Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au>]

Hi Mark (or Mary?).


> Considering the object is not the same in the statements allows for a dif
> theologically. Adam was mared by the fall. The sin nature was passed to
> Seth. When you attempt to define "image" I believe it sheds light on the
> passage. Adam was now mortal (yet designed and destined for eternity)-- so
> were his offspring.

The problem is, though, that in Ch 5, there is no mention of the fall or 
expulsion
from Eden. It isn't even on the agenda. In fact, it expressly states that Man 
is in
the image of God and Seth was in the image of Adam. As Lewis pointed out, 
there does
seem to be a flow of thought which in parallel, not in contrast, to the idea 
of
passing on an image. Moreover, I agree with Andrew's remarks that the point 
being made
has nothing to do with sin or mortality. Rather, it is a statement about 
offspring.
That is, direct offspring are the image of their parent(s). It is careful to 
note that
the word "image" is derived from a root meaning to "carve out", so the idea 
is a
little carving, or statuette. In this regard, the plants and animals are not 
the image
of God because they are not little versions of God - they are made according 
to their
own kind. Man, however, is distinguished as being a little version of God - 
or to put
it another way, Man is the offspring of God. This certainly cannot be claimed 
of
anything else in the Creation narratives.

So, Seth, being the son of Adam, is the in the image of Adam. Similarly, Adam 
(or
"mankind" generally) is the son of God, and so is in the image of God. (Cf 
similar
ideas in Luke 3:38; Acts 17:28 - perhaps John 1:18).

Best regards,
GEORGE ATHAS
Dept of Semitic Studies,
University of Sydney
- Email: gathas AT mail.usyd.edu.au
---------------------------------------------------
Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm
---------------------------------------------------