The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14).

April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

God’s Image in Man: A Biblical Perspective

Abstract
Over the years, the nature of mankind portrays that he is implicitly created in a special way. The
generally known concept of man depicts a ruler of the universe. Regardless of the race, color,
tribe, gender, language and other seeming physical differences of man, man is still rated higher
than animal everywhere in the world. This is explicitly seen in the biblical account of Genesis;
man is directly referred to as the climax of God’s creation (Gen 1: 28-30). The murder of a man
is blatantly frowned at (it even attracts ‘Capital Punishment’), but the death of any animal is
explicitly permissible and not queried. The fact remains that gap of differences exists between
man and every other creature God created in the word. Meanwhile, the striking difference that
exists brings the argument of God’s image to limelight. The research makes a rethink on what
‘God’s image in man’ entails.

Introduction
The Bible reveals that the first act of God in recorded history is creation. 1 More so, two accounts
of creation are contained in Genesis; the first account gives the cosmic perspective (Gen 1:1-2:
3) but the second account is focused on Adam and Eve (Gen 2:4-25). It is observed that the two
accounts are complementary in nature; telling the story of creation from two different
perspectives. The creator’s interest on mankind is explicitly seen in view of the fact that God
made man the crown of all creations and the peak of all living beings.

Therefore, a critical view on man’s identity and activities brings a notable reaction of perplexity
on the complex nature of mankind. As a result, several individuals have different dispositions
concerning the ‘image of God in man’ as clearly stated in Gen 1:26-27. In view of this, this work
presents a rethink of God’s image in man.

1
Timothy Palmer, A Theology of the Old Testament (buruku: African Christian Textbooks, 2011), 29.
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

The Creator
The first person to be mentioned in Genesis was God; and the same God (Elohim) who created
the heavens and the earth Gen 1:1 was the one in action on man’s creation (Gen 1:27).2 The word
“Elohim” comes from two Hebrew words; “El” meaning ‘strength’ or ‘the strong one” and
“Alah” meaning ‘to bind one’s self with an oath’ or ‘to swear with an oath’.3 “El” is one of the
generic Semitic designations of God that has been mostly used on poetic books (Psalms and Job).
In its etymology it has the meaning of power and control, hence it is used in the sense of
‘Mighty’, ‘Leader’ and ‘Governor’. This title suggests the distinctiveness of God and can be
compounded in several other descriptions, like: El-Shaddai, El-Elyon, El-Olam, among others.4

Even Palmer in his discourse on the ‘name of God’ asserts that ‘El’ is etymologically related to
the Arabic and Hausa “Allah”.5 Since the word ‘El’ conveys the idea of being powerful, Jacob
opined that what is powerful is divine.6 It is lucid from the biblical account that Elohim was the
first name7 for God used in the Bible. in ElohimPaul Summer, examining ‘ )Elohim( - 8 ‫אֱֹלהִ ים‬
the biblical context’ observed that:

Elohim was found about 2602 times in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh, Old
Testament). The “–im” ending denotes a plural masculine noun. Most of the time,
however, when the noun is used for the true God it has singular masculine verbs.
This is contrary to rules of Hebrew grammar. When used of the true God,
“Elohim” denotes what is called by linguists a plural of majesty, honor, or
fullness. That is, he is GOD in the fullest sense of the word. He is “GOD of gods”
or literally, “ELOHIM of elohim” (Deut 10:17; Ps 136:2). In the Greek

2
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/article_image.html (Accessed on 14th Dec, 2018).
3
Norman L. Gielser, Systematic Theology 4 Vol. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004), 189. The ‘oath’ mentioned in
the meaning of ‘Alah’ suggests Elohim as a covenant-keeping God. Christ in Hebrews 7:17 as constituted ‘a
priest forever in order of Mechizedek by an oath’ and ‘the blood of the eternal covenant’ in Hebrews 13:20 is
connected with Revelation 3:8. Therefore, the oath which is embedded in the meaning of ‘Alah’ is suggestive of
the Trinity as engaged in the eternal covenant regarding the creation and redemption of mankind.
4
Biyi Aadewale, Christian Religious Studies for Undergraduates Vol. 1 (Ibadan: Baptist Press Limited, 1999), 51.
5
Timothy Palmer, A Theology of the Old Testament, 17.
6
Edmond Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament (New York: Harper, 1958), 44.
7
Name is held in high esteem in the ancient world and Old Testament in particular. Name is not solely for identity
but it also suggests man character and his nature. The name of God in the O.T therefore tells us about God’s
nature and characters. Those names are not just coined, but they are based on God’s self revelation.
8
Also, it is generally thought that Elohim is derived from eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest
Semitic noun. Timothy Palmer agrees with this opinion in ‘A Theology of the Old Testanent’. K. Van der Toom,
Bob Becking, Pieter Willem van der Horst, Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Williams B. Eerdemans Publishing Company, 1999), 274.
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint), where elohim refers to the true
God, the singular theos is used.9

The plural ‘-im” ending10 as revealed in the observation of Paul Summer gives greater honor to
God. It’s like capitalizing the word, instead of printing “god” or it's analogous to printing GOD
or GOD, though Hebrew has no capital and small letters. The Hebrews believed theirs was the
only deity who embodied all definitions of the title God, Deity, Supreme Power. So they
amplified the noun. 11 Considering the etymology and nature of God as discussed in this part of
the research, it is clear that ‘God’ here is capable of the work of creation because of his self-
existence. In view of this, the research opines that Elohim doesn't mean “Gods” but something
like “the Greatest God of all.” Having ascertained the God (Elohim) involved in the creation
account as revealed in the book of Genesis, the question of what kind of ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ is
actually brought to discourse in the next section of this work.

The Image of God in Man: ‘Imago dei’

Adam was the first human being and the progenitor of human race.12 So far as the history of
nations and tribes in both hemispheres can be traced, evidence points to a common origin and
ancestors in central Asia.13 Having established the fact that God created man; the question of
how he did it evolves. “And God said; Let us make man14 in our image, after our likeness…So
God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them.” Gen 1:26 – 27. Out of all the creatures God brought into existence, man was

9
Paul Summer, Elohim in Biblical Context http://www.hebrew-streams.org/work/monotheism /context-elohim.html
(Accessed on 15the Dec, 2018).
10
Some think the plural form of Elohim refers to Trinity in the Old Testament, but the biblical usage suggests
that Elohim reflects a “plural of honor” or “plural of fullness.” This concept and understanding is not farfetched
in some African cultures (example of which is the Yoruba culture). When a king or chief (sometimes
undoubtedly great individual or important dignitaries speaks, he (being a person) uses the plural “we” referring
to himself. It is not only from the person himself; sometimes it is used by people referring to power individuals
in the community to dignity them; they cognitive pass the understanding that such people are men of authority,
power and influence.
11
E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Genesis Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), 1985.
12
David Mandel, The Ultimate Who is Who in the Bible (Alachua: Bridge-Logos, 2001), 23.
13
James Strong, Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2007), 76.
14
Although some versions of the scripture used ‘man’ in this text; the actual presupposed meaning is human race or
humanity. Cambridge dictionary explains; traditionally, the word ‘man’ is used to refer to all human beings (this
agrees with David Mandel’s ‘Who is who in the Bible’ use of the word Antediluvian in referring to Adam) male
and female, usually in contrast with other animals. However, many people consider this to be sexist, so it is
advisable to use a different expression, such as human beings, humanity, mankind or human race. (Cambridge
Dictionary, https://dictionary. cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/man-mankind-or-peopl; Accessed on
15th Dec, 2018).
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

the only creature in the image and likeness of God15; no wonder the authority to dominate and
rule was given to man from the beginning of creation. This in turn suggests that man is the
pinnacle of God’s creation and the focus of God’s attention.

The fact that man is unique and distinct among all of God’s creation cannot be denied. The
amount of time required for the process of creating man was not indicated, but the biblical
account gives emphasis giving details of how God created man (Gen 1: 26-27; 2:7-8, 21-23).
Adam was created (not born) a perfect man in body and spirit, but as completely innocent as a
child. The image of God16 in man is first mentioned in Bible in connection with man’s creation
on the sixth day of creation. In view of the fact that man was created on the sixth which is the
final day of God’s work of creation; the research affirms that man is the crown of God’s creation.

In agreement with the view of man as the crown of God’s creation is the corroborating statement
of Hoekema which says; “the image of God is the key to man’s identity, in other words, man is a
representative of what it means to be the image of God”17 In the same vein, Awokoya asserts that
man is a picture or better still resemblance of God in some respects. 18 There are several
arguments on what the image and likeness of God in man actual entails.19 In other to come up
with a viable analysis and rethink of what the ‘image of God’ in Genesis 1:27 implies, the
research observes the need to take the etymology of “image” and “likeness” into consideration.

15
Although some asserts that Genesis does not provide the full-details of creation; yet, the Bible makes it clear that
evolution was not a part of the process and in particular man did not evolve from other creatures.
16
Although “image of God” has become ubiquitous in Christian literatures in recent years, it has not been robustly
defined. This is probably due to the lack of agreement throughout church history on what exactly constitutes
image of God, which no doubt stems from the fact that Bible declares but not in detail. “Imago Dei” is the
Latin word for image of God, a theological doctrine common to Jews, Christians, and Muslims that denotes
humankind's relation to God on the one hand and all other living creatures. Traditionally, only human beings are
in the image of God, and it is by virtue of this image that human beings are moral and spiritual creatures.
Because the image of God is ultimately a doctrine of human nature, it has also been inappropriately used
historically to justify racism and sexism. (https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-
religion/christianity/christianity-general/imago-dei; Accessed on 15th Dec, 2018). Therefore, the image of God
imparts special meaning, harmony, design and intelligence to human life. In other words, humanity mirrors
God’s divinity in their abilities to actualize the unique qualities which they have been endowed.
17
Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986),
264.
18
S.O.D Awokoya, The Pentateuch: Studies in the Old Testament (Ibadan: Master Piece Prints, 2014), 79.
19
Several philosophers and theologians have argued on the issues of the image of God for years; ranging from the
fact of seeming differences that exists between the word ‘image’ as the same with ‘likeness’.
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

A Re-assessment of the Etymology of ‘Image’ and ‘Likeness’

‫ צֶ ֶלם‬ṣelem: is a Hebrew masculine noun meaning an image, a likeness, a statue, a model, a
drawing, a shadow.20 In view of this, Holladay and Kohler argues that the word relates to
physical form 21 Although, scholars like P. Humbert in their conclusion have argued that selem is
solely in the sense of a material image and a concrete representation. The meaning is more that
of concrete representation; the word does not have to be restricted to ‘material form,’ but it
rather means a ‘representation.22 In response to the likes of Humbert, the research argues that
there is more than just a concrete representation embedded in the meaning of ‘selem’. This is
explicitly affirmed in the words of F.K. Schumann had:

The Imago Dei does not consist in any particular detail of the person but
describes the human being as a whole without limiting itself to anything taken in
isolation.” The discussion whether the image and likeness of God referred to the
corporeal or the spiritual aspect of the person has brought the conclusion that the
question has been placed incorrectly. Gen 1:26 is concerned neither with the
corporeal nor with the spiritual qualities of people; it is concerned only with the
person as a whole.23

More o, ‫ ְּדמּות‬demut: a feminine noun meaning likeness. This word is often used to create a
simile by comparing two unlike things.24 In other words, demut can mean something being
approximately like an original. Although, Iraeneus argued that selem and demut are two different
words25 the research posits that there is need to be cautious in seeking for distinctions between
the words. The contribution of ‘Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament’ is noteworthy:

The interlacing and substitution suggest that very little distinction can be made
between the two words. This dovetailing opposes too strong a differentiation
between demuth and tselem (Gen 5:1; 9:6], Ezk. 23:14f). It also opposes an
overemphasis on the use of the words with prepositions in contrast to their use
alone. Instead, the juxtaposition of the two words in Gen. 1:26 suggests that the
writer is making a statement about the dignity of man, which he intensifies by

20
W. Baker, and E. E. Carpenter, The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG
Publishers. 2003), 952–953.
21
W.L Holladay and L. Köhler, A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill.
2000), 306.
22
C.A Westermann, Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 146.
23
C.A Westermann, 146.
24
C.A Westermann, 151.
25
Iraeneu’s proposition on the image of God apparently shaped the theology of the Catholics and some Orthodox
churches (C.A Westermann, 148).
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

combining similar concepts. Thus ‘kidhmuthenu’; after our likeness in Gen. 1:26,
no matter how it may be elucidated by the otherwise predominant and
characteristic use of demuth, can only correct a too direct understanding of
tselem, which has a strongly concrete and plastic reference. This in turn paves the
way in for the recognition that in respect of an analogy no identity of God and
man can or should be asserted, but only a similarity (“something similar to us”).
At the same time, what the author of Gen. 1:26 has concretely in view cannot be
determined simply by investigating these related ideas. It emerges only from the
broader context (v. 28) and is explained as a cooperative sharing in dominion”26

In view of the above quotation, the research posits that demuth and tselem can be logically
interpreted as corroborating descriptions used by the author of Genesis in relating the account of
how man was formed in God’s copy; which has to do with man as a direct and original
representation of God.

Since God is a Spirit (John 4:24); the research argues that the emphasis of the likeness in
question is stressed on the spiritual. In view of this, Tunde Aremu and Emmanuel Malomo
opined that the likeness here does not suggest corporeity because God is incorporeal. In other
words, that making man in God’s image connotes God endowing man with those attributes
which belongs to his own nature as a Spirit.27

Thus, the research argues that the explanation above is logical. Paul Enns in his book explained
that the image and likeness of God in man is in three folds: mental, spiritual and moral.28
Although several other scholars have come with divisions like; “emotion”, “will” and “intellect”;
one of which is notable is Francis Piepper in Christian Dogmatic uses “intellect”, “sensibility”
and “volition”.29 A critical evaluation and study reveals that Enn’s divisions and Piepper’s
division as well as many other scholars are relational and arguably the same from their
explanations. Interacting with a sharp lens on the book of Genesis, the researcher posits that the
job description of man corroborates Enns’ and Piepper’s opinion.

The mental likeness has to do with the intellect of man. Thus, the ability to know and
communicate with God who is a rational being makes man a rational being. As a result man

26
H. D. Preuss, G. J. Botterweck & H. Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 259.
27
Tunde Aremu and Emmanuel O. Malomo, Christian Theology in African Context (Ilorin: Amazing Grace Print
Media, 2016), 130.
28
Paul P. Enns, Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1989), 303. Although the social
likeness sometimes is differentiated which makes the folds four (4); the research argues for the embellishment
of the social likeness in the sense that emotion, spirituality and sensibility are grossly connected and
intertwined.
29
Francis Piepper, Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Cconcordia Publishing House, 1924), 144.
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

(Adam) was given responsibilities only rational being could perform, they include: to work and
take care of the garden (Gen 2:15), to rule over all creations (Gen 1:26-28), to name all animals30
(Gen 2:19-20). Far beyond that Adam recognized31 his wife as a helper suitable for him (Gen
2:22). The fact remains that only an intellectual and a mentally inclined being can perform and
be saddled with these responsibilities.

Also, the spiritual likeness has to do with emotions (which brings relationship and reaction);
Adam and Eve had fellowship with God, they feared God after the fall (Gen 3:10). In view of
this, Tunde and Malomo argued that; “the fact that God is a Spirit is undeniable but God’s
consciousness is the human soul/spirit.”32

Furthermore, the moral likeness has to do with the will of man.33 Theissen posits:

Every one of these attributes reflects self-consciousness. A person has the power
of standing up and saying “I know”, “I love” or “I will”. These are all denied to
brute creations of blind force. One cannot rationally ascribe them to the laws of
nature or forces of nature or plants or animals. Plants have life and a degree of
sensibility. The brute has some perception and motion exhibiting some crude
mental workings, which denotes low intelligence.34

30
The researcher asserts that it cannot be wrong to say that Adam was the first ‘Zoologist’; this is because zoology
is a wide , complex and sub-division of biology which relates to the animal kingdom, including the structure,
embryology, evolution, classification, habits and distributions of all animals, both living and extinct.
(Wicktionary: Accessed on 14 Dec, 2018). Viewing zoology as the scientific study of animals is correct and this
can be implicitly applied to the work God committed to Adam in Genesis 2:20.
31
Another closed word to be used here is ‘a judge’. Adam was discretional and logical in his conclusion about the
suitable help meet God made for him. Upon seeing the product of God’s work and labor (Genesis 2:21-22), he
made a logical comment and passed judgment aligning with God’s statement in vs. 18; which could
interpretatively mean God has done what he said and purposed. Therefore, Adam is seen as a being that
possesses thinking faculty, conceptual understanding and abstract reasoning.
32
Tunde Aremu and Emmanuel O. Malomo, Christian Theology in African Context, 130.
33
The concept of man’s free-will has been a hot debate among different scholars for several decades contesting on
the reality of man’s will before and after the fall. It is clear from the Genesis account that man was given an
instruction and the consequence, the research posits; the scene is like a scenario of the common expression ‘the
ball is in your court’. Thus, the truth that man’s decision was foreknown by God, influenced (serpent) and
consequential in nature, does not negate the fact that they were absolutely free in their decision making. Since
man is a rational and logical being with thinking faculty; it means man is accountable and should be held
responsible for his actions. Also, man’s presence on earth (a place where other creatures inhabits (Gen 1:20-25)
suggests that man cannot be divulged from environmental influence since he resides with other creatures
bearing in mind that God relegated those creatures to man’s dominion (Genesis 1:28-29; 2:15; 19-20); this
implicitly, is the key in truncating the serpent’s deceit. Meanwhile, the foreknowledge of ‘God’ – “Elohim” the
previously discussed character in this research possesses the attribute on the other hand has nothing to do with
man’s action; rather knowing every cause of action before hand. In other words, that God knew man will yield
to the serpent’s deceit doesn’t mean God turned man in.
34
Henry C. Theissen, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Williams B. Eerdamans, 1949), 125.
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

Self-consciousness is the true reflection of Theissen’s statement as quoted rightly quoted above
and this differentiates man from animals. The self-consciousness in man is a sense of
responsibility of right or wrong, which has to do with choice of moral ends; these gives man the
ability to say “I”, “me”, “myself” and other personal pronouns. Thus, throwing away the self
consciousness of man will make killing him no more serious than killing a dog or chicken.

Although they can be mistaken; it is important to note that there is a sharp difference between the
mental and moral likeness. While, mental likeness has to do with thinking faculty, moral likeness
of God in man deals with the decision making phase. The moral likeness of God in man is the
ability to choose between possible courses of action unimpeded. 35 This suggests a voluntary
decision and action without any force or form of compulsion. God gave man a moral command
(Gen 2:7) and man had a sense of moral rectitude (Gen 2:25); that was why Adam and Eve felt
guilty after they have sinned (Gen 3:17).

In view of the established premise on God’s image and likeness in man, the research asserts that
the explanations here gives answer to why men are consciously or unconsciously religious
everywhere in the world. Erickson’s observation agrees with this assertion; “there seems to have
been a concept of the Supreme Being ‘God’ even in the societies that are polytheistic in nature.36
Where did this concept come from? How come animals do not have it? It’s obvious that all men
by their nature are ‘worshipping creatures’ because the image of God is stamped on their
hearts.37

Conclusion
The above discourse establish the fact that God’s love for man is outstanding compared to other
creations and His sovereignty is revealed in the course of the creation story; creating a replica of
himself in some respects in other to worship and obey him. The argument concerning the image
of God as discussed in this work is ascertained to be a blunt truth of the scripture, from the fact
that it was God’s statement about the man He created. Conclusively, since God is a Spirit and
cannot be seen; it is logical and reasonable to say his image in man, although real is explicitly
abstract in nature.

35
J. Omoregie, Freewill: The degree of freedom within (UK: Author House, 2015).
36
Maillard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 54.
37
Henry C. Theissen, Systematic Theology, 125.
The American Journal of Biblical Theology Volume 20(14). April 7, 2019
Oladotun Paul Kolawole

Sources
Aadewale, Biyi. Christian Religious Studies for Undergraduates Vol 1. Ibadan: Baptist Press Limited, 1999.
Aremu Tunde and Malomo, Emmanuel O. Christian Theology in African Context. Ilorin: Amazing Grace Print
Media, 2016.
Awokoya, S.O.D The Pentateuch: Studies in the Old Testament. Ibadan: Master Piece Prints, 2014.
Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary. cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/man mankind-or-peopl;
Accessed on 15th Dec, 2018.
David. Mandel, The Ultimate Who is Who in the Bible. Alachua: Bridge-Logos, 2001.
Enns, Paul P. Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1989.
Erickson, Maillard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Gielser, Norman L. Systematic Theology 4 Vol. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2004.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1986.
Holladay W.L. and Köhler, L. A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill.
2000.http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/article_image.html. Accessed on 14th Dec, 2018.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/imago dei;
Accessed on 15th Dec, 2018.
Jacob, Edmond. Theology of the Old Testament. New York: Harper, 1958.
Kautzsch E. and Cowley, A. E. Genesis Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Omoregie, J. Freewill: The degree of freedom within. UK: Author House, 2015.
Palmer, Timothy. A Theology of the Old Testament. Buruku: African Christian Textbooks, 2011.
Paul Summer, Elohim in Biblical Context http://www.hebrew-streams.org/work/monotheism/context-elohim.html.
Accessed on 15the Dec, 2018.
Piepper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. St. Louis: Cconcordia Publishing House, 1924.
Preuss, H.D Botterweck G.J & Ringgren, H. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.
Strong, James. Strong Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. 2007.
Theissen, Henry C. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Williams B. Eerdamans, 1949.
Van der Toom, K. Becking Bob. Willem van der Horst, Pieter. Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Williams B. Eerdemans Publishing Company, 1999.
W. Baker, and Carpenter, E. E. The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG
Publishers. 2003.
Westermann, C.A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994.
Wicktionary: Accessed on 14 Dec, 2018.