PART I
“Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth
the truth may enter in.”—(Isa. xxvi. 2.)
CHAPTER I
Some have been of opinion that by the Hebrew ẓelem, the shape and
figure of a thing is to be understood, and this explanation led men to
believe in the corporeality [of the Divine Being]: for they thought
that the words “Let us make man in our ẓelem” (Gen. i. 26), implied
that God had the form of a human being, i.e., that He had figure and
shape, and that, consequently, He was corporeal. They adhered
faithfully to this view, and thought that if they were to relinquish it
they would eo ipso reject the truth of the Bible: and further, if they
did not conceive God as having a body possessed of face and limbs,
similar to their own in appearance, they would have to deny even the
existence of God. The sole difference which they admitted, was that He
excelled in greatness and splendour, and that His substance was not
flesh and blood. Thus far went their conception of the greatness and
glory of God. The incorporeality of the Divine Being, and His unity, in
the true sense of the word—for there is no real unity without
incorporeality—will be fully proved in the course of the present
treatise. (Part II., ch. i.) In this chapter it is our sole intention
to explain the meaning of the words ẓelem and demut. I hold that the
Hebrew equivalent of “form” in the ordinary acceptation of the word,
viz., the figure and shape of a thing, is toär. Thus we find “[And
Joseph was] beautiful in toär (‘form’), and beautiful in appearance”
(Gen. xxxix. 6): “What form (toär) is he of?” (1 Sam. xxviii. 14): “As
the form (toär) of the children of a king” (Judges viii. 18). It is
also applied to form produced by human labour, as “He marketh its form
(toär) with a line,” “and he marketh its form (toär) with the compass”
(Isa. xliv. 13). This term is not at all applicable to God. The term
ẓelem, on the other hand, signifies the specific form, viz., that which
constitutes the essence of a thing, whereby the thing is what it is;
the reality of a thing in so far as it is that particular being. In man
the “form” is that constituent which gives him human perception: and on
account of this intellectual perception the term ẓelem is employed in
the sentences “In the ẓelem of God he created him” (Gen. i. 27). It is
therefore rightly said, “Thou despisest their ẓelem” (Ps. lxiii. 20);
the “contempt” can only concern the soul—the specific form of man, not
the properties and shape of his body. I am also of opinion that the
reason why this term is used for “idols” may be found in the
circumstance that they are worshipped on account of some idea
represented by them, not on account of their figure and shape. For the
same reason the term is used in the expression, “the forms (ẓalme) of
your emerods” (1 Sam. vi. 5), for the chief object was the removal of
the injury caused by the emerods, not a change of their shape. As,
however, it must be admitted that the term ẓelem is employed in these
two cases, viz. “the images of the emerods” and “the idols” on account
of the external shape, the term ẓelem is either a homonym or a hybrid
term, and would denote both the specific form and the outward shape,
and similar properties relating to the dimensions and the shape of
material bodies; and in the phrase “Let us make man in our ẓelem” (Gen.
i. 26), the term signifies “the specific form” of man, viz., his
intellectual perception, and does not refer to his “figure” or “shape.”
Thus we have shown the difference between ẓelem and toär, and explained
the meaning of ẓelem.
Demut is derived...