It may be suggested [that] P
envisions God as “enthroned upon the cherubim” (Ps 80:2; 99:1), similar to
Ezekiel’s vision of Yahweh stead on a cherub throne (Ezek 1:26; 10:1). Because
P seems to allow absolutely no other deity into this creation story, one
wonders to whom God is talking when he says, “Let us create humankind in our
image, according to our likeness” (Gen 1:26). As with Deutero-Isaiah (41:28), P’s
God has no counselor and needs none. All of his works are perfect.
Nevertheless, in biblical tradition the divine monarch is never alone. In
Isaiah 6 he is attended by seraphs with whom he deliberates: “Whom shall I
send, and who will go for us?” (Isa 6:8). In 1 Kgs 22:19-23 Yahweh, seated on
his throne in the presence of כל-צבא השׁמים “the whole heavenly host,”
deliberates with various “spirits” about how best to get rid of Ahab in Israel.
Jeremiah, too, knows of which deliberations within the divine council (Jer
23:18, 22). A heavenly court is also much in evidence in the prologue of Job (1:6-27;
cf. 38:7). Westermann claims that P “was not familiar with the idea of a
heavenly court,” because “angels or any sort of intermediary beings are found
nowhere in P” (Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 144-45). But P’s emphasis
upon Yahweh’s uniqueness does not necessarily exclude divine attendants, as
evident from Ezekiel where God, despite being characterized by a similar
transcendence, is never alone, but always borne about by his cherubim
attendants. In Ezekiel’s vision the cherubim, like Yahweh himself, have
humanlike forms. If Ezekiel is dependent upon P for his imagery . . . then
one may take a cue from Ezekiel and assume that for P also the divine sovereign
both possesses a humanlike form and speaks to anthropomorphic cherub attendants
when he proposes, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to
our likeness” (Gen 1:26). (Bernard F. Batto, “The Divine Sovereign:
The Image of God in the Priestly Creation Account,” in Batto, In the
Beginning: Essays on Creation Motifs in the Ancient Near East and the Bible [Siphrut
Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 9; Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 2013], 124, emphasis in bold added)
The motif of a deity riding upon
cherubs or composite animal is commonplace both in the Bible and in the ancient
Near East. Ezekiel is very insistent that the cherubim in his vision had humanlike
bodies (v. 5), despite having three additional faces of various animal forms
and four wings (v. 6). They have human hands (v. 8) and straight—that is, human—legs
(v. 7), not like some “cherubs” of this ancient world having bull-like or
lionlike bodies with the characteristic “hooked” rear legs of bulls or lions.
Ezekiel’s cherubim thus bear greater resemblance to the tradition of the
semi-divine creatures that bear up the winged sun disk (figs. 15 [middle
figure], 16, 17). By insisting upon the humanoid features of the cherubs,
Ezekiel perhaps intended to suggest a degree of likeness between these bearers
of כבוד יהוה “the majesty of Yahweh” and Yahweh himself who is described in
1:26 as having a partially humanlike form: דמות כמראה אדם “a likeness of
appearance of a human.”
The continuing depiction of the
deity in v. 27 is further veiled in very guarded language. The syntax of this
verse is convoluted and difficult to ascertain; the author seemingly
deliberately avoids straightforward descriptions here in order to protect the
transcendence of the deity. Nevertheless, one aspect of the vision is clear, namely,
the radiance of the divine being. As Greenberg notes, the basic structure of v.
27 is chiastic:
I saw X/from his loins up
From his lions down/I saw Y.
where X is “the like of ḥašmal”
(amber?) and Y is “the semblance of fire.” In other words, the whole of the
humanlike figure upon the throne is completely shrouded in brilliance
(Greenberg, Ezekiel, 1-20, 50-51).
Ezekiel’s portrait of Yahweh is
intentionally opaque—an unfocusable but searing glimpse of the majestic deity
enthroned above the (heavenly) dome (v. 26) engulfed in awesome brilliance and surrounded
by a radiant rainbow. But even this limited vision of כבוד יהוה “the majesty of
Yahweh” is so overwhelming that the prophet’s only defense is to fall upon his
face in reverence (v. 28). . . . the winged
anthropomorphic figure is not so much the divine sovereign himself, as it is
the manifestation of the divine sovereign’s power exercised through his human
viceroy, the Assyrian king.
Nevertheless, the winged
anthropomorphic figure may illustrate Ezekiel’s image of the deity indirectly.
If the Assyrian winged anthropomorphic figure is symbolic of the Assyrian king
as the representative image of the divine sovereign on earth, then the
corollary is that the divine sovereign himself bears some resemblance to the
earthly king and especially to the anthropomorphic figure in the nimbus. Ezekiel
seems to depict the “majesty of Yahweh” as a similarly anthropomorphic
portrayal of a totally transcendent deity. Insofar as the deity can be
apprehended by human senses at all, it is possible to do so only indirectly
through recognizing the divine image as manifested in human form. Something
similar seems to have been the view of the Priestly Writer; the deity’s
statement “Let us create humankind in our image” would seem to imply
that the human form images something of the deity and the beings that surround
the deity. (Ibid., 127-28, 129)
Figures 15-17, referenced above, are the following (taken from ibid.,
127-28):
In a footnote, we read the following about the importance of these figures:
Fig. 15: drawing by the author of
three genii—a humanoid flanked by two bull-men—supporting a winged disk (ANEP,
no. 855). For a similar Neo-Assyrian example, except that the winged disk has
been “modernized” into a winged anthropomorphic figure within the nimbus, see
Seal ANE 130865 (British Museum) from Nimrud, published by Max Mallowan (Numrud
and Its Remains [3 vols.; New York: Dodd, Mead, 1966] 1:48 # 12); repr.
Dominique Collon (First Impressions, 78 #352) and most recently
restudied by idem, “Seals of Merodach-Baladan,” in ErIsr 27 (Hayim and
Miriam Tadmor Volume; 2003) 10*-17*, esp. p. 16* fig. 7. For another example
(from tenth-century Ain Dura in Aleppo National Museum) of a humanoid genius
similarly flanked by two bull-men supporting a now missing sun disk, see André
Chouraqui, L’univers de la Bible, 3.537; for a scene of just two bull-men
supporting the winged disk, minus the humanoid in the center, see M. von
Oppenheim, Tell Halaf (ed. Anthon Moortgat; 4 vols.; Berlin: de Gruyter,
1955) vol. 3, p. 98 (A 3,171). Fig. 16: drawing by the author of winged
humanoid genius with uplifted arms, presumably supporting a now missing deity,
from Tell Halaf, ninth century; see photo in M. von Oppenheim, Der Tell
Halaf: Eine neue Kultur im altesten Mesopotamien (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1931)
152, pl. 32a. Fig. 17: drawing by the author of a winged disk supported by a
four-winged humanoid genius with an eagle’s head, from Tell Halaf ninth century
(= ANEP, no. 653). (Ibid., 127 n. 74)
Critiquing Gen 1:26 as a “plural of deliberation,” Batto, in a
footnote, writes that:
Westermann’s own preferred
explanation of the plural constructions here and elsewhere as a “plural of deliberation”
is unconvincing, because the examples proffered as evidence may be better
explained otherwise. The alternation between singular and plural in Isa 6:8 (“Whom
shall I send, and who will go for us?”) may be construed as the
deity deliberating not with himself but with the seraph attendants mentioned in
the immediately preceding verses. Similarly, the shift from plural to singular
in David’s choice of a punishment in 2 Sam 24:14 (“Let us fall into the
hand of the Lord . . . but let me not fail into human hands”) may be
motivated by the scope of the referent: In the first case “three days of
pestilence” would afflict the entire nation, while in the second case “three months
of pursuit before your foes” would affect primarily David himself. A third
alleged attestation of a plural of deliberation from Gen 11:7, is even less
persuasive; the deity’s remark (“Come, let us go down . . . “) is from
the Yahwistic trident, which contains additional allusions to the deity’s
speaking with or interacting with other divine beings (e.g., “like gods” || “like
one of us” [Gen 3:5, 22]; “the cherubim” [2:24]; “the sons of the gods/God”
[6:2, 4]). (Ibid., 124 n. 65)
