The Image of God According to Jewish Bible

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Form of God
The Divine Form as a Metaphor
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

This analysis concerns an article by Jill Middlemas that discusses the concept of imago Dei and the seeming contradiction between different parts of the Jewish Bible as to its existence and form. It centers on Gen 1, 26-27, where God states, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.” This passage would seem to imply that His form is fundamentally similar to that of humanity, at least in appearance. However, prophetic literature rejects any conceptualization of God, whether physical or mental, calling it idolatry and providing numerous anecdotes of how it was rejected. Middlemas argues that the imago Dei exists, regardless, and is fundamentally similar in form to a human body, but it is impossible to replicate for anyone but God, and, therefore, attempts to do so are forbidden. The purpose of this analysis is to critically evaluate the arguments provided by the author and determine whether they appear sound.

The Form of God

The Genesis passage is not the only source in the Jewish Bible that likens God’s form to that of a man, which Middlemas uses to support her argument. Notably, Ezekiel 1:26-28 states that “high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. […] This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” in the New International Version. The version presented in the King James Version is similar, though it makes a greater effort to emphasize that everything in the vision is a likeness rather than a specific object. With that said, Middlemas (2016) argues that the form of God is not fixed in a likeness of a man, rejecting both the gendered aspect and the overall humanlike presentation (332). Her argument hinges on the interpretation of the original Hebrew, which disagrees with the two translations presented above.

In the New International Version of Ezekiel 1:26-28, the description of God is modified by the following lines: “I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.” The King James Version is similar in its description of God as a manlike entity whose body looks like fire and which is surrounded by rainbow-like light. However, Middlemas (2016) argues with both translations, claiming that the original Hebrew instead means that a human, fire, and a rainbow are three separate forms to which the imago Dei may be metaphorically likened (332-333).

With regard to God’s gender, Middlemas emphasizes the repeated assertions that God is not human, the creation of both Adam and Eve in His likeness, and the overall aniconic nature of the Jewish Bible. Per Middlemas (2016), the Priestly Writer and Isaiah both present God with both male and female comparisons because to restrict Him to a gender would be to constrain His form, which would stabilize it into a comprehensible form and result in idolatry (339). I do not have a contention to make against this point, as I do not think of God as intrinsically male. He is omnipresent and omniscient, and the characteristics of both genders came from Him, so it is reasonable to assume that He possesses all of them and more. Additionally, the overall patriarchal focus of societies at the time of the Jewish Bible’s writing has to be considered, as it may have led to unnecessary portrayals of God as male.

It is challenging for me to argue with this interpretation, as I do not understand Hebrew and cannot contest the validity of the author’s translation. However, the most commonly used translations of the Bible appear to disagree with the interpretation. They agree with Middlemas in that the representation of the divine form provided in the Bible is imprecise, deliberately so. Moreover, her contention that the interpretation of Ezekiel 1:26 as a man, specifically, is invalid also appears reasonable, as she provides examples of other points in the Jewish Bible where such ideas are explicitly rejected. However, I still think that the fire and rainbow allusions were used to characterize the form of God as an entity resembling a human rather than to provide different frames of reference. With that said, this emphasis on the humanoid form does not necessarily contradict Middlemas’s claims due to her emphasis on metaphors.

The Divine Form as a Metaphor

Middlemas makes the claim that the Bible is highly aniconic, which is easy to confirm through a recollection of episodes such as that of the golden calf. In Isaiah 44, God explicitly condemns the creation of any idol by human hands, as well, stating that they are bowing to the things that they would otherwise use for everyday purposes, such as cooking with wood. The narrative is that the creation of physical idols focuses the person on the worship of the form that they have created rather than the true God, which will avail them nothing. Middlemas (2016) asserts that the same consideration applies to mental images, citing a variety of different Biblical research (323). No direct Biblical sources were provided, and I did not find the works online through a brief search. With that said, I agree with this interpretation, as the focus on form remains the same regardless of the physicality of its interpretation; humans are incapable of perfectly conceptualizing God.

With that said, the Jewish Bible contains numerous descriptions of God, both in terms of His form and his concept. It compares many objects and phenomena to Him, with one well-known statement in Isaiah 40:11 stating that “He tends his flock like a shepherd.” At the same time, Isaiah 40:25 has God denounce comparison, claiming that there is no one who may be compared to God. Middlemas (2016) claims that the crux of this paradox is not in the comparison itself but rather who makes it (328). Humans are unable to present a likeness of Him, but God may create such a form. I agree with Middlemas that the comparisons are metaphorical rather than literal and that humans cannot approximate God. However, my interpretation of the paradox presented by the statements of comparison and incomparability is different.

To me, it is important to note what is being compared to what in the different Biblical assertions. For example, the statement that God is like a shepherd means to me that there is some aspect of God that may be compared to a shepherd. With that said, the aspect of the shepherd does not encompass the entirety of God but is rather one of His constituent parts. In this way, God may be compared to lesser forms in some of His expressions. However, there is no form that can encompass God other than God Himself due to His unknowable complexity. As such, humans cannot present anything that may compare to Him in the same sense in which God can compare to other things. With that said, I do not see that this necessarily suggests the existence of forms comparable to God beyond a general assertion of His omnipotence and the resulting ability to create such a form, which is implicit without the need for a detailed discussion.

Conclusion

Overall, I agree with Middlemas’s conclusions, though not necessarily with her reasoning. I have no intention of arguing for a gendered form of God or for limiting His form in other ways. Moreover, I have no reason to doubt that He can create a form to which He may be compared, as I do not believe that there are any logical fallacies in this assertion. However, it is challenging for me to evaluate the parts of the author’s reasoning that rely on her understanding of Hebrew, which I lack, and I trust the two translations I used in their disagreement with Middlemas’s points. Additionally, I disagree with other parts of her reasoning, or, at least, do not think they necessarily lead to the conclusions she achieves. Instead, I think that these conclusions are either self-evident or better achieved through other avenues of inquiry. With that said, the article is still a valuable contribution to discourse and should be evaluated more thoroughly by someone more knowledgeable than I.

Reference

Middlemas, J. (2016). The prophets, the priesthood, and the image of God (Gen 1, 26-27). Biblica, 97(3), 321-341.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Image of God According to Jewish Bible

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)