Genesis 1:26

[Linda_Di]

In Genesis 1:26 God says" Let us make humankind in our image…

Who is being referred to as “our” I thought there was only one God? Would it be referring Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

 

[Garyjohn2]

Hello,

I think it can be interpretted this way. This confused me for a long time too.

A different way to look at it is in the translation. I heard there is an old english use of the word “we” (that also exists in other cultures) that can refer to a singular person. It’s kind of a formal use, for royalty.

For example, a king could say to a jester “we are not pleased with your performance.” The “we” is only referring to himself.

Similarly consider a servant addressing a king, “are we in the mood for breakfast, sire?” He is referring singularly to the king.

God, being worthy of honor, is given this type of formal language in our Bible translations.

Even in modern times, sometimes parents use this type of language with their kids, kind of sarcastically. “Are we going to have a tantrum over this?” This is referring to the child only, the parent will not have a tantrum.

But yeah, it’s kind of confusing, but “we” can be used for the singular!

If anyone has other explanations, I’m interested in those too.

 

[agrange]

Anything that I have ever seen has always indicated this passage as a direct reference to the Holy Trinity.

 

[DCNBILL]

It is true tha a theological interpretation can be made for the concept of the Trinity here.

However the ancient Jews did not have this concept. In the Near Eastern tradition of the time there was a concept of a Divine Assembly, it seems that the writers of this Scripture took this concept and placed Yahweh (God) as the presider and head of this assembly. This can be found in numerous places in the Hebrew Scripture.

Let us offer one another a sign of peace,

bill

 

[EnterCanaan]

Well the nature of God is a three person nature. However you are correct this doctrine was not even remotely developed during this period in History,

However the word is not YAWEH, the word is ELOHIM.

Elohim is a plural name for God. Now of course we know there is only one God, however this word Elohim, represents the plural nature of God. So before anybody knew of the Holy Spirit, and our Lord Jesus Christ, all we knew of was God. And God is the author of Genesis, God spoke, and Moses, being moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote the words God spoke to hiim. So this is the way God commanded Moses to write, and God used the word Elohim, which is a plural name for God. Thats about as best as we can get with the text.

However we know now, in this latter day, that God is a three person nature, so as we read the “let US make man in Our image” and like language, we know this is God and Christ who is God and the Holy Spirit who is God as the same God, though this was undeveloped, God in His foresight saw the completion of the bible one day and so began to develop the doctrine from the very start, though it is only very recently in the scheme of history, that this could be understood.

John 1 (King James Version)
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So we can compare scripture to scripture and see how God develops His doctrine. It wasn’t until thousands of years later, and this gospel of John was written, that we can compare the scripture and see that the We and Our is actually God and the Word who was God.

Genesis 1:3-5 (King James Version)
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

John 1:4-10 (King James Version)
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Your speculation is correct concerning it being the Trinity. Here is my commentary on Genesis 1-3 litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Commentary+on+Genesis+by+John+Litteral

Here is what I wrote for 1:26

**Let us make man according to our image and likeness- **Notice the plurality of “Let us”, this is to show the plurality of God, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity- the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This by no means shows that there are more than one God, nor does it mean that God was talking to the angels. CCC 36 CCC 343 CCC 2501 CCC 2809

according to our image and likeness- We are in the image of God by means of our souls, which are immortal and spirit. Tertullian [Against Maricon 5.7] expands this also of the relation to the Son and Holy Spirit: “the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man.”

let them have dominion over the fish… Man being in the image of God, indicates an order of procession that puts man superior to the animals

 

[DCNBILL]

Well the nature of God is a three person nature. However you are correct this doctrine was not even remotely developed during this period in History,

However the word is not YAWEH, the word is ELOHIM.

Elohim is a plural name for God. Now of course we know there is only one God, however this word Elohim, represents the plural nature of God. So before anybody knew of the Holy Spirit, and our Lord Jesus Christ, all we knew of was God. And God is the author of Genesis, God spoke, and Moses, being moved by the Holy Spirit, wrote the words God spoke to hiim. So this is the way God commanded Moses to write, and God used the word Elohim, which is a plural name for God. Thats about as best as we can get with the text.

Very true, but if you will note that in Gen 2:4 the mame of God is stated as Yaweh Elohim suggesting a plurality with the Covenant God understanding as the head. And of course as you rightly state this concept was later developed through the grace of the Holy Spirit to be the Trinity. Good job!

Let us offer one another a sign of peace.

bill

 

[EnterCanaan]

Very true, but if you will note that in Gen 2:4 the mame of God is stated as Yaweh Elohim suggesting a plurality with the Covenant God understanding as the head. And of course as you rightly state this concept was later developed through the grace of the Holy Spirit to be the Trinity. Good job!

Let us offer one another a sign of peace.

bill

Oh ya, for sure!! I like when we are all in harmony. It makes me feel good to know we can share a truth together!! cool.

 

[PeterK]

Guys,
The problem with the plural referring to the Trinity is there is nothing in the term elohim specifying three, or two, or four, etc.
On the word alone, a case equally exists for a polytheistic meaning as well as triune nature.
Israel was exclusively monotheistic. Their most important prayer, Shema Israel, [Deut.6.4] states this very clearly. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; …”. [RSV]

The polemic against pagan gods is fierce in the OT. I seriously doubt any title or name suggesting the God of Israel being anything except the one and only singular God could survive as a common appellation for their God. The priests and scribes would not have risked the confusion.
Elohim when used as God’s name cannot mean ‘gods’ in any stretch of the imagination. It contradicts the cornerstone of OT theology. The term elohim has to make plain straight-forward sense in the strict context of their OT monotheism.

The following explanation from another forum is not mine but I liked it very very much because it relies on the inner workings of the Hebrew language for an explanation.

---

…as for the whole singular/plural issue, I don’t have a definitive answer, but only a theory that seems to be supported by a nuance of specific Hebrew words. There are certain words in the Hebrew language that appear as plural, but are normally taken as singular, such as:

Eloheem (literally gods/translated often as God)
Chayeem (literally lives/ translated often as life)
Paneem (literally faces/translated often as face/presence)
Mayeem (literally waters/ translated often as water)
Shamayeem (literally heavens/ translated often as heaven)

… I see a relation between them all in that the plural nature of these words seems linked directly to the idea of continuity or perpetuity, since you can’t step in the same river twice, but it is still a river, as well as you live one life, but you can’t live the life you just experienced as you read this sentence. The same with your face – it is never exactly the same face that one makes, but it is still your face. And so on with the heavens - you never see the same heavens twice, because it is starlight/moonlight/planet light that shines down, and you can’t look at the same beam of light coming from them twice, right?

And thus also with the Deity. He is the Ever-Being, for so even His Name seems to be telling us. He fills all creation, knowing the end from the beginning, and so if taken in this same perception, it fits so very well, and seems to resolve an aspect of the singular/plural issue not utilizing anything but other Hebrew words who share that common unique feature. Eloheem, as such, when read separately from the instances where the text has El, could be understood as an ancient pointer to the sustained experience or reality of the Father, rather than merely stating El as in His identity of One “Powerful.”

---

So the term could have a sense of pointing to the awesome ‘much-more-ness’ of God. This in itself does not assault the idea of ‘one-ness’ - which is paramount in OT theology.

Hopefully, this helps with the question of why the sentence uses plural pronouns ‘us’, ‘our’. Notice in that same verse ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ are singular, not the plural ‘images’ and ‘likenesses’. So one image and one likeness is being conveyed.

The nature of God is a complex topic.

I believe the ‘old foreshadows the new’ but the triune nature of God is a recent and quite unexpected NT revelation.

Hope this helped.

PeterK

 

[twinc]

The us is repeated again at Gen,11:7 and the three[us] are spotted in Gen.18,that is the trinity in the OT - the Trinity and the incarnation were, therefore,revealed to and known by Abraham “for Abraham rejoiced to see my day,he saw it and was glad”[Jn.8:56] - twinc

 

[PeterK]

… the Trinity and the incarnation were, therefore,revealed to and known by Abraham “for Abraham rejoiced to see my day,he saw it and was glad”[Jn.8:56]

Uh… no.
It cannot be adduced from Genesis that Abraham believed God to be triune in nature. John 8:56 says he ‘rejoiced to see my [Christ’s] day [or time].’ Seeing the time of Christ is not the same as seeing Christ.

The verse probably means to relate Abraham’s joy over the sparing of Isaac where God stayed Abraham’s dagger and revealed He, God, would provide for the sacrifice, naturally understood to occur* at some later time*. On hearing this, Abraham could easily posit this meant at some time in the future God would ‘provide for the sacrifice’. This revelation of such ‘good news’ could be understood as Abraham joyfully looking ahead and seeing with faith the now inevitable ‘day of the Lord’ - the ‘time’ when this new promise would be fulfilled.

To be certain, there is great foreshadowing in this episode. If God is going to provide for the sacrifice in the manner Abraham was just commanded and released from performing - following the Abraham and Isaac model - God would need to sacrifice His Son. Maybe, maybe, Abraham had a glimmer of a thought that God then must have a son of sorts in mind for this sacrifice. This idea would follow nicely, but it is not evident in the texts that he enjoyed any trinitarian insights into the nature of God. Besides, even if he had the idea of God having a ‘son’; this is only two out of three ‘persons’ necessary for a trinitarian concept.

I am also aware of the typological connections between the* akeda *and the crucifixion. I’m not denying connections to Christ in this episode. However, amazing as they are, they do not support that “the Trinity and the incarnation were, therefore,revealed to and known by Abraham.” That claim cannot be supported with scripture.

PeterK

 

[Ralph4454]

Could He just be refering to The Son?

 

[PeterK]

Ralph,
That’s the question isn’t it. What does God mean when he says he will provide? That’s all we’re told, God will provide for the sacrifice. Did Abraham, seeing the trapped ram, believe this animal to be what God was providing? Or was the ram an immediate on-the-spot impromptu holocaust of thanksgiving for having just received such an astonishing revelation of a future providence? The scriptures are silent regarding these questions of how Abraham interpreted the phrase.

We now know, from the light of the New Testament, what this is all leading up to. But we cannot retrofit our understandings to be the understandings of Abraham as was being attempted earlier.

So, yes, God is definitely referring to the future redemption of all mankind through the sacrifice of his only begotten Son, Jesus the Messiah. But there is no scripture supporting Abraham knew this.

PeterK

 

[Ralph4454]

I just picture God talking to his Son saying, well Son, lets create a person like us…what do you think Son?
And so here we are

 

[PeterK]

Ralph,
You and I can picture that because we know the Son. The Son has come, made Himself known and left (Ascended). So we naturally can envision God talking to His Son. The question here is did the writer of the story know the Son; because he lived quite a bit prior to when the Son revealed Himself. And if so, is this why he used the plural form of the Hebrew word for God along with plural pronouns? The majority seems to reject this beforehand knowledge of the Son as an explanation; the Jews certainly do. So the question remains then why are the plural pronouns being used? The question remains open.
For me, what I posted in the 9th (I think) post is the most satisfying answer I’ve heard so far.

In other words, it’s a Hebrew language thing.

Hope this helped.

PeterK

 

[Javl]

In Genesis 1:26 God says" Let us make humankind in our image…

Who is being referred to as “our” I thought there was only one God? Would it be referring Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

The “our”, “us”, and “we”, when spoken by God in scripture, always refers to the Holy Trinity. Genesis 1:26 is the first indication and the begining of the revelation of a Triune God in scripture. Since we humans are not capable of understanding how this can be, we label it “a mystery”, and rightly so. The full revelation of the nature of God will be given us when we are finally admitted to His presence to spend eternity with Him. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[twinc]

Uh… no.
It cannot be adduced from Genesis that Abraham believed God to be triune in nature. John 8:56 says he ‘rejoiced to see my [Christ’s] day [or time].’ Seeing the time of Christ is not the same as seeing Christ.

The verse probably means to relate Abraham’s joy over the sparing of Isaac where God stayed Abraham’s dagger and revealed He, God, would provide for the sacrifice, naturally understood to occur* at some later time*. On hearing this, Abraham could easily posit this meant at some time in the future God would ‘provide for the sacrifice’. This revelation of such ‘good news’ could be understood as Abraham joyfully looking ahead and seeing with faith the now inevitable ‘day of the Lord’ - the ‘time’ when this new promise would be fulfilled.

To be certain, there is great foreshadowing in this episode. If God is going to provide for the sacrifice in the manner Abraham was just commanded and released from performing - following the Abraham and Isaac model - God would need to sacrifice His Son. Maybe, maybe, Abraham had a glimmer of a thought that God then must have a son of sorts in mind for this sacrifice. This idea would follow nicely, but it is not evident in the texts that he enjoyed any trinitarian insights into the nature of God. Besides, even if he had the idea of God having a ‘son’; this is only two out of three ‘persons’ necessary for a trinitarian concept.

I am also aware of the typological connections between the* akeda *and the crucifixion. I’m not denying connections to Christ in this episode. However, amazing as they are, they do not support that “the Trinity and the incarnation were, therefore,revealed to and known by Abraham.” That claim cannot be supported with scripture.

PeterK

oh no ! so who did he bow down to and worship at Gen.18 and ate and drink and had feet that needed washing - no ghost or theophany here - many also foolishly accept that God the Father ,the ancient of days with the big long beard in the heat and dust of the day climbed up Mt. Sinai to give Moses the ten commandments whilst His teenage son was home with His feet up - there are many other reports where humans saw God and lived - so who did they see in spite of Jn.5:36 and 6:46 - btw at Gen.18 Abraham addressed the three as one and the three addressed him as one - twinc

 

[twinc]

excuse me but how many more times must it be pointed out that God is the author of both OT and NT - twinc

 

[twinc]

Ralph,
You and I can picture that because we know the Son. The Son has come, made Himself known and left (Ascended). So we naturally can envision God talking to His Son. The question here is did the writer of the story know the Son; because he lived quite a bit prior to when the Son revealed Himself. And if so, is this why he used the plural form of the Hebrew word for God along with plural pronouns? The majority seems to reject this beforehand knowledge of the Son as an explanation; the Jews certainly do. So the question remains then why are the plural pronouns being used? The question remains open.
For me, what I posted in the 9th (I think) post is the most satisfying answer I’ve heard so far.

In other words, it’s a Hebrew language thing.

Hope this helped.

No ! how many more times must it be pointed out that God is the author of both the OT and NT - twinc

PeterK

 

[garysibio]

In Genesis 1:26 God says" Let us make humankind in our image…

Who is being referred to as “our” I thought there was only one God? Would it be referring Jesus and the Holy Spirit?

I’m pretty sure the Hebrew word for God used in Gen 1-2 is Elohim which is a plural noun. Gramatically the pronouns should agree. However, this is not an indication that there is more than one God. The Bible is quite clear that there is only one. I believe it is safe to take the use of the plural noun and pronoun to be an indication of God’s triune nature.