God and "us"

[Christopher M Nance]

Ok, so as I mentioned in previous posts, I have only came back into orthodox christianity within the last year. Prior to that, I had been sidetracked from The Way, by Gnostic literature. I just finished the New Testament yesterday and now have started on the Old Testament, that is, Genesis.

Now in Genesis I come to 1:26, where it says "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.....". He uses "Us and our", as if he were speaking to others. Now I know the Gnostic texts spell out plainly why this was. However I have denounced Gnosticism and refuse to believe what is written in those books. In fact, I burned my Gnostic bible 2 days ago, just to make certain the temptation will not be there. However now I need help understanding this passage. I know most people will say he was talking to angels, and if you plan on giving me this answer, make sure you go through with explaining your reasoning, as I have already considered this.

Furthermore, Genesis describes the Lord coming down and looking for Adam, and later Cain, after they had done their sins. When he came down he could not find them. I am also getting hung up on this fact. If God is the creator and the all-knowing, why then was he asking these questions? Would he not know what they had done and where they were at?

These things are weighing heavy on my mind, and I am only on chapter 4. I do not want to read on further with these scepticisms in my mind. Would someone please help a brother out? Thanks.

 

[shturt678]

Ok, so as I mentioned in previous posts, I have only came back into orthodox christianity within the last year. Prior to that, I had been sidetracked from The Way, by Gnostic literature. I just finished the New Testament yesterday and now have started on the Old Testament, that is, Genesis.

Now in Genesis I come to 1:26, where it says "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.....". He uses "Us and our", as if he were speaking to others. Now I know the Gnostic texts spell out plainly why this was. However I have denounced Gnosticism and refuse to believe what is written in those books. In fact, I burned my Gnostic bible 2 days ago, just to make certain the temptation will not be there. However now I need help understanding this passage. I know most people will say he was talking to angels, and if you plan on giving me this answer, make sure you go through with explaining your reasoning, as I have already considered this.

Furthermore, Genesis describes the Lord coming down and looking for Adam, and later Cain, after they had done their sins. When he came down he could not find them. I am also getting hung up on this fact. If God is the creator and the all-knowing, why then was he asking these questions? Would he not know what they had done and where they were at?

These things are weighing heavy on my mind, and I am only on chapter 4. I do not want to read on further with these scepticisms in my mind. Would someone please help a brother out? Thanks.

Will give you a kick start with Gen.1:26, "...Let us make man in our image, after our likeness,...", Only basic Heb.101: The hortitive "Let us make" (naaseh), is particularly striking because it is plural as obvious. Through almost all commentators of our day reject the view that this is to be explained in connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity and treat this so-called trinitarian view as a very negligible quantity, yet, rightly considered, this is the only view that can satisfy contextually for sure.

The truth of the Trinity explains this passage. I can expound upon request, and if the ball is not picked up regarding the rest, I'll bring forth a conjecture.

 

[IndyEllis]

I personally find the Trinity explanation anachronistic.

My understanding, based upon the beliefs of the cultures from which these texts emerged, is that prior to being monotheistic, there was an ancient Mesopotamian pantheon of which El was the most high God and YHWH was one of the members of the pantheon (along with Baal, Asherah, and others. There were other Gods in this pantheon as well before, as the story goes, Abraham became monolatrous.

Perhaps you might want to learn about the Documentary Hypothesis as well as it is related. Also this kind of stuff too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh_(Canaanite_deity)

Anyhow, my understand is that this story's oral tradition and its formulation precedes the monotheism of the ancient Israelites and that the "we" is within that context.

While this may have been what the original authors believed, it's not necessary the Christian doctrinal tradition.

You mentioned "orthodox" Christian and I'm not sure what you exactly mean by that. If you mean Eastern Orthodox, there is prominence of Tradition and specifically exegetical tradition on how text is interpreted within that theological context.

As far as God pursuing man, perhaps that's an anthropological representation of God, perhaps that's a story-teller's technique of emphasizing the pursuit of man by God. There's also anachronistic issue here too. At the time of writing these texts, the authors and the oral tradition from which they got their content didn't necessarily hold to the all-knowingness of God the way that we do in the many centuries since under the influence of Greek thought within the orthodox Christian tradition.

Historically, these influences are not unrelated to the gnostic ones you mention.

If the "we" is a reference to the Trinity, it is dubious that the original author(s) meant this and it is near certain the original audience didn't understand it this way. That would lead us to rather quirky theories of inspiration where authors penned other than what they believed.

 

[ebedmelech]

The "us" of the verse God!

We find in Genesis 1:1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

From the Hebrew the word translated "God" is "Elohiym", and it speaks to the plurality of the one true God, which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...who are all active in creation. We find that in Hebrew concordance/dictionary:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H430&t=NASB

Genesis 1:2 shows the Spirit of God participating in creation:
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

We find in Proverbs 8:22-36 that God the Son was active in creation.

This is the "let us" of Genesis 1:26.

You must continue reading the scriptures to come to the full understanding of this.

For instance, Paul tell us Jesus is God, the creator in Colossians 1:15-16:
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

I hope that helps you...

 

[Scott4Him]

First off, I'm thrilled to hear of your faith! I'd love to help out with any questions you have.

This is a good question. I've read the commentaries, as mentioned above, that the plural should not be seen as a proof text for the Trinity. I disagree. This is God communicating with Himself.

I submit to you the following from Colossians, showing that God the Son was active in creation. Read the full chapter if there are any doubts that this refers to Jesus.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17 NASB)

Two notes: First, firstborn is a title, not an indication that Jesus was a created being.

Second, to the poster that says a Trinitarian view is anachronistic: If God is three persons in one Being, then it is not out of time. In fact, the fact that Moses was monotheistic lends credibility to the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[ebedmelech]

First off, I'm thrilled to hear of your faith! I'd love to help out with any questions you have.

This is a good question. I've read the commentaries, as mentioned above, that the plural should not be seen as a proof text for the Trinity. I disagree. This is God communicating with Himself.

Indeed it is and therefore the plural of Elohiym gives insight into His nature, therefore God uses Elohiym again at Genesis 1:26

I submit to you the following from Colossians, showing that God the Son was active in creation. Read the full chapter if there are any doubts that this refers to Jesus.

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17 NASB)

Two notes: First, firstborn is a title, not an indication that Jesus was a created being.

Agreed.

Second, to the poster that says a Trinitarian view is anachronistic: If God is three persons in one Being, then it is not out of time. In fact, the fact that Moses was monotheistic lends credibility to the inspiration of Scripture.

The Hebrew Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4, 5) is exactly what Jesus quoted when asked in Mark 12:9.

This is how it would be worded using the Hebrew..."Hear O Israel, The Jehovah (LORD) is our Elohiym (God), the Jehovah (LORD) is one".

So quite to the contrary God attest to the plurality of His nature in the Shema.

Check this out on the Shema:
The Shema - Hear, O Israel!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Depending on who you ask, the two likely possibilities are:

1) A carry-over from a time between a polytheistic worldview to a monotheistic worldview, something akin to henotheism. After all, monotheism was a pretty radical idea, it'd be understandable that it'd be hard to stick; much of the Old Testament deals with Israel's difficulty in sticking with monotheism.

2) This is the view I personally subscribe to, and that's that the plural sense is intended to convey majesty.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Christopher M Nance]

Sooooo many different views on this!

 

[IndyEllis]

Depending on who you ask, the two likely possibilities are:

1) A carry-over from a time between a polytheistic worldview to a monotheistic worldview, something akin to henotheism. After all, monotheism was a pretty radical idea, it'd be understandable that it'd be hard to stick; much of the Old Testament deals with Israel's difficulty in sticking with monotheism.

2) This is the view I personally subscribe to, and that's that the plural sense is intended to convey majesty.

-CryptoLutheran

The "royal 'we'."

I'm not sure #1 and #2 are at all in conflict.

 

[IndyEllis]

Sooooo many different views on this!

The variance in views hinges greatly on how one reads the Bible, how one gets meaning out of the text.

Some models, people take their existing theologies and then back into getting the text to say what they think it says.

Other models, people center on Christ and look at it Christocentrically.

Other models, try to consider what it meant in its original historical context.

Some people try to harmonize the Bibles's texts into being consistent.

Others don't bother.

Some read verses in context.

Others don't.

You find "experts" in all of these different schools.

Personally, I'm always a bit suspicious of the ones who lead very strongly with the "my way is the right way" without the accompanying humility.

Here's how I think I'd try to summarize:

- What it most likely meant by the original author was the Elohim--El, the most high God and his pantheon of Mesopotamian Gods including YHWH. A bit of reading here: Genesis 1-3 and The Documentary Hypothesis (again) You can google the keywords you see there to learn more about the Documentary Hypothesis and more. I'd suspect this is taught in most leading academic seminaries. Many priests and pastors who went to good schools will be familiar with this.

- The "it's the Trinity" view today is mostly driven out of fundamentalist-leaning Evangelical Christians. This is probably the commonest orientation in theologically conservative camps. Here's an example apologist with this as his emphasis: Let Us make man in our image | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry This is not necessarily a new view. I believe even in the Patristic Era of the first few centuries of Christianity, this view was held. Churches that emphasize Tradition may indicate that this is a Traditional belief with this as a Traditional interpretation of this passage.

- The "royal we" (as far as I know) reads a relatively modern convention into a prior era. As far as I know, the "royal we" was unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout Law and the Prophets speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. I could be wrong on this and would be interested in learning more. Anyhow, I've heard this explanation popularly told by those who theologically like neither the application of the historical-grammatical method into a polytheistic, monolatrous, or henotheistic context nor the back-reading of the Christian doctrine into the pre-Christian (and really almost pre-Hebrew) text.

Different groups will be adamant about being right on this and you can tell which crowd you're in by which interpretations they go with.

What does it really mean?

If you ask me, it really means different things to different people.

 

[IndyEllis]

Indeed it is and therefore the plural of Elohiym gives insight into His nature, therefore God uses Elohiym again at Genesis 1:26

Agreed.

The Hebrew Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4, 5) is exactly what Jesus quoted when asked in Mark 12:9.

This is how it would be worded using the Hebrew..."Hear O Israel, The Jehovah (LORD) is our Elohiym (God), the Jehovah (LORD) is one".

So quite to the contrary God attest to the plurality of His nature in the Shema.

Check this out on the Shema:
The Shema - Hear, O Israel!

From what I understand the Shema, being Deuteronomic, was likely Priestly source and a product of the post-Exilic period when Judah was a province of the Persian empire. This was after the Jewish faith had settled much more so on a more strongly monotheistic orientation and El and YHWH, rather than being different Gods, were different names for one God, the one true God.

Clearly, this is what the Shema declares.

 

[Purge187]

I believe God was speaking to the angels, as well as Christ and the Holy Spirit.

If we're given the privilege to see the Holy Spirit when we get to Heaven, I believe He'll have eyes, a nose, a mouth, etc. just like us.

 

[prov1810]

The Hebrew word translated "God" ('elohim) is a plural noun. The plurality simply adds intensification to the name El, as does the personal pronoun "us" in Gen 1:26. Hebrew is the only ancient Semitic language that intensifies nouns and pronouns by making them plurals. The writers of Scripture used 'elohim as a title of honor. Source

 

[Anto9us]

Not simple, is it Christopher?

But be honest - was Gnosticism that simple either?

Nag Hammadi library to me was a lot wilder than the regular Bible.

Trying to understand DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS would indeed probably help.

Genesis is a compilation of different views at different times - and rather than say "it was all MOSES as a one man author" - scholars speak of the Priestly (P), the Elohistic (E) (yes, Elohim is plural and is a name for God) the Yahwistic (J - not Y but J) and the Deuteronomic (D)

This was all cooked up by some big Bible giant scholar (Wellhausen? Wellschnozzin?) and most modern Bible scholars accept SOME FORM of it today

The first "creation account" you come to in the Bible, Gen 1-2:3, is not the "earliest in time written", and is the Priestly source, and has many similarities with an ancient Mesopotamian creation account known as ENUMA ELISH.

The "second creation account" in the Bible - starting about Gen 2:4 - is the Yahwistic - it is OLDER in time - it too has an ancient Mesopotamian counterpart known as ATRAHASIS

Bible scholars are so smart but they never could figure out if YHWH should be called Yahweh or Jehovah (I might get struck dead just by typing YHWH) - hence the Y/J jazz - its something about old Hebrew not having consonants in the Yahweh name and nobody was ever supposed to say it anyway or you might get zapped like Uzza touching the ark

poor guy just reached out his hand to STEADY IT while it was being carried and ZAP - he was gone

I'm glad you left Gnosticism Christopher

as far as God "searching" for people - I say anthropomorphism like others pointed out

God's omniscience is a hard thing for us humans to grasp

 

[Anto9us]

Oh, even us little humans are referred to as elohim - further complicating matters

It says in the Psalms "ye are gods" (elohim)

and Jesus quoted that very Psalm also

Traditions other than the actual E Elohist source used elohim as a name for God - it's all over the place

My favorite name for God is El Elyon (The MOST HIGH)

THAT sounds cool - the MOST HIGH

 

[IndyEllis]

Not simple, is it Christopher?

But be honest - was Gnosticism that simple either?

Nag Hammadi library to me was a lot wilder than the regular Bible.

Trying to understand DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS would indeed probably help.

Genesis is a compilation of different views at different times - and rather than say "it was all MOSES as a one man author" - scholars speak of the Priestly (P), the Elohistic (E) (yes, Elohim is plural and is a name for God) the Yahwistic (J - not Y but J) and the Deuteronomic (D)

This was all cooked up by some big Bible giant scholar (Wellhausen? Wellschnozzin?) and most modern Bible scholars accept SOME FORM of it today

The first "creation account" you come to in the Bible, Gen 1-2:3, is not the "earliest in time written", and is the Priestly source, and has many similarities with an ancient Mesopotamian creation account known as ENUMA ELISH.

The "second creation account" in the Bible - starting about Gen 2:4 - is the Yahwistic - it is OLDER in time - it too has an ancient Mesopotamian counterpart known as ATRAHASIS

Bible scholars are so smart but they never could figure out if YHWH should be called Yahweh or Jehovah (I might get struck dead just by typing YHWH) - hence the Y/J jazz - its something about old Hebrew not having consonants in the Yahweh name and nobody was ever supposed to say it anyway or you might get zapped like Uzza touching the ark

poor guy just reached out his hand to STEADY IT while it was being carried and ZAP - he was gone

I'm glad you left Gnosticism Christopher

as far as God "searching" for people - I say anthropomorphism like others pointed out

God's omniscience is a hard thing for us humans to grasp

I think it's a good point to suggest awareness and knowledge of the Documentary Hypothesis.

Also worth noting is prov1810's link for a polemic, generally against it.

Anto9us is right that "some form" of it is accepted in most seminaries.

That said, it's often not considered or patently rejected by many more fundamentalist-leaning groups.

 

[IndyEllis]

Oh, even us little humans are referred to as elohim - further complicating matters

It says in the Psalms "ye are gods" (elohim)

and Jesus quoted that very Psalm also

Traditions other than the actual E Elohist source used elohim as a name for God - it's all over the place

My favorite name for God is El Elyon (The MOST HIGH)

THAT sounds cool - the MOST HIGH

In English, we use the word "God."

It's a cognate with the Persian word "Khuda." Khuda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(There's linguistic similarity between the G of God and K of Khuda.)

A common politeness in departing in the Middle East (in some places) is:
Khuda Hafiz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It means "May God be your Guardian" or perhaps somewhat similar to a "The Lord be with you" and "also with you."

Some Muslims get wound up about the names of their God. Some think you need to say "Allah Hafiz" instead of "Khuda Hafiz."

Incidentally the "lah" of Allah comes from a "ilāh" and corresponds also to all of these very old "El" words of the Middle East we've been discussing too.

Many Arab Christians refer to God with the name "Allah."

Some American Christians say no way that "Allah" is God.

Malay Muslims get enraged when Christians refer to their God as "Allah."

Getting confused about what's a different God vs. a different name for a same God and whether or not that other guy's different God exists the way mine does isn't just a historical complexity.

People get would up today about symbols and das Ding an sich still all the time.

Anyhow--to me--reading the Christian Trinity into Genesis 1 is as anachronistic as reading a Muslim's Allah into the same very old text too.

 

[Knee V]

As to your second question, God gave them a chance to confess their sin and to repent of it.

 

[Anto9us]

I wish everything was as simple as saying "Oh, that's THE TRINITY!" to explain the "our image" - I mean, I belive in the Trinity.

But I just can't buy it as an explanation for "in our image" - so I feel we HAVE to look at the names like Elohim and Yahweh and El Elyon and El Shaddai and El This and El That

Emmet Fox, a Christian author - had a chapter in one of his books - "In the Garden of Allah"

Yeah - in English it's just "God"

But sometimes you will see Christians on a message board, usually Messianic Christians - spelling "God" as "G-d" - why, I dunno, maybe a hold-over from when it was illegal to say or write the full name of Yahweh.

"Jehovah" - to me - is just a made up rearrangement of consonants; yet scholars that know more about it say "yeah, its a valid rendering as well"

 

[IndyEllis]

I wish everything was as simple as saying "Oh, that's THE TRINITY!" to explain the "our image" - I mean, I belive in the Trinity.

But I just can't buy it as an explanation for "in our image" - so I feel we HAVE to look at the names like Elohim and Yahweh and El Elyon and El Shaddai and El This and El That

Emmet Fox, a Christian author - had a chapter in one of his books - "In the Garden of Allah"

Yeah - in English it's just "God"

But sometimes you will see Christians on a message board, usually Messianic Christians - spelling "God" as "G-d" - why, I dunno, maybe a hold-over from when it was illegal to say or write the full name of Yahweh.

"Jehovah" - to me - is just a made up rearrangement of consonants; yet scholars that know more about it say "yeah, its a valid rendering as well"

In Mormonism Elohim is Heavenly Father and Jehovah is Jesus.

But as the deference to "G-d" indicates, there is something about names.

Not the LORD Himself in one verse that comes to mind, but the name of the LORD is a strong tower.

In Judaism, HaShem is worshipped.

Evangelical Christians, since the 1950s in the wake of Rosalind Rinker's influence, consistently conclude in the name.

According to the Gaithers of the 1970s, There's Something about that name.

Beyond das Ding an sich, potency is ascribed to the name.

btw, I've read that the name "El Shaddai" has been understood as a name of a God coming from the Ugaritic religion and it having an affect on Judaism. The God "Shaddai" was once one of the many Gods Canaanite religion.

Other God words are even older.

In English it's theo-logy where the "theo" means God and corresponds to the word "Zeus" in latin and "deus" as well.

"Deus" has linguistic relationship with English words "divine," "divinity," and even "diva."

Except "diva" comes from the likes of the Sanskrit languages and a God is a "deva." (That is a "deity.")

One of the meanings of this word over the ages as been the "sky" or the "heavens."

"Father" is "pater" in Latin. "Deus" and "pater" make a Heavenly Father and it's not merely coincidental that it sounds a whole lot like Jupiter.

One of the more ancient than the Mesopotamian pantheon was that of the Proto Indo European culture.

In the Vedic linguistic descent, it became Dyaus Pita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

Beyond the father, padre, pater and associated cognates, there's also "papa."

Mama and papa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are very old linguistic ties with words of many languages with the word that Jesus used for the Ineffable:

Abba

Jesus said things like this:

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

I and the Father are one.

Whoever comes to me and doesn’t hate father and mother, spouse and children, and brothers and sisters—yes, even one’s own life—cannot be my disciple.

And early Christians thought things like this:

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

And even this:

This resurrection life you received from God is not a timid, grave-tending life. It’s adventurously expectant, greeting God with a childlike “What’s next, Papa?” God’s Spirit touches our spirits and confirms who we really are. We know who he is, and we know who we are: Father and children. And we know we are going to get what’s coming to us—an unbelievable inheritance! We go through exactly what Christ goes through. If we go through the hard times with him, then we’re certainly going to go through the good times with him!

That’s why I don’t think there’s any comparison between the present hard times and the coming good times. The created world itself can hardly wait for what’s coming next. Everything in creation is being more or less held back. God reins it in until both creation and all the creatures are ready and can be released at the same moment into the glorious times ahead. Meanwhile, the joyful anticipation deepens.

All around us we observe a pregnant creation. The difficult times of pain throughout the world are simply birth pangs. But it’s not only around us; it’s within us. The Spirit of God is arousing us within. We’re also feeling the birth pangs. These sterile and barren bodies of ours are yearning for full deliverance. That is why waiting does not diminish us, any more than waiting diminishes a pregnant mother. We are enlarged in the waiting. We, of course, don’t see what is enlarging us. But the longer we wait, the larger we become, and the more joyful our expectancy.

Revelation and realization appear less simple, more sacred.