Let us make man in our image

[Larry1700]

What does Jewish tradition say about pluralities in this sentence from Genesis:

Let us make man in our image.

 

[aj830]

I believe many say that God was using the “royal we”. For example kings would make proclamations referring to themselves in the plural such as “We will this to be done” or “We abhor the enemy”.

 

[Larry1700]

Thanks for your replies, but with all due respect, I was hoping for replies from Jews themselves – hopefully ones who have studied the commentaries (sorry, don’t remember: Talmud? Haddith? Midrash?)

 

[Valke2]

Thanks for your replies, but with all due respect, I was hoping for replies from Jews themselves – hopefully ones who have studied the commentaries (sorry, don’t remember: Talmud? Haddith? Midrash?)

Rashi gives the “Royal We” decree. Another explanation is that GOd was being polite by involving the angels, even though it is only God and God alone who creates man, as can be seen in the verse that follows.

 

[exoflare]

Rashi gives the “Royal We” decree. Another explanation is that GOd was being polite by involving the angels, even though it is only God and God alone who creates man, as can be seen in the verse that follows.

Do you know if there are any other parts in scripture where God uses the “Royal We”?

 

[Valke2]

Do you know if there are any other parts in scripture where God uses the “Royal We”?

Elohim is used only (I think) in the beginning of Genesis. It is a more impersonal term and more appropriate to use in the opening chapters, when we have no personal relationship with God.

It is also used, I believe, in a few of the psalms. But the word itself can also apply to kings, judges, princes… The same word used in “our image” for example, is used to refer to Moses in Chapter 7 of Exodus.

There are other hebrew words that have the same plural suffix as Elohim but have a singular meaning. Like Chayim, which means life.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I believe many say that God was using the “royal we”. For example kings would make proclamations referring to themselves in the plural such as “We will this to be done” or “We abhor the enemy”.

When the king uses the royal we to say “we abhor the enemy” he is hoping that he is speaking on behalf of his people. He needs his people to back up his abhorring the enemy because he can’t do it on his own.

Eric

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Rashi gives the “Royal We” decree. Another explanation is that GOd was being polite by involving the angels, even though it is only God and God alone who creates man, as can be seen in the verse that follows.

If this is the case then we are created in both the image of God and his angels when you read;

Let us make man in our image.

Are the angels also created in the image of God?

Eric

 

[junk]

Are the angels also created in the image of God?

Yes.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas:

Whether the angels are more to the image of God than man is?
…
First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (58, 3; 79, 8).
…
Augustine excludes the inferior creatures bereft of reason from the image of God; but not the angels.

 

[Larry1700]

I have not ever taken the time to look up the Church’s teaching on this, but I like to believe that the plural words in Genesis refer to God the Trinity. There’s another verse in Genesis speaking of the Spirit of God moving on the face of the waters. In John, we see “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

 

[Valke2]

If this is the case then we are created in both the image of God and his angels when you read;

Let us make man in our image.

Are the angels also created in the image of God?

Eric

I’m not sure what the big issue is here. I believe most christian scholars admit that its use in Genesis has nothing to do with the doctrine of the trinity. Us and Our are both royal plurals.

Pretty much whenever the royal us or our is used, it is when God is speaking to his heavenly host. When Adam eats from the tree. When God talks about what will happen if they eat from the tree of life; the tower of babel…

When God uses “us” in these examples we don’t believe He was equating the Angels with Him. Except perhaps out of a courtesy for the lesser beings.

 

[Valke2]

I have not ever taken the time to look up the Church’s teaching on this, but I like to believe that the plural words in Genesis refer to God the Trinity. There’s another verse in Genesis speaking of the Spirit of God moving on the face of the waters. In John, we see “In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

The plural pronoun “Us” is most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax. Jerry Falwell (Executive Editor), Liberty Annotated Study Bible, Lynchburg: Liberty University, 1988, p. 8.

God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court. (see 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; I Kings 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18). NIV Study Bible, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 7.

Us . . . Our. Plurals of majesty. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Ryrie Study Bible (Dallas Theological Seminary), Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, p. 9.

The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity; modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis . . . No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis .
Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Peabody: Hendric., 1989, Vol. I, p. 62.

 

[Valke2]

Similarly, although we read that we are created in God’s image, does anyone believe that we are equal to God?

 

[Larry1700]

I guess I don’t get the connection, but in answer to your question, obviously nobody is equal to God.

 

[Montalban]

I’m not sure what the big issue is here. I believe most christian scholars admit that its use in Genesis has nothing to do with the doctrine of the trinity. Us and Our are both royal plurals.

That’s not true at all. Christians use this verse quite often to show God is Triune.

 

[junk]

I can totally see the royal plural line of reasoning - I had thought that myself, since in French, for example, the plural ‘vous’ is considered polite, and the singular ‘tu’ is considered familiar, so I thought that perhaps Hebrew may have or have had a similar grammatical convention, except for the first person - that is, self-exalting. I don’t know ancient Hebrew, though, so I don’t really know.

When Genesis was written, God’s triune nature had not yet been revealed, though both interpretations would be acceptable, as they are both true - God is King, and God is Triune. Since Scripture is inspired and its contents are as desired by God, the ‘We’ and the ‘Us’ are there for a reason and perhaps foreshadow the revelation of the Trinity.

I’ve also wondered why Elohim is apparently frequently used to refer to God instead of just El, Eloah etc. I’m guessing that this plural form may also serve a honorific function, though, I’ve perceived all the OT plural forms as at least a hint for the Trinity.

 

[Valke2]

I guess I don’t get the connection, but in answer to your question, obviously nobody is equal to God.

The connection is that although scripture literally says we are created in God’s image, it doesn’t mean we are equal to God or look like the incorporeal God. Just as the use of the word Elohim doesn’t cause one to believe God was talking to other Gods or other aspects of GOd.

 

[Larry1700]

The connection is that although scripture literally says we are created in God’s image, it doesn’t mean we are equal to God or look like the incorporeal God.

Agree.

Just as the use of the word Elohim doesn’t cause one to believe God was talking to other Gods or other aspects of GOd.

I guess your point is that figurative/symbolic language applies to both the verse in question, and the term Elohim.
As I said previously, it does cause me to wonder about that possibility, but I must defer to whatever the Church says about the matter.

 

[Valke2]

Agree.
I guess your point is that figurative/symbolic language applies to both the verse in question, and the term Elohim.
As I said previously, it does cause me to wonder about that possibility, but I must defer to whatever the Church says about the matter.

On the other hand, whatever the bible reveals to you, or to the Church, is what it reveals. I’m just giving the interpetation as Jews see it. I don’t know what the Church says about it today. But I believe that it was, prior to the triune doctrine, understood by the early Church as God talking to angels.

Also, verse 27 clearly states that God (singular) created man in His (singular) image. So that would indicate to me that the image we were created in is not that of God AND angels.

Here’s a link from the Catholic Encyclopedia (or Catholic Dictionary, not sure which). It seems to indicate that the verse is not held to be proof of trinity. Although I only skimmed the article and it is not written in a way that is “skim friendly.” Let me know what you think.

bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Catholic.htm#cath1975

 

[Larry1700]

Thanks Valke2. Well, I’ve never seen this web site, and you’re right – it’s not “skim friendly.” I’m at home now, after having worked all night, so I’ll have to read it later.