Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/134

32 Ea forms a zikru in his wise heart before creating Aṣūšunamir (ib. 86. l. 11). In both cases the reference is obviously to the bodily form of the created being. See, further, KAT$3$ 506; ATLO$2$, 167. The patristic and other theological developments of the doctrine lie beyond the scope of this commentary; and it is sufficient to observe with regard to them—(1) that the 'image' is not something peculiar to man's original state, and lost by the Fall; because P, who alone uses the expression, knows nothing of a Fall, and in 9$6$ employs the term, without any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind. (2) The distinction between 🇬🇷 (imago) and 🇬🇷 (similitudo)—the former referring to the essence of human nature and the latter to its accidents or its endowments by grace—has an apparent justification in G, which inserts 🇬🇷 between the two phrases (see below), and never mentions the 'likeness' after 1$26$; so that it was possible to regard the latter as something belonging to the divine idea of man, but not actually conferred at his creation. The Heb. affords no basis for such speculations: cf. 5$1. 3$ 9$6$.—(3) The view that the divine image consists in dominion over the creatures (Greg. Nyss., Chrysostom, Socinians, etc.) is still defended by Ho.; but it cannot be held without an almost inconceivable weakening of the figure, and is inconsistent with the sequel, where the rule over the creatures is, by a separate benediction, conferred on man, already made in the image of God. The truth is that the image marks the distinction between man and the animals, and so qualifies him for dominion: the latter is the consequence, not the essence, of the divine image (cf. Ps. 8$6ff.$, Sir. 17$2-4$)—(4) Does the image refer primarily to the spiritual nature or to the bodily form (upright attitude, etc.) of man? The idea of a corporeal resemblance seems free from objection on the level of OT theology; and it is certainly strongly suggested by a comparison of 5$3$ with 5$1$. God is expressly said to have a 'form' which can be seen (, Nu. 12$8$, Ps. 17$15$); the OT writers constantly attribute to Him bodily parts; and that they ever advanced to the conception of God as formless spirit would be difficult to prove. On the other hand, it may well be questioned if the idea of a spiritual image was within the compass of Heb. thought. Di., while holding that the central idea is man's spiritual nature, admits a reference to the bodily form in so far as it is the expression and organ of mind, and inseparable from spiritual qualities. It might be truer to say that it denotes primarily the bodily form, but includes those spiritual attributes of which the former is the natural and self-evident symbol. —Note the striking parallel in Ovid, Met. i. 76 ff.

Man is here generic (the human race), not the