First of His Kind – A Short Study
Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule . . . “ Genesis 1:26 NASB
Man – The first chapter of Genesis continues to provide inspiring insights into who we are and how we live. In fact, a thorough study of just the first chapter might take a lifetime because it is so rich. We have gleaned some of the depth of these verses in our studies of the meaning of being human. We combined these insights with the recognition that even the typical word for “man” (ish) is relational, not substantive. But now we need to take another look at the specific word that describes mankind in this verse, namely, adam.
We must start with some linguistic background. After all, we can assume that Moses is writing to an audience with certain presuppositions about gods and men. If Moses is going to be successful in communicating what YHWH thinks, he must speak in terms that his audience understands. But immediately we have a problem. The etymological history of adam is completely uncertain. That means we don’t know where the word actually came from. Was it from Akkadian (related to “red” and “blood”) or from Arabic (related to “people” or “skin”) or Semitic (related to “build”) or Sumerian (related to “father”) or something else? The usual assertion that adam is related to red dirt or blood is difficult to sustain from the etymological evidence. Of course, we could follow Frank Seekins’ pictographic analysis and claim that adam is the “first blood,” the combination of Aleph (first) and Dalet-Mem (blood)[1], and this may be true, but it doesn’t help with our etymological issue. So even if we learn something from the word pictures, we cannot confidently say that the word picture meaning is the meaning of the term. It all depends on how you look at it. If we knew where the word came from, we would have a better understanding of its meaning, but apparently that isn’t possible.
That means we must look at the way the word is used in the Tanakh. Adam occurs 562 times in the Tanakh, one fourth occurring in the single book of Ezekiel. In usage, the word carries the following characteristics: 1) Man is the sole participant in the divine breath and as the sole participant is set apart from all the rest of creation, 2) only Man receives the commandment(s) and is held accountable to God for following them, 3) in the created world, only Man is capable of sin, 4) Man is totally dependent on God and is not free to determine his own destiny, 5) Man’s life as an individual is a test, 6) Man is sinful. He fails continually to live up to God’s standard and as a result experiences consequences in this life, and 7) even after his disobedience, Man experiences divine protection and compassion with the promise of redemption.
These seven characteristics govern the usage of adam in the Tanakh. All of them play a role in the Genesis account, but in Man’s creation, the element of sin is absent. Rabbinic Judaism teaches that Man’s creation includes both yetzer ha’ra (the inclination toward evil) and yetzer ha’tov (the inclination toward good) and we should recognize that Man, even in his “innocent” state, was still the nexus of these two opposing forces.
So what did God make when He said, “Let us make man in our image”? If Moses draws on ideas current in Egypt when the children of Israel were taken out of bondage, there is reason to believe that they would have understood “in our image” as representatives of God. Pharaoh was considered an incarnation of the gods and he was no less in bodily form than any other human being. But Moses also seems to draw on the “father-son” relationship. God “begets” man and desires and maintains a relationship that is quite familiar, the relationship between father and son in the culture of Israel. Finally, the Genesis account clearly marks man as special and unique in his relationship and obligations. He is the only recipient of divine revelation and the only creature who can be either a sinner or righteous. The word adam summarizes these qualities.
I have argued in other investigations that we need to think of Genesis as tribal literature, that is, as an explanation of the origins and purposes of what it means to be human within the tribe of Israel. This investigation shows us that Moses distinguishes Israel’s origin (the creation of the first man) from other ancient cosmologies by asserting that Man is a partner with God and not merely His slave, that Man is uniquely responsible for the commandments which are clearly revealed to Him (as opposed to cultures where men are held accountable but do not receive revelation) and that Man is God’s representative in the world, functioning as if he were God but not becoming gods. This makes the Hebrew account different from all other accounts.
If we accept Moses’ account, then we are left with a self-examination. Do we act as if we are partners with God? Do we recognize that we are uniquely accountable for His commandments? Do we acknowledge that we have received His revelation? Are we living as His representatives? To be “Man” created in the image of God is to answer these questions affirmatively. Any other answer seems to fall outside the usage of adam and therefore, outside the idea of being human.
Topical Index: man, adam, Genesis 1:26, image of God
[1] Seekins suggests that Dalet-Mem (blood) comes from the picture “door of water.” So, Adam is the “first door of water.” In the ancient world, water was sometimes considered one of the basic elements. This might help us connect “door of water” to the idea of blood. But one of the problems with all pictographs is the multiple meanings attached to a single consonant picture. For example, Dalet means “door,” “pathway” and “to enter.” And Mem means “liquid,” “massive,” and “chaos.” Since Hebrew is verbally based, we might be inclined to read Dalet-Mem as “to enter chaos,” a legitimate word picture but hardly appropriate for the context. Here’s the lesson. The actual pictures are fluid. The picture we choose depends on the context and the presuppositions we bring to the text. Some pictures are instructive. Some less so. See the work of N. R. Hanson (Perception and Discovery).
CORRECTION: PHOENIX CONFERENCE is May 10-11, not May 9-10. SORRY about yesterday’s mistaken dates.
Thanks Skip…powerful teaching today!!
Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule . . . “ (Genesis 1:26)
~What (then) shall we say to these things? ~ Amen!!
And in the image of God made He them (male and female!) Not to “exclude” our better halves, there is a “female” side to Elohim (plural, y’all) also. “Both” Adam and Eve, were formed by God and for God- and in the Garden, before sin- there was intimate fellowship with God. Happy campers, – all.
And then? A tempter shows up and introduces “doubt”. Remember these words? ~ Hath God said? ~ “If only” Adam, my not-so-great, not-so-grand father you would have replied, “Yes, God did say,” , but whether through forgetfulness or because of the distraction of the shiny proferred fruit- you failed to remember God had said, and you also failed in your duty to speak and to protect your beloved Eve. These three words “Hath God said” are written as a memorial and a witness for all (of us) who have since descended and declined after Adam. (In Adam all die- the scriptures, the words of God state). In Adam all die? – Why? What does this mean? – to be “in Adam?”
A man (any man- very generic here.. females, you too are included) who is “in Adam” shall die. Here is the short version:- A man was born, he lived, then he died. End of story. Or is it? Is death (he inquired) the end- or the beginning- or for some, the beginning of the end? This may sound confusing for some, but clarity will soon follow.
Adam, (speaking very generically again) listen. “What if?” (he inquired) Adam did “shema” the instructions of YHWH- “don’t eat the fruit?” What if, (the armchair quarterback said) Adam would have listened, and had obeyed His Maker and intimate Friend, had remembered the words of His God and said to the Tempter- “God did say- don’t eat the fruit!” We, however.. generations later, know “the rest of the story..” We know, according to the scriptures- (Adam,Eve,- you lived before these were written, didn’t you?) ~ Your eyes (the eyes of the LORD) are too pure to approve evil, and You can not look on wickedness with favor ~ We also know (now) to disobey God is sin. To obey or not to obey- that is the question. And Adam, God has given unto us, your descendants, the marvelous gift and power of choice. We (all) today, may “choose” to obey! Obedience is only one choice away!
Adam, I’m sure you and “mom,” (Eve, may I call you “mom,” as you are the mother of all who are living?) Do both of you remember what it was like to leave Paradise? Do you remember, with bitter tears, sorrow and regret- what you had lost? And Adam, do you remember the sacrifices of your two sons, Cain and Abel? Do you remember which sacrifice was acceptable unto Elohim? What was so wrong with the sacrifice of Cain? Did he not “do” his very best? Weren’t those vegetables arranged beautifully? And why (he inquired) was Abel’s sacrifice acceptable and not Cain’s? What is the difference in the two?
Adam and Eve, I’m sure you remember the coats of skins that were provided by your Creator for you to cover your nakedness. An atonement, a covering for sin, but since these were coats of skins, (and not fig leaves or some other vegetative material) an animal (was it a Lamb?) had to be slain, and blood was spilled for the very first time, yes, even in Paradise.
Mom and dad, your story is not in vain. We now know, (yes, experientially- just like you)- the soul that sinneth- it shall die and we now know also.. – sin separates and divides.
This, your descendants now know, altogether too well: ~ But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear.~(Isaiah 59.2)
We cannot “blame” you two, after all.. for we also (all) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Yes, Adam, your children, your descendants, also are sinners too- like father-like son. We are all made in your likeness, we all are sinners in need of a covering, an atonement for sin. If only we had a Savior, One to redeem, One to restore, One to repair, One to renew.. “if only..”
Adam, “if only” you knew- “the rest of the story!” For according to the words of Elohim, “in Christ” (the second Adam), in the Messiah “all” shall be made alive.
It is amazing, (Hallelujah, amen! ) all because of Calvary, we have gained far more “in Christ” than we ever lost “in Adam!” If only, Adam, we knew..
Are you saying that Hebrew defies logical and completely objective definitions?!?! 😉
This is frustrating on one level,.. but on the other hand God chose to reveal himself through a language that defies a certain level of scientific, reproducable dissection. Hence, unity is only possible through something greater than man’s efforts. This does NOT discount a scholarly approach, but it provides a modicum of safety for God’s pearls.
Thank you Skip for continuing to take us back to the cornerstone of Gen. 1
Isn’t it amazing that we are so connected in Him that our studies intersect.
YHVH has had me in this train of thought for a few months now.
I’m doing a little study of the Qal stems in the first chapter of Gen. in an attempt to define mans work! I’m exploring the idea that the difference between the perfect and imperfect verbs may tell us which things are fixed by Elohim that we can add nothing to, and which things are incomplete and require a process of continuation through man.
For example; Gen.1:5 and God calleth (imperfect/incomplete action) to the light ‘Day,’ and to the darkness He hath called (Perfect/ completed action) ‘Night’; and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day one. AV.
I know this is simplistic but it has helped me understand better where to put my time and energy. I am a child of the day and must work while it is day toward the DAY! As far as I can tell we can’t really add to the darkness we abide in it. But we can increase the light which chases away the darkness.
If our actions (Joh 5:17 And Jesus answered them, ‘My Father till now doth work, and I work)
are what determine whether we are fulfilling our purpose of being in the image of Elohim or not, then knowing where to focus our energy seems paramount. Jn.8:29 (Jesus said) He who sent me is with me; he has not gone from me, because at all times I do the things which are pleasing to him.
In our congregation’s liturgy on Shabbat we’ve been teaching for several weeks now that it isn’t what we do that sets us apart, but what we don’t do. I disagree. Just a quick perusal of scripture shows that there are far more does than don’ts. I want to pursue the does.
The don’ts stop damaging the image of YHVH but the does reflect Him in His splendor.
So with Gen. 1-4 always as my default my questions are ;
1. Am I engaged in doing the work of our Father in heaven as prescribed by Him thereby magnifying Him as his image barer?
2. Am I working at the right things in the wrong way thereby abiding in and magnifying the works of darkness?
3. Am I working at the wrong things in the right way? Hmmmmmm
Representing Him in Spirit and in Truth is apparently becoming VERY important in this day and age.
Note: Another possibility for the word picture for Adam comes from the understanding that the aleph represents divinity. In that case it could be understood as “divine blood” which fits the first of your noted characteristics of mankind;
“1) Man is the sole participant in the divine breath and as the sole participant is set apart from all the rest of creation, ”
Just a thought. 🙂
“Then God said, “Let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule . . . “ Genesis 1:26 NASB”
Hi Skip,
I can imagine Moses writing the statement above, but I cannot imagine Moses writing Genesis 3
In Gen 3, Eve is like Popeye and Adam is like Wimpy, a far cry from a partner with God
On the other hand, Moses models what a partner with God would Act like IMO
And Genesis 1 describes what a partnership with God would look like
Logically speaking, Gen 1 tells us who man is and then Gen 3 shows us Adam is not like God
The reader is left to reconcile the contradiction IMO
Hi Skip, Could you give me some TW dates/references where you “argued that Genesis is descriptive of tribal literature?
Great topic!
Start by searching the web site for relevant verses in Genesis 1 and 2. Also search for adam and ish. I don’t think the lectures series I did on this ever got to the web. MAybe I’ll do it again someday and put it one video.
Dear Skip in the Jumash Bereshit we learned that Adam was made of three components , dust, water (from the sea) and from heaven (spirit) that’s the right connection from earth to heaven