Jill Middlemas, «The Prophets, the Priesthood, and the Image of God (Gen 1,26-27)», Vol. 97 (2016) 321-341
This analysis considers aniconic rhetoric in Hosea, Second Isaiah, and Ezekiel, in order to assess commonality and difference with respect to prophetic and priestly perspectives of the divine image because interpreters draw on the prophetic literature in discussions of the thought of Gen 1,26-27. There is greater similarity in thought between Second Isaiah and Gen 1,26-27 as well as greater tension between Ezekiel and the first imago Dei passage than accounted for previously, and almost no commonality with Hosea. Furthermore, the prophets diversify the number and type of divine images as a means to resist idolatry.
332 JILL MIDDLEMAS
notably expressed through an extended simile form: harmk twmd “the
form like the general appearance of”. In the second prophetic vision,
the divine figure is said to have “the form like the general appearance
of fire” (va harmk twmd) (8,2), notably also using the extended simile
form. The Septuagint translation of 8,2, with andros as of Hebrew vya
“a male”, is often favored by interpreters here, yielding “the form like
the general appearance of a man” instead of “fire”, but I have argued
against this elsewhere and firmly believe that a strongly gendered im-
age of the deity would not be consistent within the context of the Book
of Ezekiel, with its resolutely aniconic, even iconoclastic stance,
which is expressed not only through the use of debasing terms for other
gods, but also through the rejection of male images for deity represen-
tation elsewhere in the book (Ezek 16,17; 23,14) 48. A third, often
overlooked, articulation of the divine image is found in a summary
of the first prophetic vision where the divine form is likened to a
rainbow. Here, the expected simile or rhetorical expression is found:
“Like the general appearance of the rainbow (tvqh harmk) [...] It was
the general appearance of the form of the glory of yahweh (harm awh
ynda dwbk twmd)” (1,28).
A modelling simile, in which the deity’s form (the tenor) is
brought into relationship with another conceptual frame (the vehicle),
appears in all three passages, but the description is not uniform. In ad-
dition, an extended simile form (harmk twmd) is found in the two de-
scriptions of the visions that Ezekiel sees, and in conjunction with the
divine body that is said to be vaguely like that of a human being and
vaguely like that of fire 49. The extended simile in which the more spe-
cific term (twmd) precedes the more general term (harm) introduced by
the comparative k effectively distances the deity’s form from an exact
replica. Its use blurs the image of the deity, like an unfocused photo-
graph. The images are also obscured within their contexts by the lower
half of the image being described as flaming fire 50. The emphasis on
48
MIDDLEMAS, “Exclusively yHWH”, 316-320; and ID., “Transformation of
the Image”, 127-136.
49
from a careful study of these terms, I ascertained that twmd captures a
sense of exactness, but is immediately destabilized by the use of a more general
term for appearance (harm).
50
Ezek 1,26-27: “[...] and seated above the likeness of a throne was some-
thing that seemed like a human form (~da). upward from what appeared like the
midsection I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire
enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the midsection I saw
something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around”. Ezek 8,2: