Gen 1:26 on "Let 'us' make man in our own image"

[livingwordunity]

If it’s a hint to the trinity, then… why? Why a hint? What is the purpose of dropping a hint? Is God the Riddler from Batman or something? What do we gain from that?

“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints.” - Colossians 1:24-26

 

[Timothysis]

That is unverifiable speculation. The Epic of Gilgamesh was written on clay tablets. They are dated about 2000BC at the min.

Genesis was originally composed on clay tablets. The series of clay tablets was added to with another clay tablet as time progressed and another generation record could be etched. The tablets could be copied easy by imprinting soft clay.

By the time of Moses this method was being replaced with dried animal skins and ink as it was so much easier to produce, could fit more on it, and was portable.

So you are suggesting that the Jews in captivity duplicated an ancient method of composition, including introductions on clay tablets so they could then copy them to parchments and destroy the originals?

Dan Brown would be proud of that one.

The idea of Genesis being originally written on clay tablets is nothing but a current theory, unless you have proof of said tablet. It is a stretch to suggest that Moses had the current contents of the Torah since most current biblical scholars believe the written books were a product of the Babylonian exile. If the Epic of Gilgamesh is dated at 2000 BC minimum, then I think that it would far surpass Genesis in its antiquity.

Cargau has it correct when he says: "The epic of Gilgamesh was a story that tried to explain the nature of the gods and their interaction with man. While in captivity, Jews were familiar with other near eastern mythology.
The object of the flood story in Genesis is a re-origin of the myth. It attempts to use the basis of a widely known myth to communicate supernatural realities to God’s people."

 

[Timothysis]

You are entirely off track with the “no serious scholar”, you probably just wont find them spouting on wiki with phrases like “few doubt”.

Really? So serious scholars all believe in the literal historical event of the great flood, with a hero riding the waves in an ark full of animals? And they all believe that, since it literally happened, that all cultures wrote about it, though some got the name wrong except for Genesis? Once again, I will refer you to Cargau’s excellent post to see what “serious scholars” believe about the flood story and its relation to Gilgamesh.

Which brings us to Abraham. Abraham is is Genesis is he fiction?

Just by asking this shows me that you do not understand the point of the early stories of Genesis. The Church has always taught that the early stories of Genesis are more important for what they are telling instead of how they are telling it. To ascribe a literal historicity to these stories is to miss the point. Do you believe in the literal existence of the prodigal son, too?

 

[meltzerboy]

Does it ever occur to you, in reading this passage of scripture, that rather than God making man in His own image, man has made God in his image? The God of the Holy Bible fits the mold perfectly of the only supreme thing the early writers knew of. They had as the greatest beings they knew of, a bunch of fanatical, barbaric, egotistical, tyrants who thought nothing of murder, torture, genocide, etc. God as He appears in the Bible is all these things and even worse. They had no other model of greatness to use. There may have been some benign rulers, but they didn’t last long in those days. Except for the 10 Commandments, I’ve pretty much given up on the old testament as relating to accuracy and the truth. If it were truly inspired it would not require constant interpretation as it has for so many centuries, even to this day, to the OP for this subject in fact.

The first five Books (Torah) of the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible, are an elaboration of each of the Ten Commandments, better translated as Ten Words or Statements. Further, inspired works relate to the authors’ inspiration in writing these works, and not to subsequent readers necessarily. They are generally challenging to interpret and often contain multidimensional meanings and several layers.

 

[Darryl_B]

Really? So serious scholars all believe in the literal historical event of the great flood, with a hero riding the waves in an ark full of animals? And they all believe that, since it literally happened, that all cultures wrote about it, though some got the name wrong except for Genesis? Once again, I will refer you to Cargau’s excellent post to see what “serious scholars” believe about the flood story and its relation to Gilgamesh.

Nice use of the word “all” Timothysis. Try using numbers between 0 and 1 and not only 0 and 1. For example “many serious scholars (neither none nor all) believe what you believe, but at the same time there are many serious scholars (neither none nor all) do not agree with what you personally believe”. Physically the two have the same amount of minimal evidence. But there are also many other problems in Genesis eg with Luz for instance.

Just by asking this shows me that you do not understand the point of the early stories of Genesis. The Church has always taught that the early stories of Genesis are more important for what they are telling instead of how they are telling it. To ascribe a literal historicity to these stories is to miss the point. Do you believe in the literal existence of the prodigal son, too?

I’m sorry but I have never found that whole “so the parables that Jesus spoke are real too are they” argument to match something that quite specifically records genealogies, you could also try “so the vision that Isaiah saw was literal too”. Wrong genre. Though what you should really be asking is “So I suppose you think Matthew 1 is literal too do you?” or “So I suppose you think Jesus Christ actually spoke the parable of the prodigal son do you?”

You also didn’t answer the question. It was not a hard question.

 

[chosen_people]

I’ve always wondered who “us” meant in Genesis 1:26, 3:22. First, I thought it may have meant talking to the Trinity, or to the angels. I digged in further. I’m curious what you think on these notes, and seeing if the author used what they thought in the time with mysticism and assimilated it to the real God, Yahweh, to teach theology.

Genesis 1:26
Then God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground.
a. “us” – ancient mysticism of the gods deciding the fate of man, but what’s different in the bible is God decides for himself.
b. New Jerome Commentary: The bible accepts a divine assembly (of gods deciding): “Let us make a human”. In ancient near Eastern literature, the gods decided the fate of humankind. The bible accepts the picture of the assembly, but Yahweh alone makes the decision. (Gen 11:3,7; Deut 32:8-9, 1 Kgs 22:19-22, Isa 6; 40:1-11; Job 1-2).

Genesis 3:22
Then the Lord God said: “See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever.” 23 The LORD God therefore banished him from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken.
a. “Us” – Used again of an assembly, but God acts on his own.

Genesis 3:24
When he expelled the man, he settled him east of the garden of Eden; and he stationed the cherubim and the fiery revolving sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.
a. Cherubim
b. A continuance of mysticism references.

The Jewish perspective of the Jewish Scriptures:

Bereishit (Genesis) 1:26
“Let us make man”

This indicates that Man was created with great deliberation and wisdom. God did not say “Let the earth bring forth” as He did with other creatures; instead Man was brought into being with the deepest involvement of Divine Providence and wisdom (Abarbanel)

Targum Yonatan paraphrases: " And God said to the ministering angels who had been created on the second day of the Creation of the world “Let us make Man.”

When Moses wrote the Torah and came to this verse (let “us” make ), which is in the plural and implies (God forbid) that there is more than one Creator, he said “Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities”? “Write!” God replied. “Whoever wishes to err will err…instead, let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man He took counsel with the ministering angels” (Midrash). Thus God taught that one should always consult others before embarking upon major new initiatives, and He was not deterred by the possibility that some might choose to find a sacriligious implication in the verse. The implication of God’s response, “Whoever wishes to err,” is that one who sincerely seeks the truth will see it; one who looks for an excuse to blaspheme will find it.

3:22
“Behold Man has become like the Unique One among us”

By eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Man had become like the Unique One among us, meaning that he had become unique among the terrestial ones, just as God is unique among the the celestial ones, for now Man can discriminate between good and bad, a quality not possessed by cattle and beasts (Rashi following Targum).

3:24 The Cherubim

These were destructive angels, who have the responsibility of preventing man from discovering and re-entering the garden.

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky noted that the term Cherubim is also used to describe the sacred, angel-like chidren that were carved from the Holy Ark; here they are destructive, and there they represent the life-giving powers of the Torah. This alludes to the paramount importance of education. Children can become holy or destructive, depending on how they are reared.

(see the commentary anthologized from the Rabbinic writings in the Stone edition of The Chumash)

 

[Timothysis]

Nice use of the word “all” Timothysis. Try using numbers between 0 and 1 and not only 0 and 1. For example “many serious scholars (neither none nor all) believe what you believe, but at the same time there are many serious scholars (neither none nor all) do not agree with what you personally believe”. Physically the two have the same amount of minimal evidence. But there are also many other problems in Genesis eg with Luz for instance.

I apologize for not possessing the mental acumen to discuss the subject on the same level as you and I do appreciate the kind advice that you have given me. Henceforth, I will do my best to employ the methods and advice that you have given.

I’m sorry but I have never found that whole “so the parables that Jesus spoke are real too are they” argument to match something that quite specifically records genealogies, you could also try “so the vision that Isaiah saw was literal too”. Wrong genre. Though what you should really be asking is “So I suppose you think Matthew 1 is literal too do you?” or “So I suppose you think Jesus Christ actually spoke the parable of the prodigal son do you?”

Interesting, then, that you try to separate the literal reality of the parables or Isaiah’s vision from the written literary device, recognizing that there is something more going on than just an encyclopedic stating of the facts, yet you insist on the literal reality of the early books of Genesis when even the Church does not teach it. You seem to recognize that there are different literary genres used in scripture; why do you insist that the early Genesis stories are literal, even though “most” rolleyes scholars do not?

You also didn’t answer the question. It was not a hard question.

My apologies. Oh, and you didn’t answer my question about the actual existence of the Genesis tablets.

 

[meltzerboy]

The Jewish perspective of the Jewish Scriptures:

Bereishit (Genesis) 1:26
“Let us make man”

This indicates that Man was created with great deliberation and wisdom. God did not say “Let the earth bring forth” as He did with other creatures; instead Man was brought into being with the deepest involvement of Divine Providence and wisdom (Abarbanel)

Targum Yonatan paraphrases: " And God said to the ministering angels who had been created on the second day of the Creation of the world “Let us make Man.”

When Moses wrote the Torah and came to this verse (let “us” make ), which is in the plural and implies (God forbid) that there is more than one Creator, he said “Sovereign of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities”? “Write!” God replied. “Whoever wishes to err will err…instead, let them learn from their Creator Who created all, yet when He came to create Man He took counsel with the ministering angels” (Midrash). Thus God taught that one should always consult others before embarking upon major new initiatives, and He was not deterred by the possibility that some might choose to find a sacriligious implication in the verse. The implication of God’s response, “Whoever wishes to err,” is that one who sincerely seeks the truth will see it; one who looks for an excuse to blaspheme will find it.

3:22
“Behold Man has become like the Unique One among us”

By eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Man had become like the Unique One among us, meaning that he had become unique among the terrestial ones, just as God is unique among the the celestial ones, for now Man can discriminate between good and bad, a quality not possessed by cattle and beasts (Rashi following Targum).

3:24 The Cherubim

These were destructive angels, who have the responsibility of preventing man from discovering and re-entering the garden.

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky noted that the term Cherubim is also used to describe the sacred, angel-like chidren that were carved from the Holy Ark; here they are destructive, and there they represent the life-giving powers of the Torah. This alludes to the paramount importance of education. Children can become holy or destructive, depending on how they are reared.

(see the commentary anthologized from the Rabbinic writings in the Stone edition of The Chumash)

You always provide an enlightening commentary from the Jewish perspective. Thank you, chosen people.