Genesis 1:26

Genesis 1:26-27 reads "let us create man in our image; after our likeness". Most christian theologians and interpreters have traditionally argued that the plural there is either a reference to the trinity or that it's written that way as a literary devise known as the "plural of majesty" as if to emphasize God's greatness by referencing him more than once.

The first one, the trinity explanation, amounts to the hermeneutical crime of reading the New Testament back into the Old, a method that any introuction to the science of biblical interpretation will note as illegitimate. Genesis doesn't refer to a trinity.

The second one, the plural of majesty, has a scene like Isaiah 6 in mind where God is described with the threefold "holy, Holy, Holy". The problem with this view is that not only do other Hebrew texts, such as the Dead sea scrolls, have a different number of "holies" but the Hebrew grammar the literary devise as the plural of majesty only occurs with nouns or adjectives, as in Isaiah 6. But Genesis 1:26 uses a plural verb form, so it can't be the plural of majesty

TrevorL has done a good job with explaining some of this but as I had stated, my belief however is that the angel view doesn't accompany all angels. There are different classes of angels who function in a hierarchy or bureaucracy. I believe the Hebrew Bible lays it out, not always very clear but it does.

God granted dominion and rulership to some of these angelic beings when He created them. They are referred to as Judges and princes, even gods and sons of God (Job 1-2 and Psalm 82-89); Some of them became the principalities, powers, and rulers of darkness Paul wrote about in Eph. 6:12.

Genesis 1:26 refers to this hierarchy by useing the plural "us" and "our". God is speaking to His congregation of angelic beings and is telling them that He is going to make man to function in the same capacity that they do in their domain and in the same way He does in His domain. God is giving man this function over the earth. These same angelic beings didn't have this function, this mandate, they had their own.

Seeing that many of these beings believed themselves more worthy of the task; they were passed over for a terrific job even though they believed they were more qualified, they rebelled against God, the King and His decree.

The image folks is more a function, something we do, rather than anything else. Man was created to be Gods representative on earth. We were to rule and have dominion over earth in the place of God. Just like God has rule and dominion over heaven and just like those angels had doinion over their own territory.

nephilimiyr said:

Genesis 1:26-27 reads "let us create man in our image; after our likeness". Most christian theologians and interpreters have traditionally argued that the plural there is either a reference to the trinity or that it's written that way as a literary devise known as the "plural of majesty" as if to emphasize God's greatness by referencing him more than once.

The first one, the trinity explanation, amounts to the hermeneutical crime of reading the New Testament back into the Old, a method that any introuction to the science of biblical interpretation will note as illegitimate. Genesis doesn't refer to a trinity.

Click to expand...

Why a hermeneutical crime?
One does not read Testaments into each other. Both Testaments are equally inspired. One compares the Scripture with the Scrupture.
It is consistent with other Scriptures that the LORD God creates by himself with no aid.
Allow me to repost a part of my previous reply -

"Also, because of the v.27 (where God identifies himself as the sole creator) it is unlikely that "we" refers to others, as co-creators, or helpers.

And since it was God himself who created the angels, and then they observed him creating the earth and the heavens by himself (they were just the observers in the book of Job), it is consistent that the LORD God will continue the creation by himself with no aid.

Furthermore, since the new birth of a man (born-again) is also accomplished by God himslef with no assistants, it further disporoves the Judaic (and some Christian) thought of "we" representing others that assisted God in creating".

Also, here is another post that I attached -

"The are many arguments concerning the reasons for the plurality.
Some said that it is God together with his angels. However, that option can be excluded due to v.27

GE 1:27 So God created man in his own image,

where God refers to himself alone as a creator of a man.

We should note that the word God is plural in its original language, yet, there is one God, as it is emphatically defined by God himself.

So, the plurality of the original word could point to the trinitarian nature of God and the singular definition (v.27) could indicate that there is only one God.

I think that since the doctrine of the Trinity is very prominent throughout the Bible, the explanation of this text as a definition of a Trinity is the safest method of interpretation."

Why is this method of interpretation (hermeneutics) "criminal"?

Thanks,
Ed

The concept of the Trinity is only taught and shone in the NT. So then to say that God is talking to himself as three persons in Gen. 1:26 when all the rest of the OT doesn't even mention the concept makes it a hermeneutical crime. In order to see the trinity in Gen. 1:26 you have to be taught about the Trinity and that isn't taught until the Holy Spirit revealed it in the NT. I'm sorry but that's the best I can explain it. This is a general rule in Biblical interpretation...you don't read the NT back into the OT.

On your point of the creator and Him alone creating. TrevorL and myself aren't saying that these angels helped God in creating man. What we're saying is that God is talking to them as a group, a congregation, saying "let us create man in our own image". God fully recognized these angels as partakers in everything He created and owned. God wanted to share everything with them. They were called sons of God and God treated them like sons. God created man himself but he perhaps wanted these angels to feel like they were apart of it.

Only in the New Testament?
What about Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 63:8-10; also 7:14 and 9:6?

How would you identify the Angel of the Lord, who appeared to Abraham, Gideon, Manoah and his wife, and others in the OT, if no one has seen God at any time?

bjh said:

Only in the New Testament?
What about Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 63:8-10; also 7:14 and 9:6?

Click to expand...

Ok, very good, but now show me in those verses that is speaks about God in three persons and ask me your question again.

How would you identify the Angel of the Lord, who appeared to Abraham, Gideon, Manoah and his wife, and others in the OT, if no one has seen God at any time?

Click to expand...

Same as above. Does the "Angel of the Lord" refer to a trinity? I'll tell you one thing, none of the ancient Hebrews thought so.

nephilimiyr said:

The concept of the Trinity is only taught and shone in the NT. So then to say that God is talking to himself as three persons in Gen. 1:26 when all the rest of the OT doesn't even mention the concept makes it a hermeneutical crime. In order to see the trinity in Gen. 1:26 you have to be taught about the Trinity and that isn't taught until the Holy Spirit revealed it in the NT. I'm sorry but that's the best I can explain it. This is a general rule in Biblical interpretation...you don't read the NT back into the OT.

Click to expand...

If the concept of Trinity is not clear in the OT it does not mean that it did not exist. If both the NT and the OT are equally inspired by God then it is a MUST to interpret ANY part of the Bible with ANOTHER part of the Bible, since there is one author of it - the Holy Spirit.
The latter parts of the Bible reveal the truths that were "veiled" in the beginning parts of the Bible. The truths are gradually revealed. It is a gradual revelation.
Once this is understood, the NT can be looked at as the clarification of the OT.
This is the safest interpretation style of the Bible.
Unless of course you do not believe that the Trinity existed in the OT, or that the OT and NT are not equally inspired or the Triune God just became Triune in the NT.
The eternity of the Trinity is presented in the NT in John 1. And John 1 addresses the OT times and before.
So, perhabs the "criminal" portion of your statement could be re-evaluated?

nephilimiyr said:

On your point of the creator and Him alone creating. TrevorL and myself aren't saying that these angels helped God in creating man. What we're saying is that God is talking to them as a group, a congregation, saying "let us create man in our own image". God fully recognized these angels as partakers in everything He created and owned. God wanted to share everything with them. They were called sons of God and God treated them like sons. God created man himself but he perhaps wanted these angels to feel like they were apart of it.

Click to expand...

So you agree that God was a sole creator. Why then do you presume that God, by saying that "we" created, wanted them to feel like they are part of it?
It would be an untruth, if they had nothing to do with it.
Besides, throughout the Bible God is not known for throwing unnecessary words around.
A person of HIS caliber says exactly what he means.

Thanks,
Ed

nephilimiyr said:

The first one, the trinity explanation, amounts to the hermeneutical crime of reading the New Testament back into the Old, a method that any introuction to the science of biblical interpretation will note as illegitimate. Genesis doesn't refer to a trinity.

Click to expand...

That is a problem with hermeneutical interpretation. One could also accuse the Apostles of this crime.

nephilimiyr said:

Genesis 1:26 refers to this hierarchy by useing the plural "us" and "our". God is speaking to His congregation of angelic beings and is telling them that He is going to make man to function in the same capacity that they do in their domain and in the same way He does in His domain. God is giving man this function over the earth. These same angelic beings didn't have this function, this mandate, they had their own.

Click to expand...

Are you saying here that man is created in the image of angels? Or angels AND God? This directly contradicts the NT (e.g.1 Cor 11). If not, my apologies.

The idea of the plural of majesty, such as when the queen of England says "we" when refering to herself, has some merit, IMO. But we must remember that there are things veiled in the OT that have been more fully revealed in the NT, as someone here has said already. I don't know, from the context, if this is a veiled ref to the Trinity. However, taking what the NT says, we see that it must be. It is not, however, a reference to angels.

2Timothy2 said:

Are you saying here that man is created in the image of angels? Or angels AND God? This directly contradicts the NT (e.g.1 Cor 11). If not, my apologies.

The idea of the plural of majesty, such as when the queen of England says "we" when refering to herself, has some merit, IMO. But we must remember that there are things veiled in the OT that have been more fully revealed in the NT, as someone here has said already. I don't know, from the context, if this is a veiled ref to the Trinity. However, taking what the NT says, we see that it must be. It is not, however, a reference to angels.

Click to expand...

I can see why you would say that but no, not at all in the way you are thinking.

This is what I'm saying...Please allow me to take liberty, thanks

God is King over His Kingdom in heaven. What does a King do? A King delegates authority. Before God created the seen He created the unseen. We know that inbetween this period of time God had created angels. God called these angels His sons. In other passages of the Bible we see some of these sons of God being in very important positions of authority, we see them as princes of nations. The Bible makes it quite clear, very nicely actually.

The point here is that these angels had rulership and authority. God also had rulership and authority. Of Course God is the supreme ruler and authoritarian but the concept is that others had a certain degree of this as well. Not in the scope that God had but basicly in the same essence....LOL or image.
You people have to stop thinking like God rules in a Democracy or a republic, and certainly not a dictatorship God rules by monarchy. God is King. He owns everything and he can delegate authority as he sees fit. When a King gives his image to someone he essencialy is giveing his stamp of approval to them.
I'll let that sink in for awhile, please let it...

When God made man He made a point in extending this rulership and authority towards man. This is the image in essence. Yes the image is a living soul and intellidence and all that but Genesis also says that animals have this living soul also and a certain degree of intelligence also. Man was special in that man was given His likeness. What is the likeness of a King? God is a king. God rules. God has authority. God governs. This is what the image is and is what God extended towards us. He extended royalty towards us by giving us His image.

The angels in question also had a place to govern. They had their own estate, their own habitation...Jude 1:6 hey, hey, hey!! And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2 peter 2:4, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
Man was given earth to have dominion, the angels had their own habitation.

LOL, you know what guys, I realized what I've said might come under attack for saying what I have said but I'm really not prepared to debate you all right now. I'm promised in other discussions and my time needs to be directed in that direction----->

Please keep the conversation up because it is a good one and I can always jump right in at any time!

Hmm, interesting perspective. But, I respectfully disagree. I think the "image" is a reference to the ability to form a relationship with God. As you said, some animals have a soul, but, since only man is created in God's image, and nowhere in Scripture are angels said to be in His image, we alone can form that type of relationship with Him. But, heh, I could be way off.

There are many things I could address on this one...if this was addressed in other posts, please forgive me.

As far as what the ancient Hebrews thought, Jesus walked with His disciples for three and a half years, can you imagine? Three and a half years walking with and talking to the Son of God, and they still missed it. It doesn't mean that the teaching wasn't in the Old Testament. We should blame man's density, his slow wit, on his sinful nature but not on God.

Remember what happened on the road to Emmaus? Let me draw attention to Luke 24:27. "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He showed them the things concerning Himself..." It was there from the beginning (the books of Moses). Jesus showed the two disciples Himself in the Old Testament. However, if I'm guilty of reading Jesus into the Old Testament, I guess I'm in Good company. Guilty as charged.

nephilimiyr said:

I can see why you would say that but no, not at all in the way you are thinking.

This is what I'm saying...Please allow me to take liberty, thanks

God is King over His Kingdom in heaven. What does a King do? A King delegates authority. Before God created the seen He created the unseen. We know that inbetween this period of time God had created angels. God called these angels His sons. In other passages of the Bible we see some of these sons of God being in very important positions of authority, we see them as princes of nations. The Bible makes it quite clear, very nicely actually.

The point here is that these angels had rulership and authority. God also had rulership and authority. Of Course God is the supreme ruler and authoritarian but the concept is that others had a certain degree of this as well. Not in the scope that God had but basicly in the same essence....LOL or image.
You people have to stop thinking like God rules in a Democracy or a republic, and certainly not a dictatorship God rules by monarchy. God is King. He owns everything and he can delegate authority as he sees fit. When a King gives his image to someone he essencialy is giveing his stamp of approval to them.
I'll let that sink in for awhile, please let it...

When God made man He made a point in extending this rulership and authority towards man. This is the image in essence. Yes the image is a living soul and intellidence and all that but Genesis also says that animals have this living soul also and a certain degree of intelligence also. Man was special in that man was given His likeness. What is the likeness of a King? God is a king. God rules. God has authority. God governs. This is what the image is and is what God extended towards us. He extended royalty towards us by giving us His image.

The angels in question also had a place to govern. They had their own estate, their own habitation...Jude 1:6 hey, hey, hey!! And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

2 peter 2:4, For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.
Man was given earth to have dominion, the angels had their own habitation.

Click to expand...

You have a good analogy here.
God does delegate authority. And a wise king would and should. However, to create something is done by one person - the designer, the creator, the engineer. Because these things cannot be delegated. The assistants cannot do it. There is nothing they can do in the designing stage.
However, they were given responsibilities to maintain what was created. And since some abandoned their positions, as you mentioned in Jude, they were contained with chains. (Chains, because they were "loose cannons" that had tremendous power).
Job 38 presents a unique and a sole creator, while the angels were the observers at least in this example -
JOB 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. JOB 38:5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? JOB 38:6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-- JOB 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?

Thanks,
Ed

bjh said:

...
Remember what happened on the road to Emmaus? Let me draw attention to Luke 24:27. "beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He showed them the things concerning Himself..." It was there from the beginning (the books of Moses). Jesus showed the two disciples Himself in the Old Testament. However, if I'm guilty of reading Jesus into the Old Testament, I guess I'm in Good company. Guilty as charged.

Click to expand...

Good angle.
We actually are told to read the NT into the OT. Agree.
Thanks,
Ed

Wolf Georges said:

I had no idea when I asked this question that it would blossom into a debate, of sorts. I just thought that since I was new to Bible study the obvious answer was just not popping out to me. Shame on me for oversimplifying questions of faith! I do really appreciate the insights. They have all been very interesting and very well presented. In the end, for me, I'm just going to chalk it up as an unsolved mystery. Although I lean towards the Trinity explanation the fact that God never refers to himself in the plural in the NT raises too many questions. Perhaps this is something that we are not meant to understand or the answer is beyond our comprehension. At the very least it is beyond my comprehension. As not knowing will in no way impede my ever deepening faith, this one will stay open ended for me.

Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Thanks for an honest feedback on this.
Many things are not meant to be a mystery. Some are and they are defined as such.
There are arguments within the Christian circles on MANY topics. The reason such debates occur are mainly due to their varying undertandings on how to interpret a text. Not everyone is a theology major.
And there is only one way of interpreting, since a text has only one specific meaning that could also have various depths, of course.
This one way is surprisingly very simple.
There are modern tools (software) that help people in searching and cross-referencing the contexts and original words within the Bible.
(The fact that "we" is used nowhere else in the Scriptures is indeed interesting, but the context of the Genesis is extraordinary in itself. I would be interested to know what questions you have).
You mentioned that you are leaning towards applying the understanding of Trinity. To me personally, it is not important whether one prefers one view over another. But what is important, is how they come to that conclusion.
I am a seminary student. What they teach is the following. They never teach views. They present views and ask you to come to a conclusion based on the Scriptural evidences.
Then, you would need to choose a view (or come up with your own) based on the Scriptural evidences and explain.
No view needs to be written in stone, but all Scripture was written to be understood and whatever is a mystery is presented as a mystery.
What do you think of this approach towards the Bible?
Thanks,
Ed

Wolf Georges said:

Yes, I completely understand the fact that Judaism, and it's followers, are not believers in the Trinity. The reason that I checked, and then referenced the interpretation found in the Jewish version of the OT is because I was curious to see how they dealt with the plural reference. Considering the fact that their faith does not recognize the Trinity I thought the explanation would be of interest.
My only remaining question with God referring to the Trinity in the verse would be does he refer to himself as we anywhere else? Particularly in the NT. I'd be very interested to know.

Click to expand...

Here's one more from the Old Testament. The New Testament proff of the trinity is more scattered, such as when Peter addresses Ananias and Sapphira

Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Matt. 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Of course the first chapter of the Gospel of John starts out by telling us about the Living Word of God that created all things and walked among us. We know who that was - Jesus. After a while, it just makes sense that God defies the limitations we have here as dimensionally challenged beings, looking through a glass darkly at the magnificent creation of God. The Bible says that we will know as we are known the day we see Him. I can only think this would be like a veil being lifted from these eyes that look out from a body of death, being translated into some kind of freedom of that restrictifon.

1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.