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...