Male and Female: The Visible Image of God’s Firstborn
The human race, composed of males and females as a unit,[1] is created according to the image of and in the likeness of God. This is accepted truth to most Christians. After all, Genesis 1:26-27 seems to make this doctrine clear.
Let us make[2] mankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth. So, God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them. Genesis 1:26-27
But when we read the apostle Paul and his take on our being created in the image of God, we observe a more specific and family-related idea to this doctrine. Observe his family-oriented slant.
“Those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn (prototype) among many brothers and sisters.” Romans 8:39.
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God.
Please do not misunderstand. Paul undoubtedly agrees that males and females are created in God’s image. But he goes beyond our generic understanding of God’s image and provides us with a more developed view, one with precision—Christ is the image of God, with familial overtones (“the image of his Son”), and with redemptive and sanctification implications (predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son). Paul appears to go beyond the generic limitations of Genesis 1:27. Where did he come up with that idea?
Based upon the repeated words in Genesis 1:1, 27, and 5:1-3, I will show that male and female are created, not simply according to the image of and in the likeness of God, but according to the image of God’s Firstborn Son. Male and female, paired together as a unit, are created to be the visible and equal image-bearers of God’s Son who is the image of God.
Examining Genesis 1:1
Let’s get started and examine the text of Genesis 1:1. The traditional rendering of Genesis 1:1 in our English Bibles is:
“In the beginning[3] God created the heavens and the earth[4].”
The first two words of Genesis 1:1[5] in the Hebrew Bible begin with the exact same three consonants in the exact same order: bereshit bara.[6] The two first words look alike, and when enunciated, they also sound alike.[7]
בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א
The similarity of sight and sound of the first two words in the Hebrew Bible of Genesis 1:1 is striking.[8] The use of sight and sound to join words together is pervasive in the Hebrew Bible and is utilized by the writer here in 1:1 to attract our attention and points us to meaning.[9] In other words, by repeating three identical consonants together in the first two words, the writer is not showing off his literary skills or having “just plain fun,”[10] but is pointing us to something significant.[11] This unmistakable consonantal and phonological parallel in the first two words of Genesis 1:1 cries out for explanation.[12]
When we understand the canonical meaning of these first two words and why they are tightly joined together by the writer at the level of consonance and phonology, we discover significant truth about ourselves. Men and women are not only created according to God’s image and in His likeness, but are created according to the image of and in the likeness of His Firstborn Son. God intended that, as male or female, we bear a family resemblance to his Son. Sounds very family oriented and Pauline, doesn’t it. The image of God as male and female involves a special, family connection to Jesus, the Son of God. That claim about our specific identity is worth tracking down.
Let’s Trace that Family Connection in God’s Image
Genesis 1:27
The family connection to our creation according to the image of God’s Firstborn is found in 1:27, a verse intentionally connected by the writer to Genesis 1:1 at many levels.[13]
And God created the human in his image, in the image of God He created him[14], male and female he created them.[15] Genesis 1:27
Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:27
Subject and verb: God created
Subject and verb: God created
Pair: Heavens and the earth
Pair: Male and female
“In the beginning” Bereshit
“in the image” Tselem
In both 1:1 and 1:27, we read first that God created, and secondly, that He created a pair of two entities[16], “the heavens and the earth” (1:1) and “male and female” (1:27).[17] The word “image” (Hebrew: tselem) is used for the first time in 1:27 and is the author’s replacement for the first word (bereshit) in Genesis 1:1. “Tselem” in 1:27 replaces “bereshit” in 1:1. Mankind, consisting of male and female, are created by God according to His image. The mention of “male and female” is surely the clue of a family connection.
God Has an Image: What is it?
So, God has an image. What, then, is an image according to the Genesis writer? What did he have in mind when he wrote that male and female are created according to God’s image and in his likeness?[18] We find our answer and an explicit family connection to His image in Genesis 5:1-3,[19] the only other passage where the combination of the noun pair “image” and “likeness” occur together. We shouldn’t overlook that combo. These same two words—"image and likeness”—are repeated in Genesis 5:3 to describe Seth, the visible, third-born son of Adam. The family connection is obvious.
Observe:
This is the account[20] of Adam’s line. On the day that God created humankind, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female. On the day He created them, He blessed them and named them[21] humankind. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and he fathered {a son] in his likeness, according to His image, and named him Seth. Genesis 5:1-3
The Genesis writer redirects our attention back to the original creation (1:1) and the creation of the humankind according to His image, both male and female (1:27). God the Creator and mankind are purposely set in parallel in two explicit ways, both related to the theme of family.
Genesis 1:27
Genesis 1-3
God created humanity
Adam fathered a son
God named them humanity
Adam named him Seth
God created man/Adam in his likeness and according to his image
Adam fathered a son in his likeness
and according to his image.
God has an image: a visible representation of himself—does God have a Son?
Adam has an image: a visible representation of himself—Seth his thirdborn son
Is the Son the image of God, a visible representation of the Father?
Seth, the son, is the image of Adam, a visible representation of his father
Is humankind the image of the Son?
Seth the son is Adam’s image
Just as God created humans and named[22] them “mankind,” so also Adam, fathered a son and named him Seth. And, just as God, portrayed as a Father, created humankind in his likeness and according to His image, so also Adam, fathered a son in his likeness and according to his own image (a family connection in both instances).
So, what, then, is an image?[23] God has an image and a likeness. Adam also has an image and a likeness. The example of Seth, the visible offspring of Adam, shows that an “image” is a visual representation of the father repeated in the family offspring. Seth, the son, is the image of and the visible representation of Adam his father. This suggests that Adam is a son of God (Luke 3:38) just as Seth is the son of Adam. Both Adam and Seth resemble the image of their creator.
The case of Adam the father and Seth the son in 5:3, constitutes the writer’s explanation of what it means to be created according to the image and in the likeness of God in Genesis 1:26-27. As we have seen, the two passages are intentionally parallel. God has an image, a visible representation of Himself. Adam and Eve are created according to that image, that visible representation. Adam also has an image, a visible representation of himself, in the person of his son Seth. This suggests that there is a visible resemblance between God’s image and human beings, just as there is a visible resemblance between Adam the father and his son Seth. The phrase “in his likeness” suggests this resemblance as well.
The visible resemblance between human beings and God is reaffirmed in other passages.[24]
Moses spoke to God face-to-face, just as a man speaks with his friend (Exod 33:11; Num. 12:8[25]).
Jacob positively identifies the “man” who wrestled with him until daybreak as God.
So, Jacob named the place, Peniel. Certainly, I have seen God face-to-face and my life has been preserved. Genesis 32:31; cf., Exod 33:20
Likewise, the Torah concludes with the same expression (face-to-face) again with reference to Moses (Deut. 34:10).[26]
God Has an Image, but does He have a Son?
There still remains the question of the identity of God’s image, who is the prototype for the making of Adam. Let’s probe a bit deeper.
The invisible God has an image that can be visually seen. Humanity, male and female, created according to His image, and in his likeness, are the visual representation of that image. So, if Seth, the son of Adam, is the visual image of his father, does God also have a son and a visible offspring?
God does have an image. If the image and visual representation of Adam is his son and offspring, Seth, it is natural for us to ask, “does God also have a son, a visual representation of himself?” Does God have a son who constitutes his image? If he does, who, then, is that visible image? Who is the template or prototype for the making of the humankind, male and female? Does that image have familial connections? Has the Genesis writer provided any clues to the identity of God’s image?
God’s Image is His Firstborn Son
The clue that helps identify God’s image is the consonantal and phonological cord tying together the first two words of the Bible (bereshit, bara, 1:1) and the word “image” in 1:27. As we have already observed, the writer linked together the first two words of Genesis 1:1 by consonance (each word begins with the same three consonants—they look alike) and phonology (both words sound alike when spoken).
As we have also seen, the writer intentionally connects Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 together at multiple levels.[27]
Genesis 1:1
Genesis 1:27
Subject and verb: God created
Subject and verb: God created
Pair: heavens and the earth[28]
Pair: male and female
In the beginning: Bereshit
In the image: Tselem
The first word in 1:1, “bereshit” is parallel to and replaced by the word “image” in 1:27. This strongly suggests that there is also thematic connection between these two terms. So, we must ask, is the first word of Genesis 1:1 (bereshit) thematically related to the word “image” in 1:27? Does “bereshit” denote any lexical nuance other than time (“in the beginning”) and, thus shows a thematic connection to the word “image”?
The Predominant Meaning of Bereshit in the Old Testament is Firstborn
Remarkably, yes. The first word in 1:1 (“bereshit”) predominantly refers to the firstborn son in the Hebrew Bible.[29] Observe how Jacob the father speaks to his oldest son, Reuben, and calls him his firstborn and his reshit,[30] that is to say, the first-fruits of his virility:
Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength, and the first-fruits (reshit) of my virility, excelling in prominence, excelling in power. Genesis 49:3
Jacob speaks to Reuben, his firstborn son, and calls him his firstborn and the first fruits (reshit) of his strength (Gen 49:3), the same word that begins Genesis 1:1. The two words, firstborn and first-fruits (reshit), are set in parallel—they both refer to Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn son. Reuben is the firstborn son of Jacob and he is also the first-fruits of his virility. The idea of first fruits is, that while Reuben is the firstborn child of Jacob, he is not the last fruit of his virility, the last child, but the first fruits of more sons and daughters (second and third-fruits) to be born. That children are referred to as “fruits” is unsurprising when we recall God’s original command to the male and female: Be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28).[31] Jacob was fruitful and multiplied.
Examples of Reshit as Firstborn and First-fruits
Three Old Testament passages show the same exact parallel usage of the two words “firstborn” and reshit, “first fruits.”[32]
He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first-fruits (reshit) of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. Deut. 21:17
He struck down all the firstborn in their land, the first fruits (reshit) of their reproductive power. Psalm 105:36
He struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, the first fruits (reshit) of the tents of Ham. Psalm 78:51
It is important to understand that the term “reshit” (first word in Genesis 1:1) is found predominantly in the Pentateuch (Genesis—Deut.), not as a reference to time, but as a description of first-fruits, either of the ground or of the womb.[33] Out of 51 instances in the Hebrew Bible[34] 23 indicate the initial product of harvest or of male potency. Only thirteen out of the entire 51 cases refer to some aspect of time. And since Genesis 1:1 is the single example in the Hebrew Bible where reshit is interpreted as an adverbial of time, meaning “beginning,” or “beginning point,” it is legitimate to ask whether this is what the author intended to convey.[35]
In the Pentateuch, the larger context of Genesis 1:1, a majority (twelve out of seventeen) fall under the category covering the two closely related ideas of produce from the soil and human progeny. Both the first produce of the soil (first-fruits) and of human progeny (first-born) belong to the God of Israel and must be given as offerings or a substitute given for it. Observe some examples of the use of reshit for the first produce or progeny:
First-born, First-fruits
Hebrew word: Reshit
Bring the best of the first-fruits of the land Exod 23:19
Reshit, First-fruits—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
Bring the best of the first-fruits of your land Exod 34:26
Reshit, First-fruits—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
You are to bring the first-fruits of your harvest Lev 26:10
Reshit, First-fruits—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
Which the Israelites give to the LORD as their first-fruits Numb 18:12
Reshit, First-fruits—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
You are to give him the first-fruits of your grain Deut 18:4
Reshit, First-fruits—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
He must acknowledge the first-born, the son…for he is the first-fruits of his virility Deut 21:17
Reshit, First-fruits—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
You must take some of the first-of-all the soil’s produce Deut 26:10
First-of-all the soil’s produce: reshit—רֵאשִׁ֖ית
Based upon its predominant distribution across the Pentateuch and its parallel in Genesis 1:27, reshit, the first word in Genesis 1:1, principally means first-fruits or firstborn son.
Creation of the Universe: A Joint Effort
So, now we are in a position to understand why the writer went out of his way to tightly join-together the first two words of Genesis 1:1 (bereshit and bara) to create a triple alliteration by consonance (look alike) and phonology (sound alike). The specific identity of the One who Created the universe in 1:1 is God’s bereshit, His Firstborn Son. God has created the organized universe through the instrumentality of His Firstborn Son. The very first word of the Bible declares that creation was accomplished through the joint effort in God, with the Son being the main agent.[36]
Israel’s God also identifies himself as the reshon (adjectival form of reshit), “the First (reshon) and the Last” in the context of His role as the Creator.
Listen to Me, Jacob, and Israel, the One called by Me: I am he; I am the first (reshon). My own hands founded the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens when I summoned them, they all stood up together. Isaiah 44:12-13
I am the First (reshon) and I am the Last.[37] There is no God but Me. Isaiah 44:6
These texts establish the link that identifies the LORD God as both Creator and the reshit, the First-Born in Genesis 1:1. The First-Born is the reshit and the One through whom God created the organized universe.
We have also established a familial link (recall the table on p. 7) between the first word in Genesis 1:1 (reshit-firstborn) and in 1:27 (tselem-image). We can observe that the first word in Genesis 1:1, “reshit” (without the preposition be), refers to God’s Firstborn.
Male and Female: The Visible Image of God’s Firstborn Son
We can now also understand why the Genesis writer used the word “image” in 1:27. The invisible God has an image, a visible representation. God’s Firstborn constitutes His visible image, just as Adam’s third-born Son, Seth, constitutes his visible image. The image of God is the model for Adam and Eve, just as Adam is the model for Seth.
God created male and female through the efforts of His Firstborn. Male and female, taken together as a unit, then, both share an equal likeness and resemblance to God’s Firstborn. And it is male and female together as a unit, not male or female separately, that constitutes the visible image of God’s Firstborn.
Let’s recap. God’s image, the visual representation of himself, is his Firstborn Son, just as Seth, the third-born son, is the image, the visual representation of his father Adam (Genesis 5:3). Man and woman bound together as a unity of male and female, regardless of color, culture, religion, or language, constitutes humanity, and as a unit, are created in the image of God’s Firstborn and share His likeness.
This suggests that the Genesis writer is asserting that God is a plurality[38] and that he has a son.
In a creation context, Proverbs 30:4 shows that God indeed has a Son.
Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his hands? Who has bound up the waters in the cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is the name of His Son—if you know?
The Psalmist warns against rebellion against God’s divine Son,
Kiss the Son.[39] Otherwise he will be angry, and you will perish in the way when his anger burns. Psalm 2:12
The Psalmist warns that rebellion against the Son constitutes rebellion against God.[40]
Suggested Translation of Genesis 1:1
So, rather than translating bereshit of Genesis 1:1 with a temporal force, (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”),[41] based upon its principal meaning “firstborn,” evidenced by its distribution across the Pentateuch, and the multiple parallels in Genesis 1:27, let us use the word “firstborn.”[42] Our translation reflects that understanding of the first word in 1:1 (bereshit):
“God, by means of His Firstborn Son, created the heavens and the earth.”
Genesis 1:1[43]
Rather than referring to the time[44] of the original creation, the Genesis writer identifies the actual Maker of the universe and the prototype for humanity: His Firstborn. This explains why the writer intentionally joined together the first two words of Genesis 1:1, bereshit bara, at the consonantal and phonological level. He was pointing us to a special relationship between the act of creating and the Creator, God’s Firstborn. The actual Creator of the organized universe is God’s Firstborn.
The creation of the universe, then, contains a familial element. The invisible God created the visible universe (“heavens and the earth”) by the instrumentality of His Firstborn Son, in whose image, humanity, viewed as male and female, are created. And that Firstborn Son is also the first-fruits, the first of many more sons to follow, even as the male and female will produce many more sons and daughters as well. That sure sounds like family, doesn’t it?
Jesus is the Image of the Invisible God, the Creator, and the Firstborn
So, to answer our earlier question, I would argue that the apostle Paul was reading Genesis 1:1, 27 and 5:1-3 and interpreting them this same way. He asserts that God has an image and that His image is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, the Firstborn, and creator of the universe. Paul supports this assertion. Writing about Jesus Christ, he asserts:[45]
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for by him all things in heaven and earth were created, all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created by him and for him. Colossians 1:15-16
Paul identifies Jesus Christ as the reshit (רֵאשִׁ֖ית) as does Colossians 1:18. He uses both “firstborn” in 1:15 and “beginning” in 1:18 to translate reshit (רֵאשִׁ֖ית).
Paul also asserts explicitly that Jesus Christ is the image of God. Observe the emphasis on image as being something visible, an entity people could see:
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so they would not see the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Cor. 4:3-4
Paul explicitly asserts that Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. Paul also asserts that our sanctification, the process of our new man being renewed or transformed, is completed according to the image of Christ the Creator.
Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his practices and have put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of His Creator.[46] Colossians 3:10.
Paul explicitly identifies Jesus as the Creator and the image of God, the visible representation, of God. Our renewal in the sanctification process gradually follows the pattern, the image of Christ, our Creator.
The apostle John also explicitly asserts that Jesus is the Creator of all things. Observe the three-fold repetition of the verb create:
All things were created by him, and apart from him, not one thing was created that has been created. John 1:3.
The writer to the Hebrews agrees, tying together Jesus as the Son of God and the Creator of the universe.
After God spoke long ago in various portions and in various ways to our ancestors the prophets, in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he created the universe. Hebrews 1:1-2
Recap
God has an image, a visual representation of Himself, His Firstborn Son. That Firstborn Son is the actual creator of the universe and prototype for all humankind, male and female. Male and female, bound together as a single unit, are created, then, according the visible image of God who is the Firstborn Son, Jesus Christ.
And just as males and females produce more sons and daughters according to their image, so also Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the First-fruits of many more sons and daughters. This suggests that both the initial creation (Genesis 1-2) and the new creation in Christ were meant to have a familial foundation and purpose. God the Father originally wanted a big family, composed of males and females, created according to the image of His Firstborn.[47] The entrance of sin (Genesis 3) complicated that original purpose.[48] But now in Christ Jesus, in the new creation, He implements, in sovereign grace, His original plan: creating a big family, multiple sons and daughters who resemble His Son.
Conclusion: Jesus--Bringing Many Sons to Glory
God’s redemptive story of Jesus, God’s Son, shows that the original identity that the Creator designed for men and women, His image bearers--visual representations of his Son, though impacted by the entrance of sin, can be fully restored. God’s redemptive program, launched in time with God’s promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15, founded upon on the incarnation, sacrificial death, resurrection,[49] and ascension of Jesus, God’s Son, was implemented in sovereign grace to fully restore men and women to the image of his Firstborn Son. Jesus Christ, God’s Son, will have many brothers and sisters who are like Him and it is they who He will bring to glory.
But we see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace He might taste death for everyone—crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of his death. For it was fitting, in bringing many sons to glory, that He, for whom and through whom all things exist, should make the source of their salvation perfect through suffering. For the One who sanctified and those who are sanctified all have One Father. Hebrews 2:10-11a
Let us return to Paul’s words, heavy-laden with the theme of family, with which we began.
“We know that all things work together for good of those who love God: those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn (paradigm, prototype) among many brothers and sisters.” Romans 8:28-29.
The “good” that Paul refers to in 8:28 is finally achieved when the brothers and sisters of Jesus are conformed to His image (8:29). When that “good” goal is reached,[50] God’s familial purpose for Christ and for His redemptive program will also be achieved: Jesus will be the Firstborn among many[51] brothers and sisters who have been conformed to His image.
God’s original purpose for men and women to procreate His Son’s image and similitude and have as many as possible to sit at his banqueting table of eternal life, a large family in full-fellowship with Him, will be realized.
Thank you for reading.
Tim Cole
[1] Observe: Humanity is referred to as male and female, not male or female. It is the male and female together in unity that constitute the image of God.
[2] The creation of humankind is set apart from the previous acts of creation by a series of contrasts. The writer uses the first-person plural, “Let us make,” rather than “let there be.” Second, we observe that, rather than describing the creation of humans as “according to its kind,” we read instead, “in our image”. The human image is not simply of himself, but related to his Creator in a way that the rest of the creation lacks. Finally, humanity is composed of and described explicitly as a plurality, male and female, connecting them with the view of God’s identity, also portrayed as a plurality (“Let us,” not “Let me”). The Genesis writer intentionally sets apart the creation of the human-race in order to show that mankind is unique in all the creation.
[3] I am well-aware of the dispute about whether to interpret bereshit, the first word in Genesis 1:1, as a construct (“When God set about to create the heavens and the earth”) or in the absolute state (“In the beginning”). It is maintained that without the article, bereshit cannot be read as an absolute and, therefore, must be read as a construct. This argument is based on the supposition that the first word bereshit is a construct because it lacks the definite article and so literally reads, ‘in beginning of’’. However, in Isa.46.10 ‘declaring the end from the beginning,’ we have an example of the same noun used in the absolute state without the definite article. We find in Isa.40.21 the phrase – “from the beginning” -- where a temporal form is absolute again without the article, and the idiom is close semantically and formally to what we find in Gen.1.1. The same form is found in Isa.41.4 and 26. Consequently, the article is not necessary for the absolute state.
[4] “The heavens and the earth” constitute a Hebrew figure of speech, called a merism, an expression of totality, using polar-opposites, denoting the entire, organized universe. The terms” the earth” and “the heavens” cannot be understood separately but must be taken as a unity. The same expression is used in Joel 3:15-16 showing that “heavens and the earth” in Genesis 1:1 includes the sun, moon, galaxies, and all stars. See also Deut. 3:24; Isa. 65:17; Jer. 23:24. On a more practical level, the phrase “in his house and in his fields,” refers to God’s blessing on every part of Potiphar’s property. Genesis 39:5. The pair “plowing and reaping” in Genesis 45:6 is a merism for crops. John uses the same figure of speech to describe Jesus: “I am the alpha and the omega.” Rev. 1:8.
[5] “The first two words of the Hebrew Bible…a triple alliteration of consonants.” Jerome T. Walsh, Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative, (Collegeville, Minn., The Liturgical Press, 2001), p. 37.
[6] בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א This is an example of triple consonantal alliteration.
[7] The two words are read from right to left rather than left to right.
[8] Credit for observing and calling attention to this unique construction goes to Robert L. Cole.
[9] Berlin observes that “in biblical wordplay it is the consonants that are called into action; the vowels have but a minor role if any.” Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Grand Rapids: MI: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 104.
[10] Contra Walter C. Kaiser and Moises Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 146
[11] These two techniques—words that look alike and sound alike--are called consonance and phonology. Words are phonic and consonantal compositions. Their sound and sight symbolisms are inseparable from their meaning patterns. Both techniques are a common feature of the Hebrew writers throughout the Old Testament. For example, the title given to Joshua--מְשָׁרֵ֥ת מֹשֶׁ֖ה--in 1:1 is a harbinger of events to come across the entire book. Likewise, the writer of Ps 1:1 at the opening of the Writings highlights the contrast between the righteous man and the wicked through consonance---אַ֥שְֽׁרֵי …רְ֭שָׁעִים. Here in Genesis 1:1, these two literary techniques join-together the first two words of the Bible. See Shimon Bar-Efrat for an apt and succinct description of the purpose of phonology in Hebrew texts. Narrative Art, (London: T&T Clark, 1989), p. 202.
[12] By and large, commentators, viz., Speiser, Westermann, Waltke, Bandstra, Alter, Young, Kearney, Ross, and Sailhamer, show disinterest in this striking, triply alliterative phenomenom. Wenham (p. 14) considers the parallel as “mere coincidence” or an example of “literary conceit.”
[13] Genesis 1:1 and 1:27 share common language and forms. Both contain a prepositional phrase governed by בְּ, the verb בָּרָ֣א, the definite direct object marker אֵ֥ת, two direct objects, and the same subject אֱלֹהִ֑ים. The object of the preposition in 1:1 is בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית while the object of the preposition in 1:27 is צֶ֥לֶם.
[14] The Hebrew term “him” is grammatically masculine, but not anatomically male.
[15] Observe the “them” and not “him.”
[16] Both double-entities are definite direct objects with an adverbial adjunct governed by the preposition בְּ. In the first example the governed object is בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית and in the second צֶ֥לֶם. The “image” of God obviously represents a part or person of the deity that in these verses serves as the paradigm model for the creation of the male and female. In 1:27, the writer repeats the same verb (create), the same subject (God), the same direct object marker (אֵ֥ת), and the same preposition (בְּ).
[17] Both pairs of two are depicted in Genesis 1-2 as temples of God.
[18] The writer connects one of the purposes of creating make and female in God’s image to rule over God’s creation.
[19] Genesis 1:27 and 5:1-3 are the only two passages in the Hebrew Bible where the combination of the noun pair, “image” and “likeness,” occur together.
[20] The Hebrew term for “account” is sefer, referring to anything written down. It has the idea here of “the record” and serves to mark off a new section.
[21] Observe the double use of “them” rather than “him.” The Genesis writer withholds God’s act of naming mankind until the male is united with the female.
[22] This is the first time that God is said to name his creatures. The writer has withheld this detail until Genesis 5 in order to stress the parallel between the role of God as a Father and the role of Adam as a father.
[23] Commentators, in explaining the meaning of “image,” typically focus on the immaterial characteristics within humanity that resemble those of God. See Gordon Wenham, Genesis, 1-15, pp. 29-32. See Rashi’s views in Moore, Chumash Rashi, pp. 14-15), Waltke, Genesis, pp. 65-66, Speiser does not discuss the issue, Genesis, p. 7. Westermann opposes the discussion centering around the image of God in the human and asserts that the Hebrew text emphasizes the process of creating. Genesis, 1-11, pp. 155. The term “image” refers to visible and palpable entities or objects, whether in Biblical Hebrew or Aramaic (Daniel 2 & 3). There are only two examples in the Hebrew Bible that are disputed (Psalm 39:7; 73:20). But these examples do not negate the visible aspect of image as they can be read in identical manner as the corporeal substance of men. The antecedent of the pronoun suffix of “image” in Ps.73:20 is the very real and human wicked ones of vv.3-19. But apart from the five uses of “image” in creation contexts, the remaining eleven examples refer to visible images, concrete statues, or representations of people.
[24] Genesis 18 describes Abraham’s meeting with three men, one of whom was the LORD; Gen 18:10, 13-15. All three men have feet (18:4), eat food (18:8), speak, walk, and hear (18:5,16). The one distinction between this meeting of God and a human from the Jacob and Moses narratives is the absence of Abraham’s declaration that he had seen God. But he saw three men, one of whom is explicitly identified as the LORD (18:2, 10, 13-15).
[25] Moses’ face-to-face meeting with the LORD appears to be equal to “he sees the form of the LORD”, Num 12:8. The prophet Hosea does identify the creature who wrestled with Jacob as “the angel.” But the angel of the LORD is equated with the LORD himself. See Gen 16:7.
[26] The prophet Ezekiel, who saw visions of God, exploits consonance similar to what we find in Genesis 1:26 and 5:1 to describe an anthropomorphic heavenly being upon a throne (1:26). The portrayal of the LORD in Isaiah 6:1-7, and interpreted as Jesus by John in John 12:41 is similar.
[27] See note 12.
[28] Both pairs of direct objects, “heavens and the earth” and “male and female,” are portrayed as sanctuaries.
[29] The related ideas of “chief” or “choicest” were also expressed by reshit, presumably since the “first” was considered preeminent and superior. “Underlying this rationale is the ubiquitous biblical notion that the first is also the best.” See Jon Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 59.
[30] The term bereshit is simply the term reshit with the prefixed preposition “be”.
[31] Elizabeth calls the unborn Jesus, “the fruit” of Mary’s womb. Luke 1:42.
[32] Out of the 51 instances of reshit(—רֵאשִׁ֖ית) in the Masoretic Text, 23 indicate the initial product or of male potency. In fact, only 13 out of the entire 51 cases refer to the beginning of a temporal work, while the bulk of cases describe substantive initial issue. There are two Hebrew words that convey the idea of an initial, beginning point or initial point in time. They are rishonah and techillah. The term bereshit in Genesis 1:1, in contrast, does not convey this idea. When used to indicate time, it refers to an extended but indeterminate period-of-time, not a specific moment in time. See this use for example in Job 8:7; 42:12; Genesis 10:10, Jeremiah 26:1; 27:1; 28:1.
[33] Produce or progeny. Adam himself is technically also a product of the ground, a first-fruit, yet modeled after the divine image.
[34] The Masoretic Text.
[35] Reshit, when used for the idea of time, does not connote the beginning point of a sequence of actions, nor a series of events in time, but instead, marks the beginning in opposition to the end, signaled via phonology by the Hebrew term aharit, “the end.” The Genesis author uses two other terms to mark the starting point of a sequence of actions in opposition to the second, or the initial start of a series of events in opposition to the “second”: בַּתְּחִלָּ֔ה “And he went on his journeys from the Negev as far as Bethel, to the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Ai.” Gen 13:3; 41:21; 43:18,20). בָּרִאשֹׁנָ֑ה "to the place which he had made there in the beginning.” Gen 13:4; 28:19; 38:28. So, if the author in 1:1 had wanted to convey the idea of a starting point, with the meaning, “God’s first act was to create the universe,” he would have used rishonah or techillah. Sailhamer argues, “As Rashi argued, if the author had wanted to say that the heavens and the earth were created first in a series, he would have used barisonah. The use of reshit in 1:1 strongly suggests that the author’s choice was motivated by its association with aharit.” John S. Sailhamer, Genesis, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 2, Eds., Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard Polcyn (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990). P, 23.
[36] The apostles Paul and John and the writer to the Hebrews supports this claim for the Son of God. John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:1-3.
[37] Cf., Revelation 1:8, 17. Jesus identifies himself as the first and the last.
[38] Observe the first-person plural: “Let us make mankind in our image.” 1:26; “The LORD God said, ‘Since man has become like one of us.’” Genesis 3:22; 11:7. Scholars interpret the plural as referring to the heavenly court or a plural of self-deliberation. Grammatically, while Hebrew nouns can be understood as a plural of majesty, pronouns cannot.
[39] “Son” is an Aramaic loan word for son (bar) which continues the thought of the Son of 2:7 where the Hebrew term son (beniy) is used. Interpreters typically reject this Aramaic loan word in a Hebrew poem. However, observation will show that the same loan word bar is used in Prov. 31:2 three times. How do we explain the use of an Aramaic loan word here? The writer is using consonance (words that look alike) to draw a connection between “the Son” and “iron” in 2:9. The God of Israel has given his divine Son (bar) the power to smash his enemies with a rod (barzel) of iron. The absence of the article with “Son” does not connote indefiniteness. The terms “nations” (2:1,8) and “earth” (2:2,8,10) are also anarthrous but definite in meaning: “the nations”, “the earth.”
[40] “He is the ‘Son’ (bar) who is to be rendered homage at the outset of v. 12 and whose ‘anger’ (po) can be kindled quickly. The identical form po appears in Ps. 2:5, and there it is clearly referring to the anger of the ‘One’ sitting in heaven of v. 4 as the King and Son of God of Ps. 2, and the man of Ps.1. His enthronement in heaven is declared emphatically in v. 6, presumably by His Father God, whose words to Him are quoted in vv.7 and 8. The close Father/son relationship clarifies how the rebellion of vv. 1 and 2 can be directed against both the Lord and His Messiah”. Robert L. Cole, “Psalms 1-2: The Divine Son of God,” The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy, Gen Eds: Michael Rydelnick and Edwin Blum (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2019), p. 485.
[41] A clue that bereshit can include a temporal force in 1:1 is the sequence of seven days, the first week whereby the land is shaped, follows its use in verse one. Bereshit, “the beginning of days,” has a perfect counterpart with the term aharit, “the end of days” (Gen 49:1; Num 24:14; Deut 4:30; 31:29). Both bereshit and aharit constitute a word pair throughout the Hebrew Bible (Deut 11:12; Isa 46:10; Job 8:7; 42:12).
[42] “Reshit” is defined as “first-fruits, the first of the harvest or the fruit of the womb.” See A. Even-Soshan, Konkopdanzia Hadashah (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1982,) p. 1052, “bereshit.”
[43] The Hebrew preposition that governs bereshit (Firstborn) in 1:1 is the exact same preposition that governs tselem (image) in 1:27. This adds an additional link between 1:1 and 1:27.
[44] Despite the fact that only thirteen out of the entire 51 cases of “reshit” refer to a temporal period in the Hebrew Bible, the temporal sense remains the most common view in English translations. Yet none of these 13 temporal uses of “reshit,” denotes a precise, beginning point of time. See for example, Jer. 26:1, 27:1, 28:1; Isa. 46:10; Deut. 11:12. 21:17, 26:2.
[45] The presence of God’s Son in creation is supported by Proverbs 8:22-31, another creation context where reshit is found. The speaker of Proverbs 8:22-23 is identified as the “the firstborn of his way” (8:22), creating a link to Genesis 1:1.
[46] The Creator has been identified as Jesus Christ in 1:15-16.
[47] Does God’s evaluation of the man’s solitude, “it is not good for the man to be by himself,” (Gen 2:18), contain an echo of his own Son’s solitude?
[48] Despite the entrance of sin, the image of God is not wiped out, but continues in the human race, even in depraved humanity. See the use of “image of God” in the post-flood era, Genesis 9:5-6. Due to the value of the image of God in humanity, God demands compensation when human life is taken.
[49] The entrance of sin in the human-race brought death. Rom 5:12. But Christ has been raised from the dead, the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep. Paul uses the same term as to describe Christ as the first-fruits from the dead, the first of many
[50] See Romans 6:5 and Philippians 3:21.
[51] Signaling the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Genesis 12:1-3; 15.