Is the trinity in view in Genesis 1:26?

[david]

I've been thinking on this a bit more. Let's say that Genesis 1:26 is meaning the trinity.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Here's how it would have to be understood I think.

And God said UNTO THE SON, AND UNTO THE HOLY SPIRIT, Let us make man in MY IMAGE, SON, IN YOUR IMAGE, AND HOLY SPIRIT, IN YOUR IMAGE AS WELL, after THE likeness OF ME, THE LIKENESS OF YOU, SON, AND THE LIKENESS OF YOU, HOLY SPIRIT:

So then, did God do just that in the next verse?

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

But I thought verse 26 indicated that man would be put into 3 different images, and 3 different likenesses? I wonder why God didn't follow through with that plan then?

I actually don't think this is a nonsensical idea, just that if the Scripture did mean this, then it wouldn't be talking about 3 different likenesses but only one likeness, since God has only one likeness. So the verse would not be saying "let us make man in our images," but rather "let us make man in our one image."

Remember that Jesus didn't begin as flesh, but he became flesh (jn 1.14). People may have the wrong notion that he began as flesh.

Also the idea would accord with passages where God talks to himself, where the son would talk to the father and the father would talk to the son as if they were more than one:

Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven: “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” John 12:28
Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said: “Until cities lie waste without inhabitant, and houses without people, and the land is a desolate waste, Isaiah 6:10-11
and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Luke 3:22

Why does God talk to himself? I highly doubt he talks to himself for his own sake, but for our sake. (compare: "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Romans 15:4
Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” John 11:41-42 )

[Michael Snow]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html

See Calvin's commentary.

"...this is the language of one apparently deliberating. Hitherto God has been introduced simply as commanding ...so now, for the purpose of commending to our attention the dignity of our nature, he, in taking counsel concerning the creation of man, testifies that he is about to undertake something great and wonderful. Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients μικρίκοσμος, “a world in miniature.” But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself....

[ewq1938]

The point is, within the time and culture prior to the alleged revelation of the 'trinity', the use of the plural 'elohim' didn't cause them to wonder 'why is God referred to in the plural'.

So no Jewish person ever in history has seen that and wondered why it was plural? There are Jewish Christians that do, and believe it is plural for the same reasons I do.

I trust the Jews to understand how their own language works more than I would trust a native-English speaker.

Perhaps but their religion will weigh too heavily for them to see the truth, especially with that veil blinding them. I don't trust the blind to lead me.

None of the New Testament writers appeal to the use of 'us' or 'we' in Genesis 1.26 (or Genesis 3 or 11, or Isaiah 6) to suggest that God is 'plural persons'. None of them appeal to the fact that 'elohim' is the plural form of the word.

I wouldn't expect them to. They knew from divine knowledge what God is and isn't and they do IMO clearly teach the Trinity concept. I just wish we could email heaven and get responses back!

If these were such strong points in favor of the 'plurality' of God, we have a reasonable expectation that they, being Jews, would have at least hinted at that, sometime or another. But they don't. It's only much later in history that we find such explanations, when non-native speakers of Hebrew start telling native speakers of Hebrew how their own language works.

I disagree.

Is Moses comprised of plural persons? Was the pagan deity Chemosh supposed to be plural persons? Or Baal? Is Jesus (not 'God', but Jesus himself) plural persons? Each of these individuals has the term 'elohim' applied to them, without it having ever suggested that they were plural persons, but suddenly once the term is applied to Yahweh, it somehow now carries the implication of 'plural persons' in it.

I didnt say "plural persons" for elohim. It the plural rendering of the word commonly used by God to describe God. Every person is plural and singular. We are one person composed of spirit, soul and body. We simply are not God but as God is plural within God, so are we plural within ourselves.

I would point to any Scripture that refers to God speaking to the heavenly court, with particularly notable examples including the end of Genesis 3, where 'us' includes the cherubim, and Isaiah 6, where 'us' includes the seraphim. This are very clear examples, I believe.

Gen_3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

But God isn't saying the others are ELOHIM. They all knew of good and evil and man because like all of them but thats not anywhere close to ELOHIM being a reference to God and angels.

Gen_28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

Why says the angels of ELOHIM if ELOHIM already means God and the angels?

Gen_32:1 And Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him.

Psa_68:17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.

Same here. ELOHIM is among the angels and chariots but the angels are not ELOHIM.

There's two problems here.

(1) I didn't say that 'elohim' in Genesis 1.26 included the angels. 'Elohim' in that verse refers strictly to God, while the 'us' refers to God and his heavenly court. If you read a statement like, 'markedward said "let us read this book together"', you would recognize that the 'us' includes 'markedward', but not that 'markedward' includes all of the 'us'.

Ok, its hard to know what each person has said but US cannot refer to the angels because the only reason US even appears here (not in the manuscripts) is because ELOHIM is plural. US and WE arent in the manuscripts. It's a reference to ELOHIM only, no one else.

(2) I specifically said that 'let us' does not automatically mean that all of the 'us' is partaking in the act itself, but that they are watching the speaker doing it. They are being invited to witness the creation of man. This is a common use of 'let us' in any language. Unlike you, however, I do not believe God has a body, so I do not believe that 'in his image' is referring to the human body. Rather, I see it as God creating humans as spiritual creatures, which angels certainly are.

Yes but sometimes saying something causes other causalities not foreseen.

Exodus 7.1: Moses is 'made an elohim unto Pharaoh'.
Judges 11.24: Chemosh is 'your elohim'.
1 Kings 11.33: Chemosh is 'the elohim of Moab'
Judges 8.33: Baal-berith is 'their elohim'
2 Kings 1.2: Baal-zebub is 'the elohim of Ekron'
1 Samuel 28.15: Samuel's spirit is 'an elohim'

I think something plural could be found within those examples. I won't do them all but in Moses case, he was teh mouth of God, an extension of ELOHIM on earth so I see nothing odd about the word ELOHIM being applied to him.

'Elohim' can be used as both a singular and a plural object, but whether it is singular or plural depends on the form of the verb attached to that object. Moses is referred to with a singular-form verb even though he is called 'elohim'. The same goes for Chemosh, Baal, and Samuel's spirit.

And is the verb related to ELOHIM in Gen 1:26 singular-form as well?

'Elohim' does not inherently carry the idea of 'plural persons' in its regular usage, so it cannot rightly be claimed that when 'elohim' is applied to Yahweh that it suddenly changes its meaning to 'Yahweh is plural persons'.

But you are aware there are hebrew scholars which will dispute what you are saying so who does the average Christian believe?

[Michael Snow]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.vii.i.html

See Calvin's commentary.

"...this is the language of one apparently deliberating.... the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself....

That is the use of the plural here.

[markedward]

So no Jewish person ever in history has seen that and wondered why it was plural?

I did not say 'ever in history'. I said 'prior to the alleged revelation of the trinity'.

I disagree.

Okay: (1) Where in the New Testament do any of the writers point to the 'us' passages of Genesis 1, 3, 11 or Isaiah 6 as evidence that God is 'plural persons'? (2) Where in the New Testament do any of the writers point to the word 'elohim' as being evidence that God is 'plural persons'?

It the plural rendering of the word commonly used by God to describe God.

And Moses, and Chemosh, and Baal, and Samuel's spirit.

Every person is plural and singular. We are one person composed of spirit, soul and body.

Is Samuel's spirit composed of spirit and soul and body... or just spirit? It is specifically his spirit that is called 'an elohim', not his whole being of 'spirit, soul and body'.

But God isn't saying the others are ELOHIM.

For the second time, I didn't say that God said the others were 'elohim'. I said that God included them in the 'us'. And I provided an example of what I meant by this.

They all knew of good and evil

Says what Scripture?

Why says the angels of ELOHIM if ELOHIM already means God and the angels?

For the third time, I didn't say that every instance of 'elohim' includes 'God and the angels'. What I said was that, in the specific case of Genesis 1.26, the 'us' refers to the heavenly court.

Ok, its hard to know what each person has said but US cannot refer to the angels because the only reason US even appears here (not in the manuscripts) is because ELOHIM is plural.

You're using circular logic here. 'Us must refer to elohim, because elohim is plural. Elohim is plural because of the us.'

US and WE arent in the manuscripts.

The 'us' and 'we' are inherent to the plural forms of the verbs being used. Hebrew (and many other languages) include the concepts of I, you, he, she, it, we, you-all, they-all in their verb forms. A rigidly literal translation of a phrase like 'Then God said' would be 'Then Elohim he-said'.

I think something plural could be found within those examples. I won't do them all but in Moses case, he was teh mouth of God, an extension of ELOHIM on earth so I see nothing odd about the word ELOHIM being applied to him.

That's not the given explanation from the text. My objection here is that you only see 'something plural could be found' because it is necessary to your position that 'elohim' requires plurality. In other words, you're creating the plurality in those cases only because you need it to be there to defend your inaccurate interpretation of Hebrew nouns.

And is the verb related to ELOHIM in Gen 1:26 singular-form as well?

Yes, the whole passage about the creation of man (verses 26-27) are in the singular:

Then Elohim he-said (singular form), 'Let-us-make (plural form) man in our (plural) image, after our (plural) likeness...' So Elohim he-created (singular form) man in his (singular) own image.

But you are aware there are hebrew scholars which will dispute what you are saying so who does the average Christian believe?

So what? There are scholars of Hebrew in favor of both sides. The mere existence of scholars advocating the 'elohim means God is a trinity' position doesn't change my mind, but instead how faithful and consistent they are to understanding the language as a whole, rather than fabricating explanations solely because they need those explanations for their position to work. Which people we trust as authorities on this issue ultimately comes down to preference, and I prefer to trust (a) native Hebrew-speakers (I find the 'they're blind, so they don't understand their own language' explanation to be a massive cop-out), (b) non-native speakers who weigh all examples of singular nouns in plural form without eisegeting the text.

And I don't trust their understanding of Hebrew because I am a non-trinitarian. I am a non-trinitarian because I trust their understanding of Hebrew (even when many of them are themselves trinitarians).

[ewq1938]

I did not say 'ever in history'. I said 'prior to the alleged revelation of the trinity'.

Oh ok, sorry. But still, I know the basic origins of the Term "Trinity" but surely before that it was known outside of that term. I still would think some pople, Jews or not, would have wondered more about why Elohim was plural than others might have.

Okay: (1) Where in the New Testament do any of the writers point to the 'us' passages of Genesis 1, 3, 11 or Isaiah 6 as evidence that God is 'plural persons'? (2) Where in the New Testament do any of the writers point to the word 'elohim' as being evidence that God is 'plural persons'?

It's not that specific. They write about more than one person being God. Even God speaks of his son as God. The plurality is very evident in the NT, slightly evident in the OT.

And Moses, and Chemosh, and Baal, and Samuel's spirit.

Yep.

Is Samuel's spirit composed of spirit and soul and body... or just spirit? It is specifically his spirit that is called 'an elohim', not his whole being of 'spirit, soul and body'.

Gonna need specific verse to answer that.

For the second time, I didn't say that God said the others were 'elohim'. I said that God included them in the 'us'. And I provided an example of what I meant by this.

Ok, I disagree the two examples are the same.

Says what Scripture?

Gen_3:22

For the third time, I didn't say that every instance of 'elohim' includes 'God and the angels'. What I said was that, in the specific case of Genesis 1.26, the 'us' refers to the heavenly court.

What rule governs when it means that and when it doesn't? And where in Gen 1:26-27 is this heavenly court mentioned? It's obvious in the other example but not here.

You're using circular logic here. 'Us must refer to elohim, because elohim is plural. Elohim is plural because of the us.'

It's more of a straight line actually. Elohim is plural, thus the pronoun used for ELOHIM is plural. No angels are mentioned in the plural so the pronoun cannot refer to angels.

That's not the given explanation from the text. My objection here is that you only see 'something plural could be found' because it is necessary to your position that 'elohim' requires plurality. In other words, you're creating the plurality in those cases only because you need it to be there to defend your inaccurate interpretation of Hebrew nouns.

That's only true if no plurality is found but simply made up.

Then Elohim he-said (singular form), 'Let-us-make (plural form) man in our (plural) image, after our (plural) likeness...' So Elohim he-created (singular form) man in his (singular) own image.

Elohim is not a singular form, its plural.

So what? There are scholars of Hebrew in favor of both sides.

I'm just saying that while you believe the hebrew supports your position, there are others with the same education who will say you are incorrect.