Jewish reading of Genesis

  • Thread starter Thread starter anns82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anns82

Guest
I was just wondering how the Jewish faith understands God saying “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” in Gen1:26?

Christianity finds this resolved through the Trinity, so I was wondering how it is understood outside of that explanation.

Thanks
 
I think he means how our Jewish brothers interpret the passage “In [God’s] Image”. We as Catholics, see it revealed in Jesus Christ!
 
I’m sorry, I should have been more specific. I was wondering about the plural “us,” with a singular God.
 
Yes. Every time I read this passage I see the same thing and wonder how Jews explain that part of scripture. I’d love to hear an explanatin from an Orthodox Jew. I’ve heard and read that the Jews of today are nothing like the Jews of Jesus’ time, not even Orthodox Jews. Would love to hear a reply from a Jewish perspective. Thanks in advance.
 
I’ve heard that the Jewish view is that God is talking with some Angels when he said “Let us make Man…”

🤷

MJ
 
I was just wondering how the Jewish faith understands God saying “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” in Gen1:26?

Christianity finds this resolved through the Trinity, so I was wondering how it is understood outside of that explanation.

Thanks
Briefly:

The word (tzelem) used in Genesis refers to nature/essence not physical likeness - in other words what distinguishes us from other creatures are things like intellect, the ability to discern and so on. That, moreover, is God’s ‘image’ for us of what we are to be, not that we are, in some way, a physical reflection of a physical being.
 
Briefly:

The word (tzelem) used in Genesis refers to nature/essence not physical likeness - in other words what distinguishes us from other creatures are things like intellect, the ability to discern and so on. That, moreover, is God’s ‘image’ for us of what we are to be, not that we are, in some way, a physical reflection of a physical being.
Thank you for your response. I am still a little confused because I take it tzelem = nature/essence = image, which is the same understanding in Catholicism, that it is not to be taken as a physical likeness. My question is the “us” in “Let us make…”

Please forgive me if you answered that part and I did not quite get it.

Also, thank you all who have responded. I look forward to further clarification.
 
I’ve heard and read that the Jews of today are nothing like the Jews of Jesus’ time, not even Orthodox Jews.
Your right, the Judaism of today, is nothing like the Judaism of Jesus’ time, let me explain.

When you look at the Jewish faith,something pops up straight away. After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD by the Roman General, Tidus, and his 10th Legion.
The Jewish faith seized to be what it had been up to that point. The major hallmarks of Judaism prior to the destruction of the temple, had been that, they had a temple and offered sacrifice. The entire religion was focused on this one singlular point, they also had a king and land, which help them form into a religious nation.

After the Romans had done it’s business, the Jews as the religion of the convenant no longer existed, gone was the temple, temple sacrifice, and the Jewish priesthood. These were the hallmarks the essential non-debatable aspects of being a religious Jew.

No Temple, no sacrifice, and no priesthood means no Judaism. What replaced it in history, what as come down to us today is “Rabbinical Judiasm”. This is not the Judiasm of the convenant, it is a man-made religion.

The convenant, that God made with Abraham, that did not seize to be, God did not retreat from his promise to Abraham. When, Mother Mary cryed out;

“He has come to the help of Israel his servent,mindful of his mercy, according to the promise he made to our anscestors of his marcy to Abraham and to his descendant for ever” - ( Luke 1: 54-56)

The promise of the convenant is fulfilled in the Catholic Church, we are the continuation of Israel. We have an un-broken line from Abraham to us, the first members of the church were virtually all Jewish, religious Jews, they went to the temple daily, prayed the prayers of the convenant etc. But the worship was made complete in the sacrifice of the Mass, the Holy Eucharist. This is why nothing was lost in the sense of the convenant, when Jerusalem was destroyed, it’s not so much the convenant was switched to a new group. It’s much more the case a few former members of the convenant stayed faithful, the majority rejected the convenant, as highlighted when the Jewish leaders screamed out " We have no king but Ceaser". The convenant continued in the few Jews, who remained faithful to it, by recognizing the Messiah. Then God, added to they a multiplicity of Gentiles, no the convenant was never abondoned by God. It was abondoned by the overwhelming number that was called to it, and it is continued today in the Catholic Church.

We have The Priesthood, THE Sacrifice, THE temple.

That is because Judiasm is built upon waiting for a Messiah, who will come to institute his reign. That happened 2000 years ago, the Jews who accepted him became the church, the Jews who rejected him, having voting themselves out of the convenant, went off and started a man-made religion. Waiting for another Messiah to come, is like trying to touch your elbow with your tongue.

Rabbinical Judaism, todays Jewish religion, is to authentic Judiasm, what Protestantism is to Catholicism. Looks alot like it sometimes, but at it’s core it very different.

:highprayer: :signofcross:

God Bless.
 
I’m sorry, I should have been more specific. I was wondering about the plural “us,” with a singular God.
Ah, well, I don’t think that the “us” meaning Trinity is an official teaching. For 3000+ years before Christ revealed the Trinitarian nature of God, Genesis had an authentic interpretation to Hebrew peoples, and it would be a bit arrogant, in my opinion, to usurp that interpretation over a single word in the English translation.

The New Testament, especially Acts, for instance, clearly states that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But these texts had a purpose guiding the ancient Israelites as part of the old covenants.

So that being said, I think God’s original purpose might have been a royal we, or a discussion among the Angels. The Son and the Spirit certainly existed back then, but were not revealed yet!
 
Thank you for your response. I am still a little confused because I take it tzelem = nature/essence = image, which is the same understanding in Catholicism, that it is not to be taken as a physical likeness. My question is the “us” in “Let us make…”

Please forgive me if you answered that part and I did not quite get it.

Also, thank you all who have responded. I look forward to further clarification.
Check out who does the ‘making’ thoughout the creation process - the making itself is a singular action.

I’m sure you’ll find lots of posts telling you what Christians make of it or what Christians think Jews ought to make of it but you asked what we make of it. We could spend another couple of thousand years arguing it and we’d still be: “Oh Yes it Is!/Oh No it isn’t!”

PS: Try not to ask questions of Jews at the end of the week - Shabbat tends to get in the way.
 
Ah, well, I don’t think that the “us” meaning Trinity is an official teaching. For 3000+ years before Christ revealed the Trinitarian nature of God, Genesis had an authentic interpretation to Hebrew peoples, and it would be a bit arrogant, in my opinion, to usurp that interpretation over a single word in the English translation.

The New Testament, especially Acts, for instance, clearly states that Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But these texts had a purpose guiding the ancient Israelites as part of the old covenants.

So that being said, I think God’s original purpose might have been a royal we, or a discussion among the Angels. The Son and the Spirit certainly existed back then, but were not revealed yet!
I don’t necessarily see it as arrogant or usurping the meaning if it is believed that Jesus revealed the full understanding of the Jewish faith. Through understanding Jesus as being present in creation, as well as the Holy Spirit, it explains God as being in relationship before creation. This also indicates why it was “not good for man to be alone” - if God is in relationship, then Man, being in God’s image should also be in relationship. There is no love without relationship, so understanding the Trinity explains God’s existence as Love even before the creation of the angles, and how our understanding of love of God and love of neighbor is the ultimate aim in life. This teaching is explained in JPII’s Theology of the Body, so I don’t think it is necessarily doctrine, but it is interesting.

At the same time, I do appreciate learning the original understanding, especially considering God refers to Himself as “I” in other places of the same chapter of Genesis, so the “royal we” seems odd to use in only one place. I could see it being something in particular with the translation to English, though when I consulted an English translation of the Torah, the translation was the same with no explanatory footnotes, which is why I still find it peculiar. I could see it being taught that He was talking to the angles. It does not quite resolve the question in my mind, but I am not opposed to the explanation that the full understanding is a part of God’s mystery. Do you know if the “royal we” or angels is official Jewish teaching?
 
Isn’t this a language / translation question? Can a knowledgeable person comment on the phrase in the orginal language? Does it use plural pronouns, for example? I would be curious to know what can be said about that.
 
I should point out that the Catholic Church does NOT use this example as prove of the Triune doctrine, according to the Catholic encyclopedia.
 
Check out who does the ‘making’ thoughout the creation process - the making itself is a singular action.

I’m sure you’ll find lots of posts telling you what Christians make of it or what Christians think Jews ought to make of it but you asked what we make of it. We could spend another couple of thousand years arguing it and we’d still be: “Oh Yes it Is!/Oh No it isn’t!”

PS: Try not to ask questions of Jews at the end of the week - Shabbat tends to get in the way.
So then is the “us” considered the “royal we” as the other poster said? I do see that God is referred to in singular form and He refers to Himself as “I” elsewhere, it is just that one spot where He says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…” then it goes back to singular.

If full understanding of Genesis is taught as a part of the mystery of God, than I could see that as being part of the explanation. While it is believed that God revealed Himself to us, I think that anyone who believes they have a complete understanding of God without acknowledging any mystery is foolish in not understanding that we are limited creatures.

Also, thank you for the heads up on the Shabbat
 
A common reading of this from a Jewish perspective is that God is speaking to the angels, and being polite by including them in the process, when in reality, it is God alone that creates man, as is evident from a reading of Genesis.

Even if one is to assume the name is used in a plural form in the verse, there’s nothing to suggest it is used to denote “three.”

If you are to argue that Elohim indicates a plural god, you have to explain Exodus 7:1, where the same word is used:

And the LORD said unto Moses, “See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

Are we to assume that because Elohim is used in Exodus 7:1, that Moses is more than one or part of a Trinity?

From Outreach Judaism:

The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. **This is self-evident from the fact that the verb “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1 is in the singular. **This linguistic pattern is well known and widely used throughout the Jewish scriptures.

The fact that the name of God, Elohim, does not in any way imply a plurality in the godhead is well known and widely recognized even among Trinitarian Christians. For example, in the New International Version Study Bible (NIV), which is hardly a translation or annotation which could be construed as friendly to the Jewish faith, the Christian author’s commentary backs up the singularity of the word, and not the plural argument.
 
I should point out that the Catholic Church does NOT use this example as prove of the Triune doctrine, according to the Catholic encyclopedia.
I got that understanding through John Paul II’s writings, though his writings were based on other Church sources. The proof of the doctrine of the Trinity lies more in the NT, and I don’t mean to say the Genesis proves the Trinity at all, just that the doctrine can fit within the understanding. It’s good that you pointed that out to help in clarifying things.
 
A common reading of this from a Jewish perspective is that God is speaking to the angels, and being polite by including them in the process, when in reality, it is God alone that creates man, as is evident from a reading of Genesis.

Even if one is to assume the name is used in a plural form in the verse, there’s nothing to suggest it is used to denote “three.”

If you are to argue that Elohim indicates a plural god, you have to explain Exodus 7:1, where the same word is used:

And the LORD said unto Moses, “See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh, and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.”

Are we to assume that because Elohim is used in Exodus 7:1, that Moses is more than one or part of a Trinity?

From Outreach Judaism:

The word Elohim possesses a plural intensive syntax and is singular in meaning. **This is self-evident from the fact that the verb “created” (bara) in Genesis 1:1 is in the singular. **This linguistic pattern is well known and widely used throughout the Jewish scriptures.

The fact that the name of God, Elohim, does not in any way imply a plurality in the godhead is well known and widely recognized even among Trinitarian Christians. For example, in the New International Version Study Bible (NIV), which is hardly a translation or annotation which could be construed as friendly to the Jewish faith, the Christian author’s commentary backs up the singularity of the word, and not the plural argument.
Thank you, that explains it very well. : )

I was not trying to actually make the Trinity argument, though I did end up rambling a bit before about the Christian understanding. I was just wondering about the Jewish understanding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top