Guide for the perplexed: Chapter 1
Siri yang diarkibkan ("Suapan tidak aktif" status)
When? This feed was archived on August 04, 2024 11:36 (). Last successful fetch was on June 08, 2024 16:36 ()
Why? Suapan tidak aktif status. Pelayan kami tidak dapat untuk mendapatkan kembali suapan podcast yang sah untuk tempoh yang didapati.
What now? You might be able to find a more up-to-date version using the search function. This series will no longer be checked for updates. If you believe this to be in error, please check if the publisher's feed link below is valid and contact support to request the feed be restored or if you have any other concerns about this.
Manage episode 418460862 series 3573575
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 from the verb damah, “he is like.” This term likewise
denotes agreement with regard to some abstract relation: comp. “I am
like a pelican of the wilderness” (Ps. cii. 7); the author does not
compare himself to the pelican in point of wings and feathers, but in
point of sadness. “Nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him
in beauty” (Ezek. xxxi. 8); the comparison refers to the idea of
beauty. “Their poison is like the poison of a serpent” (Ps. lviii. 5);
“He is like unto a lion” (Ps. xvii. 12); the resemblance indicated in
these passages does not refer to the figure and shape, but to some
abstract idea. In the same manner is used “the likeness of the throne”
(Ezek. i. 26); the comparison is made with regard to greatness and
glory, not, as many believe, with regard to its square form, its
breadth, or the length of its legs: this explanation applies also to
the phrase “the likeness of the ḥayyot” (“living creatures,” Ezek. i.
13).
As man’s distinction consists in a property which no other creature on
earth possesses, viz., intellectual perception, in the exercise of
which he does not employ his senses, nor move his hand or his foot,
this perception has been compared—though only apparently, not in
truth—to the Divine perception, which requires no corporeal organ. On
this account, i.e., on account of the Divine intellect with which man
has been endowed, he is said to have been made in the form and likeness
of the Almighty, but far from it be the notion that the Supreme Being
is corporeal, having a material form.
6 episod