The Pulpit Commentary — Genesis — Section 111

tn P~ nnmctl Adam; descriptive of either configurs.tion which it 11.ctually possrsses. It his cofmn·, rr0m adam, to be red, (Josephus, corresponds to tho rnin, or kind, whioh Gcsonins, Tuch, Hupfeld); or his appear- determines species among nnimnls. It is rmce, fo,m n root in Arabic which signifios that which constitutes tho genus liomo. "to shiJJc," thus making Adam "the bril- And let them have dominion. 'l'ho rclntion• liant one;" or his compactnus, both as an sl1ip of man to the rest of crcntion is now in,liYiclual ancl ns a race, from nnother Arabic defined to bo 0110 of rule an,l supremacy. root which means "to bring or hold top;e- The cmploJ·mcnt of the plural is the first t her" (Meier, Furst); or his natu1·e 'ns indication that not simply an individual wns 11od's image, from dam, likeness (Eichorn, about to be called into existence, but a rncc, Riehcrs) ; or, nnd most probably, his origin, comprising many :individuals. 'l'he rnngo of frnm ad.amali, the ground (Kimchi, Rosen- man'.s authority is further specified, nnd the miillcr, Kalisch). In our imago, after our sphcro of his lordship traced by on enumera- likeness. The precise rch tionshi p in which tion in ascending order, from tho lowest to the nature of ihe Ad.am about to be pro- the highest, of the subjects placeu beneath cl UC<'cl should stand to Elohirn was to be his sway. His dominion should extend over that of a tsclem (shadow-vid. Ps. xxxix. the tish of the sea, and over the fowl of the 7: Greek, u•·rn, uriauµn) and a damu,h air (literally the heavens), and over the (likeness, from damah, to bring together, co.ttle (the bdwmah), and over. all the earth, 10 compare-Isa. xl. 8). As nearly as pos- O.Dd over eve1·y creeping thing (remes) that sible the fo,ms arc synonymous. If any crecpeth upon the earth; distinction cloes exist between them, perhaps Ver. 27 .-So (or and) God creo.ted (bai-a, t.•elem (image) denotes the shadow outline ns in vcrs. I, 21, q. v.) man (literally, .the of a figure, nnd damuth (likeness) the cor- Adam referred to in ver. 26) in his own respondence or rcseD1 blanc~ of that shadow image, in the image of God created he him ; to the figure. The early Fatl1ers were of ms.le and fomale created he .them. Tho opinioD that the words were expressive of threefold repetition of tho term " created" separate ideas: image, of the body, which should be observed as a signi(lcant negation by reason of its beauty, intelligent aspect, of modem evolution theories as to the descent and erect stature was an adwnbration of of man, and iu: emphatic proclamation of his God ; li:J~eness, of the soul, or the intellectual Divine original. 'l'he threefold parallelism and moral nature. According to Augustine of the members of this verse is likewise sug- image hnd rcfcreDce to the cognitio veritatis; gestive, ns Umbrcit, Ewald, a11d Delitzsch likeness to amor vfrtutis. lrcD~us, Clement, remark, of the jubilation with which the aDd OrigcD saw in the first man nature as writer contemplates the crowning work c,f originally created, and iD the second what Elohim's cre;1tive word. llforphy notices two that nature might become through personal stages in man's creation, the general fact ethical conflict, or through the influence of being stated in the first- clause of this tri- grace. I3ellarmiDe thought "imaginem in umphal song, and the two particulars-first natura, similitudinem iD probitate et justitia his relation to his Maker, and second his sitam esse," and conceived that " Adnmum sexual distinction-in its other members. In peccando non imnginem Dci, scd sim.ilitudi- the third clause Luther sees an intimation nem pcrdidisse." Hiiveruick suggests that "that tho woman also was created by Goel, 1·ma1e is the concrete, aDd likeness the and made a pnrtakcr of the Divine image, nnd abstract designation of the ide.~. Modero of dominion over all." expositors generally discover no distinction Yer. 28. _; And God blessed them. Not Mm, whatever between tl!e words ; in this re- as LXX. .As on the introduction of animal spect following Luther, who renders an life tho Divine Creator conferred on the iinQ(le that is lil;,e, and Calvin, who denies creatures his blessing-, so when the first pair that any difference exists between the two. of human being-s nrc formed they nre likewise As to ,~hat iD man constituted the ima:,o enriched by their Creator's benediction. And Dei, the reformed theologians commonly God said unto them, Be fruitful, and mult_i• lield it to have consisted (1) in the spirit- ply. As in the case of the lower creatures uality of his being, as an intelligent and the Divine blessing had respect in the first free agent ; (2) in the moral integrity and instance to the propagation and perpetuation holiDesa of his nature ; and (3) in his do- of the species, "which blessing," says Cal• minion over the creatures (cf. West. Coni, vin, " may be regarded as the source from eh. iv. 2). In this connection the profound which the human race hns flowed," a thought thought of Mai.moniles, elaborated Ly in full accord with Scripture teachin~ gener-. Tayler Lewis (vid. Lange, in loco), should ally (cf. Ps. cxxvii. 3); yet by mnkmg one not be overlooked, that tse!em is the specific, man and one woman an important distinc- as opposecl to the architE cturnl form of a tion was drawn between men nnd beasts 01 thing; tlint which inwardly makes a thing regards the development of their rnccs and what it i~, 11s ,,pposcd to tliat external the mulliplica~ion of their kind (l\lnl. ii. 7), on. 1. 24-31.) 'l'HJ<.; BOOK OF GENI◄:818. at