What and who is God referring to in Genesis 1:26?

[Dinami]

In the book of Genesis God says: "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky..."

Who is we? Since God made man and woman is there like meant to be a mother God since God is our father thus referring 'make mankind in our image' or what?


Someone explain...

 

[Shermana]

The "angels", the "Sons of god".

 

[Gaura Priya]

The 'we' is the royal 'we' and is meant to show the majesty of God. Many Semetic languages such as Arabic and Hebrew feature this little grammatical tendency. Jehovah is both our Mother and Father, our Guide and Friend. God is beyond gender or sex.

Some Christians (like Mormons) believe that the Godhead actually comprises of two Deities: Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. They do take the Bible rather literally, but I think that it is nice that they believe in a Divine Feminine.

 

[Pegg]

we would say that the 'we' in genesis is Jehovah speaking to his Son Jesus who was instrumental in the creation of the universe and mankind as is stated in Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible

The book of Proverbs also identifies an individual (some would say wisdom) who was with God in the beginning of creation and who assisted God in that creation
Proverbs 8:22 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed,... 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there;...30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.

So if Jesus is the 'firstborn' as is stated in Colossians, then it makes perfect sense that he is also the one who was with God when God was creating the earth....and he was the master worker because "the world came into existence through him..." according to John 1:10. So the 'we' is in reference to Jesus Christ in his prehuman existence when he was acting as the 'master worker' alongside his Father Jehovah.

 

[BruceDLimber]

There is no Mrs. God, no.

And I've always taken "made in God's image" to mean we have free will.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Shiranui117]

In the book of Genesis God says: "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky..."

Who is we? Since God made man and woman is there like meant to be a mother God since God is our father thus referring 'make mankind in our image' or what?


Someone explain...

The "we" is to be understood as the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons in one God. Holy Trinity - OrthodoxWiki

 

[outhouse]

In the book of Genesis God says: "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky..."

Who is we? Since God made man and woman is there like meant to be a mother God since God is our father thus referring 'make mankind in our image' or what?


Someone explain...

Israelites were polytheistic when this was written and worshipped a family of gods.

Israelites factually formed from displaced Canaanites, and proto Israelites used some of their same deities.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[72] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[73] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74]


After the monarchy emerged at the beginning of Iron Age II, kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered as it was also for other societies in the ancient Near East

 

[outhouse]

The "we" is to be understood as the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three Persons in one God. Holy Trinity - OrthodoxWiki

Except these multiple unknown authors ad redactors had no idea of the concept of the trinity.

Even early Christianity had no idea of the trinity. It took some 400 years after Jesus to have a mainstream concept of the trinity.


Even defining Jesus divinity to the relationship with gods divinity was still being argued in 325 CE when Constantine had to stop the infighting ruling for a unified church.

 

[outhouse]

The "angels", the "Sons of god".

Actually, El was the father deity. Yahweh and Baal were the sons. Asherah was El's wife.

In later times Yahweh took on all Els attributes, including his wife Asherah.

Israelite's formed roughly 1200 BC, and it wasn't until after 622 BC that monotheism was born.

This means "Angles" and "royal we" "trinity" doesn't really represent history here in any way.

 

[Shiranui117]

Except these multiple unknown authors ad redactors had no idea of the concept of the trinity.

The Old Testament is always viewed through the lens of the New. The Jews, on the other hand, will say that the "we" in Genesis is referring to the royal plural "we."

Even early Christianity had no idea of the trinity. It took some 400 years after Jesus to have a mainstream concept of the trinity.

I take it you haven't read the Apostolic Fathers, i.e. the Fathers who lived in the first and second centuries of Christianity?

Even defining Jesus divinity to the relationship with gods divinity was still being argued in 325 CE when Constantine had to stop the infighting ruling for a unified church.

Arius was the first person in a VERY long time to question Jesus' divinity.

 

[Domenic]

we would say that the 'we' in genesis is Jehovah speaking to his Son Jesus who was instrumental in the creation of the universe and mankind as is stated in Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible

The book of Proverbs also identifies an individual (some would say wisdom) who was with God in the beginning of creation and who assisted God in that creation
Proverbs 8:22 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed,... 27 When he prepared the heavens I was there;...30 then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, 31 being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men.

So if Jesus is the 'firstborn' as is stated in Colossians, then it makes perfect sense that he is also the one who was with God when God was creating the earth....and he was the master worker because "the world came into existence through him..." according to John 1:10. So the 'we' is in reference to Jesus Christ in his prehuman existence when he was acting as the 'master worker' alongside his Father Jehovah.

You are 100% correct. I agree with your comment. It is Bible truth.

 

[outhouse]

The Old Testament is always viewed through the lens of the New. The Jews, on the other hand, will say that the "we" in Genesis is referring to the royal plural "we."

I take it you haven't read the Apostolic Fathers, i.e. the Fathers who lived in the first and second centuries of Christianity?

Arius was the first person in a VERY long time to question Jesus' divinity.

Yet it doesn't address this.

Israelites were polytheistic when this was written and worshipped a family of gods.

Israelites factually formed from displaced Canaanites, and proto Israelites used some of their same deities.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[72] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[73] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74]


After the monarchy emerged at the beginning of Iron Age II, kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered as it was also for other societies in the ancient Near East


Tertullian was the first to really put forth the idea of the trinity, but even then it wasn't fully defined, nor common thought or practice.

 

[Shiranui117]

Yet it doesn't address this.

Israelites were polytheistic when this was written and worshipped a family of gods.

Israelites factually formed from displaced Canaanites, and proto Israelites used some of their same deities.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[72] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[73] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[74]


After the monarchy emerged at the beginning of Iron Age II, kings promoted their family god, Yahweh, as the god of the kingdom, but beyond the royal court, religion continued to be both polytheistic and family-centered as it was also for other societies in the ancient Near East

I thought Genesis was written during the Babylonian Captivity, since the first 11 chapters are basically a Jewish adaptation of the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Babylonian stories, thus placing Genesis in a time period where the Israelite religion was more monotheist?

Tertullian was the first to really put forth the idea of the trinity, but even then it wasn't fully defined, nor common thought or practice.

Sure, Tertullian may have been the first person to lay it down. But Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr do make what we today know to be Trinitarian statements of belief--even if not refined to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan level.

 

[ChristineES]

In the book of Genesis God says: "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky..."

Who is we? Since God made man and woman is there like meant to be a mother God since God is our father thus referring 'make mankind in our image' or what?


Someone explain...

I always believed God meant the Angels and Himself. Some people say He is talking about the Trinity.

 

[outhouse]

I thought Genesis was written during the Babylonian Captivity, since the first 11 chapters are basically a Jewish adaptation of the Epic of Gilgamesh and other Babylonian stories, thus placing Genesis in a time period where the Israelite religion was more monotheist?

Your only correct in that, It was heavily redacted then.

Some of the original sources go back to roughly 960 BC [ish] and 920 BC [ish] Y source and E source. each source was also a collection and compilation in its own right.

As you have noticed a minimum of two sources were compiled together, which for the most part represents the northern and southern people and their beliefs.

To clarify on the composition, at best we know these were collections of different early scripture that was added to and edited over centuries. This work is so fragmented, its obvious it evolved for a very long time as their beliefs changed.

 

[outhouse]

Sure, Tertullian may have been the first person to lay it down. But Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr do make what we today know to be Trinitarian statements of belief--even if not refined to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan level.

Correct.

It must be noted early on in the movement, beliefs were wide and varied.

The scripture that were are left with is only a fraction of what was, and it won out the rest by popularity. But even the scripture doesn't deal with the trinity at all, because it was a foreign concept to the average person in the movement before Jesus divinity was accepted by the Roman government and the trinity hammered out in what amounts to a court setting. If Constantine had ruled the opposite, we would have different communities to this day with different beliefs. I believe the trinity would have survived anyway, but it wouldn't be mainstream.

 

[Shiranui117]

Correct.

It must be noted early on in the movement, beliefs were wide and varied.

The scripture that were are left with is only a fraction of what was, and it won out the rest by popularity. But even the scripture doesn't deal with the trinity at all, because it was a foreign concept to the average person in the movement before Jesus divinity was accepted by the Roman government and the trinity hammered out in what amounts to a court setting.

Not so. The first person to list off the books of the New Testament as we know it today was St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the year 367, 42 years after the Trinity and Christ's divinity had been defended at the Council of Nicaea. Both the Trinity and Christ's divinity were at that point firmly-established dogmas of the Church.

If Constantine had ruled the opposite, we would have different communities to this day with different beliefs.

Constantine did not make any ruling at the Council of Nicaea; the most he did was ask the Fathers of the Council to write a statement of the Faith that they had decided on, and they did so. Constantine himself later became an Arian, but did not attempt to persecute the Trinitarian Church. He essentially changed his mind, but did not nullify the Council of Nicaea or try to convert the Church to Arianism. It was the 318 Fathers at the Council of Nicaea who voted under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, rather than Constantine deciding for himself what the Faith of the Church should be; he actually had little understanding of the issues at stake, nor did he particularly care (as evidenced by his early acceptance of the Nicene decrees, but switch to Arianism for political reasons)

 

[Shermana]

The Jews, on the other hand, will say that the "we" in Genesis is referring to the royal plural "we."

No actually, the traditional Jewish view is that its the Angels and "sons of god" (The heavenly court). Even Christian scholars are now begrudgingly admitting this apparently.

Orthodox Judaism: What does Genesis 1:26 say in Hebrew?, rabbi tovia singer, mechon mamre

This argument, however, is grievously flawed. In fact, a great number of Trinitarian Christian scholars have long abandoned the notion that Genesis 1:26 implies a plurality of persons in the godhead. Rather, Christian scholars overwhelmingly agree that the plural pronoun in this verse is a reference to God’s ministering angels who were created previously, and the Almighty spoke majestically in the plural, consulting His heavenly court. Let’s read the comments of a number of preeminent Trinitarian Bible scholars on this subject. For example, the evangelical Christian author Gordon J. Wenham, who is no foe of the Trinity and authored a widely respected two-volume commentary on the Book of Genesis, writes on this verse, Christians have traditionally seen [Genesis 1:26] as adumbrating [foreshadowing] the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.

The New International Version is hardly a Bible that can be construed as being friendly to Judaism. Yet, the NIV Study Bible also writes in its commentary on Genesis 1:26,

Us . . . Our . . . Our. 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)

And as Pegg brings up, the Chief builder is, as Philo desscribes, the "Logos", who is the Firstborn created being, the Incarnation of Wisdom. God is the Architect, the Logos is the Foreman.

We see as well even in Josephus as he mentions the very-Jewish "Sybilline Oracles" (Which are not pagan in this case but 100% Jewish) that it was known as possibly "lesser gods" assisting the Creation process, and we know that "Angels" are in fact called "gods" in the text.

 

[outhouse]

The first person to list off the books of the New Testament as we know it today was St. Athanasius of Alexandria in the year 367, 42 years after the Trinity and Christ's divinity had been defended at the Council of Nicaea. Both the Trinity and Christ's divinity were at that point firmly-established dogmas of the Church.

I was speaking of the first few hundred years, long before this. No one at all doubt we are only left with a fraction of the early books written.

Many claim Constantine ordered 50 bibles in 331 CE which may have already motivated the canon list.

when you claim "not so" you will have to be more specific.

Constantine did not make any ruling at the Council of Nicaea; the most he did was ask the Fathers of the Council to write a statement of the Faith that they had decided on, and they did so.

He forced unification as I had earlier stated.

You will have a hard time redefining the term "Constantine's influence"

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Council declared that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about him handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled.

This amounts to forcing unification by threat of exile. Thus he ruled they either play ball and all vote the same, or be exiled, which amounted to death.

 

[Shiranui117]

I was speaking of the first few hundred years, long before this. No one at all doubt we are only left with a fraction of the early books written.

Many claim Constantine ordered 50 bibles in 331 CE which may have already motivated the canon list.

when you claim "not so" you will have to be more specific.

He may have commissioned Bibles, but the canon hadn't officially been closed yet. Codex Vaticanus is a notable example; it includes several books in its New Testament that we don't have in our New Testament of today.

He forced unification as I had earlier stated.

You will have a hard time redefining the term "Constantine's influence"

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Council declared that the Son was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about him handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled.

This amounts to forcing unification by threat of exile. Thus he ruled they either play ball and all vote the same, or be exiled, which amounted to death.

Even if he did force unification, he didn't care HOW the Church was unified. He didn't care which doctrine won out, nor, as Wiki says, did he really know enough to be able to care.

Also, it seems that Constantine did an about-face; he took counsel from Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was an Arian. If Constantine really exiled EVERY Arian, then he would have exiled Eusebius and not taken counsel from him. Constantine was even baptized on his deathbed by Arians.