Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:26-27 ESV)
Since the New Testament teaches that God the Father and Son of God were involved in creation,[1] and since the Holy Spirit is depicted as active in creation (Gen 1:3), it is apparent that the plural verb נַעֲשֶׂה (“Let us make”) and plural nouns בְּצַלְמֵנוּ (“in our image”) כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ (“according to our likeness”) refer to the Triune God. However, some have sought to offer an alternative to the trinitarian explanation. Hamilton cites five such explanations.[2] These are:
- 1. The Mythological Explanation: According to the so-called “mythological” interpretation, the “us” is said to refer to other gods. This interpretation neither coheres with the theology of Genesis or an inerrantist reading of Scripture. God alone created the heavens and the earth.[3]
- 2. The Heavenly Court/Angelic Host Explanation: On this view, the plural pronouns refer to a heavenly court of angelic hosts. While it is popular to explain the utilization of the plural pronouns by appealing to created angels, such an interpretation would necessarily mean that humankind was not only created in the image of God, but also other creatures, namely angels.[4] The emphasis in v. 27 itself (i.e., “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him…”), rules out the ad hoc appeal to angels. Judging by Moses’ commentary, he clearly believed that humankind was created in God’s image alone, stating in Gen 5:1 that “when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.”[5] Further, nowhere in Scripture is it said that God created with the cooperation of any creatures. Rather, the Father created through his Son. A case in point is the argument made within the prologue of the epistle to the Hebrews. There, the Son is identified as the one “through” (δια) whom the Father created the world. In that same pericope the writer has given a prosponic application of Psalm 102 wherein the Father says to the Son, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (v.10).[6]Therefore, God wasn't speaking to angels, but rather to his Son.
- 3. The Earth as Addressee Explanation: This view argues that God speaks to something he has recently created, the most likely addressee being the earth. There is nothing within the context of the creation account that affords such an interpretation. Even if, for some reason, one were to countenance this option, it is apparent that it finds no parallel within the Old Testament.
- 4. The “Plural of Majesty” Explanation: The literary device known as the pluralis majestatis or “plural of majesty” is a feature of nouns, adjectives, and only certain participles, but never pronouns. The Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics states,
The pluralis majestatis appears most frequently in nouns…, but may also be used with some nominalized adjectives…[and] some participles. There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis… ‘Let us make man in our image’ (Gen 1:26), has occasionally been explained as a pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations.[7]
Even if one were to insist that Genesis 1:26 is an example of the plural of majesty, the existence of the cohortative plural would result in a confusing sentiment. Baker has explained:
The plural of majesty (in effect singular) would not make sense of God’s call for unanimity in the endeavor. Such a meaning on God’s part would have required a singular cohortative voice (singular in the verb even if a plural of majesty were used for the noun/pronoun) rather than a plural cohortative. Even if it were here to be understood as a singular cohortative (difficult as that would be), we then would have the problem of understanding why God was trying to psyche himself up to some great feat.[8]
Some have sought to offer examples of the plural of majesty being used with pronouns in the Old Testament. The two typical texts cited are Ezra 4:18 and Daniel 2:36. In Ezra a plural pronoun is utilized, but in Daniel a plural verb used, and both of these occurrences are better explained by a consideration of their respective context. The so-called “royal we” is simply not a feature of the Hebrew Bible, and is instead an invention of the 4th century AD.[9]
- 5. The Self Deliberation Explanation: According to this alternative explanation, the pronouns signify a kind of self deliberation akin the statement, “Let's see.” This option finds no linguistic parallel within the canon. According to Wenham, this option “is uncertain, for parallels to this usage are very rare.”[10] While there are Scriptures wherein speakers engage in self deliberation (e.g., Ps 42:5), plural nouns are never utilized. Moreover, if self deliberation were a viable interpretation, we would expect non-Christian Jews within antiquity to utilize the such an explanation in their response to their Christian interlocutors. Instead, Sarfati has notes that
Early Jewish Christians were using this passage [i.e., Gen 1:26] as evidence of plurality, because the establishment rabbis were already trying to get around this. E.g. the Midrash Rabbah (8.8) on Genesis tries to answer:
Rabbi Samuel Bar Hanman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan said, that at the time when Moses wrote the Torah, writing a portion of it daily, when he came to the verse which says, “And Elohim said, let us make man in our image and after our likeness,” Moses said, “Master of the universe, why do you give herewith an excuse to the sectarians?” God answered Moses, “You write and whoever wants to err, let him err.”[11]
Given these alternative interpretations, there exists good reason to accept the traditional trinitarian explanation. Wenham, however, objects on that basis that “it is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.”[12] Consequently, he resorts to two untenable interpretations, arguing that “the choice then appears to lie between interpretations…’us’ = God and Angels or…plural of self-exhortation.”[13] The trouble with Wenham’s appeal to authorial intent is that he fails to adequately observe the prominence of the angel of Yahweh within the Pentateuch. The angel of Yahweh is a persistent presence in Genesis and is both identified as Yahweh/God and as personally distinct from Yahweh.[14] Hence, if one takes into account the mention of the Spirit within the creation account, and the heavy involvement of the divine angel within the books of Moses, there remains little basis for using authorial intent to dismiss the interpretation that is all but explicitly indicated by the New Testament.
