why? Because it is much too anthropomorphic to be attributed to God. Yatsar is a verb usually associated with making clay pots or sketching drawings. It is not the sort of verb you would expect to be used to describe the actions of God. It’s too pedestrian. It makes God look like a human being.
Ah, but isn’t that precisely the point? This same verb, yatsar, is used over and over to describe God’s fashioning of Israel! Otzen points out that this verb connects human craftsmanship with divine activity.[1] Yatsar is the verb of partnership with God. The clay isn’t inert. It responds to the potter. For Man to be Man, there must be a response to the divine action. For Israel to be Israel, there must be a response to the electing God. Yatsar is a relationship verb. When God “forms” the dust, He doesn’t just pile up whatever can be gathered with the sweep of a hand. He establishes a relationship with this “stuff,” and it is the relationship that identifies the uniqueness of this creative act. Yatsar is the God-human verb of the story.
If we think of the Genesis account as a tribal explanation of origins, then we can understand why yatsar is the verb for both the creation of Man and the creation of Israel. God’s relationship – His choice, purpose and selection – is the essential factor in formation. Without the relationship, nothing exists. From a tribal perspective, God’s fashioning activity and His infusion of the breath of life is the reason human beings are what they are. Removing the relationship inherent in the forming or withdrawing the infusion of the breath of life means that Man returns to what he was before these actions occurred. He returns to the dust. He ceases to be. In other words, there is no inherent quality, no spark of the divine, no ontological substance residing in Man so that he lives independently of the action of yatsar and the infusion of the breath of life. Man exists in relationship with His creation, always! His breath and his body are entirely dependent on God. Perhaps Paul captures this Genesis thought when he wrote, “in Him we live and move and have our being.”
From the perspective of the tribe, you do not exist without dependence on God. If you think or act in ways that deny this dependence, you are simply deluded – and a fool.
Topical Index: yatsar, form, fashion, Genesis 2:7, relationship
~ Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being ~ Genesis 2:7 NASB
and what is “man” without God? (what is flesh without breath?) Dead. Dead. Generically, specifically Dead.
should we, (may we) take the “jump” and spring forward from this -you know, visit the New (er) Covenant, God’s commentary on the Old?
Something we, the easily distracted sheep, should remember:
~ remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world ~ (Ephesians 2.12)
Now Carl, let’s not do this. We are not here to examine Christ, we want to focus on prehistoric dust and ashes. (prehistoric?- before His Story?) Isn’t all of history -well…. His? Who, my educated erudite friends is the Engineer? Who is the Artist? Who is the Creator? Who did all this? Whose Book is this anyway?
I just can’t do it. I cannot remain trapped in the B.C. (uhh.. what is B.C.?) “era”- no matter what your enlightened view of time may be, for this “chunk-o-dirt”- lives in the “here and now”. Amazingly, thankfully (and providentially), I live A.D. (and P.R.- “post-resurrection!)
Christ, the second Adam, BTW, has come. The promised Messiah came and conquered. And this, “This” was not “plan B.” For God knows the “end from the beginning.” (Sovereignty of God, anyone?) ~ Who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him? ~ Not this dust speck! -No can do, and don’t wanna try.
For I know the meaning of my name! (yes, amazingly “words” have meaning- and so do names!) My name, “Carl” according to Wiki is “free man.” In Chinese, it translates “sum-dum-guy” but in Hebrew it would be “man.” ~ He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God ~ (Micah 6.8)
Now, is this “instruction” to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly, generic or specific?
The first Adam was a failure. The result? Paradise lost. Sin carries with it a curse.
Genesis 3:14 says, “So the LORD God said to the serpent, ‘Because you have done this…’ (what is the very next word? “cursed!” Sickness, sorrow, separation, sadness, scars (internal and external) disease, disaster,depression, depravity, deception, disillusionment, defeat..- shall we go on or just turn on the six o’clock news instead? Friends, it was “my” sin that held Him there- until it was accomplished. His dying breath has brought me life- I know that “it is finished.”
Why do I care so much about these things? It is because we gain so “much more” in Christ, than we ever lost in Adam. So. Much. MORE!!
Yes, Hallelujah for the second Adam, for His is the victory over sin, death and the grave. ~ For sin will have no dominion (authority) over you..~ (Carl,)- you are a “free man!” ~And you will know the Truth, and that Truth will set you free ~ (John 8.32) The truth? Yes, the gospel truth. The truth is a Person. According to His words, (should we shema the Savior?) – I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man (none) comes to the Father, but by Me. (John 8.32) Only Christ? So narrow,- wouldn’t you say? Surely there is another way! No Shirley,- there is not. The promised Messiah has come to save sinners,, thieves, drunkards and ragamuffins- those who are sick, tired, needy, hungry and thirsty. “Whosoever will” may come! (yes, it is written!) – Revelation 22.17
~ And the Master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, so that My house may be filled ~ (Luke 14.23) ~ And Yeshua said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men ~ (Mark 1.17) -There is no higher calling, no greater privilege.
~The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ) ~ (John 1.41)
Good news (the Gospel) is meant to be shared, -don’t you think? – Andrew apparently did. And so did Paul (Rabbi Sha’ul). ~ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation/deliverance to every one that believes;- to the Jew first, and also to the Greek ~ (Romans 1.16)
Hi Carl,
Hopefully, NONE of us is ashamed of the gospel of Christ. It is because of Him that we can enter into the presence of G-d. But, that doesn’t change the fact that, as Skip said, “Man’s breath and his body are entirely dependent on G-d…we do not exist without dependence on G-d.”
And, that dependence includes the atonement He provided through his Son, Yeshua. Halleluia!!
I think there’s an assumption that the overwhelming majority of Skip’s readers know, understand, and embrace this concept. But, you are more than welcome to continually remind us and no need to feel apologetic about it. I’ve come to appreciate your exuberance for the New(er) Covenant, as you refer to it.
But, I was sad to read that you view us as “trapped in the B.C.” I have to say that I’ve felt nothing but gratitude for the opportunity I’ve been given through Today’s Word as Skip daily reminds me of G-d’s purpose for my life and how He wants me to live. His teachings have given me a MUCH deeper appreciation for that shed blood and forgiveness that G-d so graciously provided for me…”to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.”
And, as you know, there are expectations that come with that atonement. Yes, one of them is to tell others of the good news of the gospel of Christ…but, wait…there’s more.
CARL, I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE EXACTLY SAYING IN SOME OF THE ABOVE WRITING – ABOUT LEAVING PERHAPS BUT ONE THING STRUCK ME THIS MORNING WHILE READING YOUR COMMENT – I HEARD IN MY SPIRIT, “CARL NEEDS TO WRITE OR FROM COPIES OF ALL YOU HAVE WRITTEN HERE – COMPILE A BOOK – A BOOK OF VERY UNUSUAL ENCOURAGEMENT BY/OF THE WORD OF GOD. YOUR WRITING IS SUCH A UNIQUE STYLE THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT BEFORE – PERHAPS OTHERS THAT ARE NOT HERE WITH US ON THIS SITE NEED TO READ IT TOO…
A greater number of souls than you can see stand with you, (just letting you know)
You’re in excellent company, neither was Paul ashamed of the Gospel, but I guarantee you believing and preaching it put him in a critical light. (as it does you, Carl) It always stirred up other people to shame Paul.
2 Corinthians 11:23-26 gives us a list of the ways that Paul was shamed in the ministry of the Gospel:
. . . in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, a night and a day I have spent in the deep. I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren . . .
(supposing there were blogs then……”danger on the blogs” might have made this list!) lol
Praying for you, brother–keep on keeping on.
“If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured, or far away. ” –Henry David Thoreau
Dorothy,
Do you know me? Do you know Carl? Do you know Jan? Do you know Skip? Do you know the people you agree with and the people that disturb and alarm you? Have you walked with any of us? How can you judge another person by what they wrote? I do not mind if you disagree with any one of us, BUT when you begin to put down one and lift up another, while claiming they are on the right road and every one else is not . . . come on . . . really?!
How long have you been reading? Stay around and learn and do not be quick to judge another man or woman by what you do not yet understand in their writing and their teaching. Be quick to hear, slow to speak/write, and slow to wrath. Do you not think this is good advice given by James/Jacob to the twelve tribes of the Dispersion?
Hi Dorothy,
I thought I had read somewhere that you were unsubscribing, I’m glad that wasn’t so. Good to see you back and hope you stay awhile.
Robert, I forgive you for calling me a person who speaks what isn’t so.
Patrick ought to be able to verify by date that I certainly did unsubscribe.
I’m not causing anyone any harm by reading Carl’s post from time to time–or by speaking to him–that I know of.
Dorothy, if I accused you of speaking falsely I certainly do need your forgiveness, however what was stated came from a presumption on my part that if not subscribed, one couldn’t post.
In the “sermon on the mount,” Jesus said that if your brother has ought against you that you need to reconcile before you approach God, that places the burden on me. If I’ve offended you, it wasn’t intended that way and I do in fact ask for your forgiveness.
Btw, I’d like to reiterate that it’s good to see you back on the board, I couldn’t imagine you causing anyone “harm” by doing so. That’s one of the things that makes this site so unique, open debate is allowed and encouraged. Everybody gets to learn from everybody else how God moves them through His word.
I think it goes something like this, “Hear O Israel, the LORD our (underline our) God The LORD is One.” YHWH ECHAD the God of multiple unity.
Amen!
So beautiful….no wonder we can co-labor with Him. We are the vessel that contains Him and He works through us. Take that breath away we are nothing, ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Bara’ is exclusively a verb of divine action, a verb used of creative acts only God can perform.
Even better explanation of bara’. Thank you!
Skip,
I want to say thank you for all your hard work in putting theses last few teachings together and for your ongoing effort to learn and pass on your knowledge to all of us (I know this too is a part of your journey with the King).
Major transitioning going on in our lives right now and I have not been able to devote the time I would like to comment on the areas you have been hitting upon lately. Just to let you know that they have been challenging and convicting on many levels, and meeting me in profound ways in my journey with the King.
In His Care, Brian
“In other words, there is no inherent quality, no spark of the divine, no ontological substance residing in Man so that he lives independently of the action of yatsar and the infusion of the breath of life.”
The divinity of man has a long history in other religions and it was an issue within Christianity. The final “statement” of the divine/human issue was the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) where it accepted that not even in the person of Yeshua HaMashiach was there any co-mingling or confusion of the two natures. Not even in the Person of Yeshua, can it be argued that his humanity took on the attributes of divinity. And if in Yeshua humanity never took on divinity, then it is certain that no other part of the created order could or should even attempt to take on the attributes of divinity either.
That this is one of the chief cornerstones of the development of the West, with all its faults is indicated by the insistence that government is, or should be, limited. That is, not totalitarian, for that would be an attempt to take on an attribute of YHWH – his total government over his creation. Thus, when the monarchs of Europe and the Popes got into a argument over who was best suited to represent God and govern everything, it took a Reformation to restore the older idea, and that is that God was quite capable of representing himself, and it was the duty and obligation of all men and women to live in obedience to the King of kings. YHWH was apparently quite capable of governing things himself, and thus no human being – ecclesiastical or political – should find it necessary to attempt total jurisdiction.
It is interesting to observe that where ever the creation account and its ontological difference between YHWH and his creatures is weakened or blurred, the rise of the political order soon follows as men seek to “be like God” and apply his attributes to themselves.
Good point. Seems to me that we in America are facing just such a usurpation of God’s sovereignty. Our “Christian” nation is now more willing then ever to abdicate the role we should play for the security we wish to have, and in the process to treat our politicians as if they were kings (if not gods). Our current President certainly acts as if he were king, and we,the populace, are responsible for putting him in the place where he thinks he can exhibit his inherent right to lead.
This seems to be conflated. The Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.) defined the humanity of Mashiach as complete and full and denied the teaching that he was just an avatar with no humanity. The divinity of man is predicated on Shalom with Adonai – the attribute of unity. In the first creation account Adonai makes a covent with creation. In the second creation account Adonai makes a marriage covenant with in creation. The logical progression is that Adonai will make a covenant inside man. The marriage covenant Adonai establishes in Gen 2 is a betrothal that is not consummated with in the second account due to sin. However, Adonai acts as a faithful partner to the marriage covenant He established by promising redemption (Gen 3:15), introducing mercy. In Gen 22 Adonai swears by Himself that He will bless the seed of Abraham and the goyim due to Abraham’s faithfulness – the act of taking upon Himself the covenant curse of our disobediance. In Isaiah Mashiach is called Emmanuel. This leads Paul to the teaching of the body as the temple of Holy Spirit – the covenant state of Kadash and Hesed where we are all partial likenesses of Mashiach who alone is the “original” upon which we are imaged. It is a covenant relationship and therefore has familial elements – father, mother, brother, sister. The authority of state and religious entities is rooted in covenant principal – ergo Paul testifies, not in vain do the governments hold the sword (i.e. capital punishment). This authority can, is, and will be abused, but eventually it will be submitted to Mashiach – every knee will bend and every tongue profess … Therefore, the divinity of man is the covenant promise of Mashiach but the abuse of authority is the destiny of the lost. The two are not the same as you seem to imply: the former is the mystery of salvation and the latter is the mystery of iniquity. The Reformation was not an expression of covenant obediance. It does not represent an increase in unity or holiness. It is a reaction to the abuse of stewardship that is synonymous with abandoning the hebrew covenant in the time of the northern kingdom which broke away from Judah in the south because of Solomon’s sins being perpetuated in his son Rehobo’am. In the US alone there are now over 60,000 different denominations and the number increases each year. Covenant unity is Shalom – a tragic loss evident in the many divisions and confusions. If you accept the Gospel of John then there must eventually be one flock and one shepherd and that means a single authority. If modern christianity proves anything it proves that it is not a religion of the book, but as one might expect written upon the heart. Mashiach didn’t write anything, his followers did to provide for the faithful of which they were given charge by apostolic authority. Many christians seem to believe that a one world government is inherently evil because of some interpretation they place on the book of Revelation, yet the prayer of Jesus in the Gospel of John can not be fulfilled with out one. So now we are full circle to the mysteries of salvation and inquity!? The issue is not the nature of authority but rather its use. Just as the apostles argued about James and John approaching Jesus and asking to sit one on his left and one on his right. Jesus responded by taking a little child and declaring that who ever wants to be first in his kingdom must be the servant of all and whoever wants to be greatest must be least of all like the little child. All power and authority comes down from above from Adonai to preserve and nuture covenant life. Power and authority are an instrumentality of covenant stewardship. They can and will be abused, and Adonai will judge the faithless; but to argue that abuse of power constitutes justification for rejecting all authority is like arguing that adultery justifies ending all covenant marriage – a hard answer for a hard question.
I’m not sure I understand your criticism that this seems “conflated.” While I follow your argument concerning covenant – and the elaboration of its extension across a wide range of Scripture, I don’t accept the Council of Chalcedon as the final SCRIPTURAL word on the human/divine condition (although it is obviously the final word of the CHURCH). Your description of the covenant perspective on the rest of this is interesting.
Using the reference of the Council of Chalcedon addresses Ian Hodge’s argument that the kenosis of Yeshua-Jesus excludes the glorification upon his ascension where he returns to the glory he had with the Father before the world was made. He then used this reference to argue the nature of power as corrupt. The authority of the council isn’t a major point of my argument since Ian’s argument doesn’t validly draw from it any way. Indeed my argument can be made solely on biblical context: The questionable actions of any religious leader or individual can not invalidate the office or function of covenant stewardship because their authority derives from Adonai and not the reverse. In terms of conflating – the argument that man can not be glorified by Adonai or that Yeshua was not glorified in his ascension because abuse of power exists in humanity seems to infer that sanctification and authority are the same when they are not. It is an argument that seems to predominate among Presbyterians who hold that man has irrevocably lost his likeness with Adonai who lacks the ability to restore it. In essence it views the oath of Adonai in Gen 22 as fiction.
Covenant is the unifying theme of scripture. After the fall in the garden man is left with a marriage covenant. Noah becomes a family covenant with 7 persons. Abraham is a tribal covenant that begins as 3 promises that later are upgraded to 3 covenants which form a single unity. Moses then establishes a kingdom covenant with 12 tribes. David receives a national covenant with 12 tribes and the goyim. Yeshua establishes an international covenant. That makes 6 covenants with a 7th assumed at the return of Yeshua as a covenant of consummation – surpassing the covenant Adam would have received had he remained faithful. Jesus tells the Sadducees that in the final covenant we will be like the angels in heaven neither marrying nor being given in marriage.
Thanks for the clarification
My question is this– if God is the sustainer of life and He is, and if He has given us eternal life, how then is what Paul says not true– to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord?
Maybe “eternity” (outside of “time”) might have an impact on that?!!
Who told you eternity was “outside” of time? Parmenides, Boethius and Aquinas. Time to read “God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience”
Gen 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
I guess the question is (at least one of them) is did “time” as we understand it exist before this.
However, I’ll take you up on the offer concerning the read. I’ll order it, thanks. 🙂
Does Paul speak ontologically or phenomenologically?
2012-06-17
To Dr Skip Moen,
Your title: The Human God and the word yatsar: I once had a vision of a bar of gold embossed with the hebrew letters: yad, tsaddi and reish embossed in the goldbar. This confirmed to me the meaning of the word as so beautifully described by you, Dr Skip Moen. Would you like to comment on the vision?
Thank you for being such a blessing to the body of Messiah.
Blessings and greetings in Yeshuah our Messiah.
Zyla Fourie-Kritzinger
Yzerfontein
South-Africa
Is the symbol for tsaddi the letter or the final? Taking the letter forms “the righteous hand of the first born”. Gold refers to Abraham’s covenant of blessing so the meaning seems to evoke a reference to Psalm 16:8 and Hebrews 10:12 if final tsaddi is used. The difference is subtle, Psalm 16 “8 From them that resist thy right hand keep me, as the apple of thy eye. Protect me under the shadow of thy wings.” – DRA versus “8 I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.” – KJV. Hebrews 10 “12 But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God” – DRA versus “12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” – KJV. So yatser is the gold and either “Mashiach” or “Adonai’s deliverance” is the theme the letters denote. I suppose what this means depends upon how you respond to it.
Hi Christopher, could you please reference the gold as applicable to the covenant of blessing given to Abraham?
It’s not that I doubt your conclusion, I just want to confirm it according to scripture. Thanks.
Just read how the Ark of the Covenant was made and covered in gold among other Temple objects for worship …