The Royal "We" of Genesis 1:26-27

From my dear friend and fellow researcher Edward "Ted" Jones

 

Here is some stuff I put together several years ago, regarding the 'royal we', as well as the meaning of Gen. 1. 26-7:

 

James White refused to deal with the subject of LDS thought and the early Christian concept of deification.  He stated that the Latter-day Saint concept of deity was not remotely similar to that taught in the early Church, and consequently deification could have no resemblance to the LDS concept of exaltation.  Therefore, something needs to be said regarding the nature of deity as it was taught in the early Church.  A good beginning can be had by examining what the Church Fathers had to say about Genesis 1.26 (‘Let us make man in our image’).  Gerald Bray, British evangelical scholar, has recently discussed at some length this statement, suggesting that an “awkward question is raised by [its] use of the plural…implying as it does that man, as the image of God, somehow reflects a plurality in God.  Here, there is no unanimity among interpreters.  All are agreed that the Israelite God is One, and that the use of the plural here cannot imply polytheism.”[1]  He says that it is “more probable…that God is here speaking to the heavenly hosts, though this raises such questions as … whether angels took part in the work of man’s creation.”  After citing Ps 8.5-6 (‘God made man a little lower than the angels’, which is quoted

in Heb 2.5-6), he concludes that “it is probably best to leave these questions [of angels in the creation] out of the discussion altogether.”  Bray would have been even less inclined to discuss the subject had he referred to the Hebrew version of this Psalm, which actually refers to humans being made a ‘little lower than the gods.’[2]  Bray continues that “the further suggestion that this is a royal ‘we’ is now generally rejected on the ground that the Bible does not use the royal ‘we’ of God.”[3]  Bray continues: “To return to the problem of the plural in Genesis1.26, the most likely answer is that God is speaking to other beings who share whatever it is He is about to give to man, but that the actual work of creation is His alone.   This impression is reinforced by Genesis 3.22, where God says ‘Behold, the man has now become like one of us,’ a use of the plural which clearly excluded any form of inflated singular.”  As Bray mentions, the New Testament frequently assigns the creation to the Son, Jesus Christ (John 1.3; Col. 1.15-6; Heb 1.2; Eph 3.9; I Cor 8.6; Rev 4.11).[4]  Not only so, but the Nicene Creed (325 AD) also attributes the creation to Christ: ‘We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten ….through whom all things were made, those in heaven and those on earth.”[5]  R. M. Wilson has written that the plural used in Gen. 1.26 “has always been a problem.”  Clearly God is speaking to someone else, perhaps angels, or to the heavenly court.  According to Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Origen, He was speaking to His Son.[6]  Borchardt refers also to Tertullian, Hilary and Novatian using this passage in terms of the Son being he to whom the Father was speaking.[7]  J.D.G. Dunn, in his ‘magisterial’ work on New Testament christology, writes that God is speaking in the heavenly council to the other gods.[8]  J. A. Lyons cites Origen’s comments on this passage in his work against Celsus, and says they were spoken by God to the pre-mortal Christ.[9]  According to L.W. Barnard Justin taught that God was speaking with another, and therefore the Son (Logos) is “numerically distinct” from God.[10]  Jaroslav Pelikan has written that “whatever these Hebrew plurals…may have meant originally, Christian interpreters had, almost ‘in the beginning,’ taken them to refer to a counsel between the Father and the Son,” citing Justin.[11]  St. Augustine is cited as referring to Gen. 1.26, 3.22 and 11.7 as implying a plurality of divine persons.[12]  Anglican Bishop Hanson writes the following regarding Justin Martyr’s use of Gen. 3.22 (‘Man has become as one of us’): “Justin maintained that to describe the use of the plural number here as merely figurative language is the mark of ‘sophists and those who cannot speak or understand the truth.’”[13]  The Epistle of Barnabas 5.5 and 6.11-12 also state that God was speaking to the Son.[14]  In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Origen cites Psalm 148.5 (‘the Lord commanded, and they were created’ [KJV]), and indicates that this means that the Father told the Son to create the visible and invisible worlds.[15]  Cyril of Jerusalem (died ca. 387) used this same passage from Psalms in his defense of the oneness of the Father and the Son:  “’because there is a single act of creation of all things, performed by the Father through the Son, according to the Psalmist’s words: ‘he spoke, and they were made; he gave the command, and they were created’ (Psalm 148.5 LXX).  For to speak implies a hearer, and to command implies a partner.’”[16]

 

 

---

[1] Gerald Bray, ‘The Significance of God’s Image in Man,’ Tyndale Bulletin 42 (1991): 195-225, at 197.

[2] Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Fortress press 1989): 71: “Between the Masoretic [Hebrew] Text and the [Greek Septuagint] the only major difference [in this Psalm] is in the designation of the beings to whom the human being is subjected.  The psalmist speaks of ‘gods,’ which the [Septuagint] translates as ‘angels.’”  Attridge, Professor at the University of Notre Dame, comments in the footnote to this:  “These beings were no doubt understood as the members of the heavenly court,” referring us further to Gerald Cooke, “The Sons of (the) God(s),” Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1964): 22-47; Frank M. Cross, “The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,” Journal of Near Eastern  Studies 12 (1953): 274-77; also to Psalm 82.1; 86.8; 89.6, 8.  See further, James D.G. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit, Volume I: Christology (Eerdmans 1998): 436, where he contrasts the Hebrew and Greek versions.  In his Christology in the Making, Dunn glosses over the situation by stating that the Septuagint “differs slightly from the masoretic [Hebrew] text,” 309, n. 46.  Markus Bockmuehl has recently referred to this ‘translation’ in his “’The Form of God’ (Phil. 2.6),  Variations on a Theme of Jewish Mysticism,” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 1-23, at page 13, note 33.  See the recent translation and discussion by Alistair G. Hunter, Psalms (London 1999): 159-71.  Nicolas Wyatt, “’Supposing Him to be the Gardener’ (John 20.15).  A Study of the Paradise Motif in John,” ZNTW 81 (1990): 32 retains the Hebrew elohim.

[3] Bray, op. cit., 198.  Cooke, in the article cited in previous note, also rejects the ‘plural of majesty,’ page 22. Contrary to this a recent article in a Catholic magazine rejects the LDS doctrine of deity in part because Gen 1.26 ‘obviously’ referred to the royal ‘we’ rather than to the presence of two individuals, one of whom may have been speaking to the other; Brian Paul, “Looking for God in all the wrong places…like Kolob,” Envoy (March/April 1999): 32-37, at page 35.  The mission statement of Envoy Magazine, of which Patrick Madrid is the editor, reads in part: “In light of the serious inroads by proselytizing sects, Envoy’s main goal is to prepare Catholics to ‘be always ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you’ (I Peter 3.15).”  Isaiah Bennett, although citing several different options for the meaning of Gen. 1.26, and claiming that any of them could be valid, declares that the LDS interpretation is wrong.  This is the old “we don’t know what this difficult verse means, but we know for a fact that whatever the Mormons declare it to mean is wrong.”  To paraphrase Patrick Madrid’s statement quoted above (at note 10), as biblical exegesis this bromide is useless; Bennett, Inside Mormonism, 254.

[4] Bray, “Significance,” op. cit., 199.  Bockmuehl reminds us that the Greek version of Gen. 3.5-6, to which 3.22 refers, translates the Hebrew ‘like God’ into the plural ‘like gods,’ in Bockmuehl, “’The form of God’ (Phil 2.6),” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1997): 9.

[5] Neuner-Dupuis, The Christian Faith,  paragraph 7.  The same theme is present in the creed generated by the Council of Constantinople (381): ibid., paragraph 12

[6] R.M. Wilson, “The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen. 1.26,” Studia Patristica 1. (1955): 420-37, at 421, 431, 435.  Quasten, Patrology 1.294-5 gives Irenaeus’ references as Adv Haer 5.1.3; 5.5.1; 5.28.1.

[7] C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggles (Gravenhage 1966): 55-59.  See Hilary, De Trinitate 4.16-7f.

[8] James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 105.  See also Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit.  I: Christology (Eerdmans 1998): 322: “From earliest times we have ‘the sons of God’ who are members of the heavenly council under Yahweh the supreme God”, with reference to Genesis 6.2, 4; Deut 32.8; Job 1.6-12; 2.1-6; 38.7; Psal 29.1; 89.6; I Enoch 13.8; 106.5; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 1.78; and T.H. Gaster in Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible 1.131.  ‘Magisterial’ is from Barnabas Lindars, “Christ and Salvation,” The Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 64 (1982): 481.  On the ‘heavenly council,’ cf. Simon B. Parker, “The Beginning of the Reign of God—Psalm 82 as Myth and Liturgy,” Revue Biblique 102 (1995): 532-559, with bibliographical references; W.S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 82: Once Again, Gods or Men?,” Biblica (Rome) 76 (1995): 219-228; John Day, God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea.  Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament (Cambridge 1985); and Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven:  Satan in the Hebrew Bible (Harvard 1988); also the references cited in Attridge, Hebrews (Fortress): 71, note 21, cited above.  Cf. Edward T. Jones, “A Comparative Study of Ascension Motifs in World Religions,” in Deity and Death, edited by Spencer J. Palmer (BYU 1978): 79-105, at page 81f. ‘Counsel’ in the three references at the bottom of page 81 (Amos 3.7 and Jer 23.21-2) ought to have been printed ‘council,’ in accordance with the sources cited there.  On the divine council see also Bryan D. Spinks, The Sanctus in the Eucharistic Prayer(Cambridge University Press 1991): 11-13, with its application to Isaiah 6, at page 14 ff.  With reference to Amos 3.7 see Markus Bockmuehl, Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity (Eerdmans 1990): 15, where he states that the relevant term [Hebrew: sodh] has reference to a  “fellowship of intimate friends taking counsel [for action],” with Amos 3.7 referring to the divine council/fellowship or the secret plan devised by it.

[9] J. A. Lyons, The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin (Oxford 1982): 115, referring to Contra Celsum 5.37.  Cf. A.J. Hobbel, “The Imago Dei in the writings of Origen,” Studia Patristica 21 (1989): 301.

[10] L.W. Barnard, “The Logos Theology of Saint Justin Martyr,” Downside Review 89 (1971): 135, citing Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 1.62.  Marcel Simon draws attention to the same point, bringing together Gen. 1.26 with 3.22, in Simon, “The Bible in the Earliest Controversies between Jews and Christians,” in The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, ed. and tr. Paul M. Blowers (Notre Dame 1997): 62.

[11] Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries (Harper and Row 1985): 90; also at 62, citing Basil.

[12] Teachings of the Catholic Church, ed. George D. Smith (New York 1949; 1^st 1927), 1.115.

[13] R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event.  A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen’s Interpretation of Scripture (London 1959): 120, quoting from Justin, Dialogue 129.2.  In his footnote to this Hanson also refers to Theophilus, ad Autolycum 2.18: God is speaking to His Son; and Irenaeus AH 4.34.1. 

[14] Quasten, Patrology 1.87; cf. R.M. Wilson, op. cit., 426-7. Translation in Early Christian Writings, by Maxwell Staniforth (Penguin Books 1975): 198, 201. Also referred to in David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature.  A Survey (Fortress Press 1993): 91, note 2, where he also refers to Justin, Dialogue 62.1; Basil’s agreement is mentioned at page 207; Tertullian’s at page 278.

[15] J.N. Rowe, “Origin’s Subordinationism as illustrated in his commentary on St. John’s Gospel,” Studia Patristica 11 (1972): 222.

[16] Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechesis 11.16, in Edward Yarnold, S.J., Cyril of Jerusalem (London 2000): 135. Cyril’s other arguments regarding the ‘oneness’ of Father and Son are that they are one “in respect of the dignity of godhead… in respect of kingship… and because there is no disharmony or disagreement between them,” all of which accord well with the LDS concept that there are two Beings involved, as partners, though one is Father, the other is Son.  In Catechesis 11.23 Cyril says that the words of Gen. 1.26 “were evidently spoken to someone present,” and again quotes Psalm 145.8 LXX (or perhaps Ps 33.9).

 

 

Comments

[Xev Athono]

This is why the Mormons think human can become Gods?! They do not understand Hebrew or ancient Jewish customs. They got this one wrong. The passage addresses the practice that religions at that time had Gods in all sorts of strange images. The jews were just showing that God was not a bird-headed creature

[Chanel J12]

Your words help a lot, thanks!

[Steve Johnson]

Yes! God and man look the same.

[cheap jordans]

Your blog is great. Your thoughts are also very good and i am very inspired from your post. That is why I visit this blog again and again and will come back in future too. Thanks

[Cheap Nike Free]

Your blog is great. Your thoughts are also very good and i am very inspired from your post.

[Nike free run 2]

I have never read such a wonderful article and I am coming back tomorrow to continue reading.

[Kerry Shirts]

Thank you for all your kind words. I haven't added to this blog for a while, but I will continue to do so as I have time.

[Chris Albert]

Nice! I really love it. Thanks for sharing this post.

[holiday rentals london]

Probably the atheist won't agree with the theory of genesis which the bible sticking to.

[Justin Bieber Shoes]

...We LOVE your hometown!...
am looking forward to celtx supporting novels...

[Web Design]

i too agree with theory of genesis ...as i don't believe if my heart says also to just accept it but mind wont allow me

[china wholesale]

Hi, the article is so wonderful, I am interested in it. I will pay attention to your articles.

[יין ישראלי]

Great post shared by you. I feel fairly strong about this and would like to read more.

[supra skytop]

And the evening rush to the business entity, supra skytop shopping network in hot summer began to reflect the advantages of cheap supra shoes convenient. "It's too hot, everyone is not willing to go shopping at home shopping online, compared with more convenient."This year just learned that buys the supra cruizer shoes li told reporters. She also said that, in addition to save out shopping hard,buys price advantage and one of the important reasons for her. This car is quite li. purple shoes He said not long ago he risked sweltering in a shopping mall in the afternoon,spent nearly 500 yuan to buy a set of supra cuban shoes summer, and colleagues at the unit seat in the mall in less than half an hour to 200 yuan to buy the price with the product. Reporters. at the interview also note that in taobao shopping website, supra skytop purple as many businessmen to reassure all customers for e-commerce concerns, launched a full-court exempt postage,7 days, replacement,accept supra footwear inspection activities.Counters However,the experience of online consumer also remind, although cheap stuff, justin bieber supra but there are also pass away the sham as the genuine,need careful choice when buying."it is released by supraskytoppurpleshoes.com 2011.11.30"

[Joshua W. Cleveland]

Hey,

Wanted to quickly encourage you to keep up the good work :).

-- Joshua

[moncler coats uk]

Don't know what is wrong what is rite but i know that every one has there own point of view and same goes to this one

[Ralph Lauren Outlet]

Your article is very special, I learned a lot, I will always look at your article, I covered up your site.

[John Mann]

This is such an informative article and very clearly written. Every single thought and idea is direct to the point. Perfectly laid out. Thank you for taking your time sharing this to you readers.
free cell phone