God creates man
"Let us make Man in our image, after our likeness. They shall rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky and over the animal, the whole earth and every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So, God created Man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
This is a very familiar English translation of the creation of man in Genesis chapter 1. Many of the available versions, including the Hebrew Bible itself, word it this way or very close to. Unfortunately, I do realize that we find ourselves at the mercy of the translators. How can we know for sure that the ancient text actually said that? Fortunately, we now possess more access to information than ever before, so we should be questioning, studying and thinking critically about the text and translations but also trying to keep in mind the plain and simple meaning.
If the Hebrew Bible is true, then our understanding of this text is critical to the way we understand God, the world and the people in it. Don’t just take my word for anything, I am no one special, please, please, please, study, think and conclude. Seek out other resources, learn Hebrew even. But for the purpose of this space, because there does seem to be some kind of agreement across the board of how this is translated, that is what we are going to work from.
Let’s take a closer look at verse 27, "so God created man in His image, in the image of God He created HIM, male and female (emphasis is mine). Is it possible that the first man was originally both male and female in one, androgynous? (I am trying to choose my words carefully, but it is hard when definitions continue to change.) We do know that later in the text, God separates a side from man to make woman. There is also documentation from the past and the present of intersex humans, those that have the characteristics or nature of both male and female. So, an intersex human is completely plausible.
Now if at the beginning of creation, man was male and female in one and man was created in God's image, then can we assume that God is similar, being or having both "sides". Is that what the meaning of image is here? I want to tread very carefully and not imply anything but could this also be why it has been translated "us" and "our". Again, we are told later that God is one, so I am not suggesting anything other. Maybe image refers later to the command that mankind was given, to rule over or have authority over, and because we know that is the relationship of God over man, is that the meaning of God’s image? I have also heard it presented that the reason it says us and our is because God was speaking about himself and the angels. We won’t have the answer, but it is interesting to consider.
Now this all takes place in chapter one, on the 6th day. It continues by saying that "God blessed them and God said to them, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue… God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good. Right away we see that God gives humanity a command, a purpose, a function. Now something that poses a little bit of a head scratcher is then found later in chapter 2 v. 5, "now all the trees of the field were not yet on the earth and all the herb of the field had not yet sprouted, for Hashem God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the soil. A mist ascended from the earth and watered the whole surface of the soil. And Hashem God formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life; and man became a living being.” Wait a minute, I thought man was already created, along with all the vegetation… how do we explain this? Again, I'm not sure that we can but I will pose several options to consider.
Could it be that God in chapter 1 created the whole earth, including "wild vegetation" AND mankind/humanity and then in chapter 2 more specifically talks only about God's garden and the specific man that God created to work it? Were there separate creations?
On the 6th day, He did not command man to work the soil. He told man to rule over, multiply and subdue. In chapter 2, the purpose of the man was to guard and work in God’s garden. Not only does it speak differently about man, it also introduces a different term when referring to vegetation, the trees of the field and the herb of the field, all in context with the garden. Using what we know about the world, gardens do require a different kind of management, cultivation, work, etc. The wild does its own thing and really needs no intervention from man at all. We can clearly see in chapter 2, differences about man, vegetation and God because not only does it use the name Elohim, it adds Yahweh before it. Why would that be?
What if the 7-day narrative was a general creation if you will? A creation that did not experience a “personal” or intimate relationship with God and that is why only Elohim is the term used there. Keep in mind though, that they did still receive their command from God. Then in chapter 2 we see Yahweh (Hashem) Elohim, a more personal name for God. Is it possible that this is so because the creation made specifically in chapter 2 was to tend God’s Garden or work in God’s presence on earth (i.e. tabernacle). And that’s why God breathed into him a soul, a divine breath. Could one be general humanity and the other ‘sons of God’? Could that be why there were different commands for them to obey because they were actually in the service of God in a more personal experience.
Maybe the author is just giving us greater detail in chapter 2 about the creation of man and how the vegetation actually sprouted. I’m not sure. Both scenarios have potential problems down the road, but I think it is good to consider both as we read through the continuing narrative. Who knows, maybe there is a different explanation altogether.
Regardless, we now have man, in the garden of Eden and we see in 2:18 that Hashem God said, "it is not good that man be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him." Then He brings all the beasts and birds that He created for man to name them but no helper was found for him. Now the Hebrew word used here is ezer. "There are over a hundred references of the root of this word in the old testament and about twenty one references that use the identical word. Incredibly, the vast majority of times that this word appears are in reference to God, often when He is delivering His people. The woman is an ezer, and so is God.. Ezer is a powerful word that is a combination of two words, one meaning "to rescue", "to save", the other meaning "to be strong". It seems as though ezer has more to do with what helping looks like and doesn't seem to suggest anything about hierarchy or submission.” (Woman, thy name is ezer)
Which leads to our final point. In v. 21 Hashem casts a deep sleep upon the man and takes one of his ribs (SIDES) and fashions it into a woman.. The root word used there is most often translated in other parts of the bible as side. Given what we considered above about man being made androgynous, lets stick with side as the correct translation, a whole half of man, if you will. When we combine that with what we learned about ezer, does that line up with what the church teaches about men and women, headship and so on? Hmm… just wondering. Let us also remember what we considered in our previous post, In the beginning about balance, function, benefit, life producing and fulfilled purpose.
I must admit to you, my head is spinning quite a bit. Many mysteries for sure and as we continue working our way through the text, I’m sure we’ll find ourselves considering these mysteries again. Let us be careful to not hold fast to biases that are quite possibly not as absolute as we might have once thought and let us instead be open to consider possibilities. Do these possibilities help us understand humanity more fully? Does it help us consider or explain why there are feminine males and masculine females. What about homogonous relationships, transgender and so forth. As we carefully consider, we also must not lose sight of tov, the functional balance of the created purpose. If there is a God and if He created us, we do have a God given purpose and anything contrary to that is ra.
In closing, we see at the end of chapter 2 that man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife (woman) and they shall become one flesh. To me this feels slightly out of place because in the story so far, we haven’t been introduced yet to mothers and fathers however, maybe the writer is just implying what we do already know. I find it very interesting though, that the union between man and woman is referred to as one flesh.. you mean like how man was before God took the woman from man?