[First posted 2012 when we were still ‘clueless’ seekers at the start of our journey in understanding the Hebrew Scriptures. It was the time we were still shifting from a Christian mindset, shifting from the “image” of a Trinitarian Godhead, to the Jewish mindset believing in only One God, specifically the Self-Revealing God on Sinai in the Exodus Book of the TORAH.
This is a still recurring “Q” in 2019, so we are reposting the Rabbi’s explanation. As we always say, the TORAH is their etiology and Scripture, they read in Hebrew while we read in translation. But when we did consult the Rabbi, we were not fully content with his Answer. You know how consultants are sometimes, they know perfectly what they’re teaching and expect us to ‘get it’, but . . . the answer was not enough for us, so we have added our own interpretation/explanation in the “A” part, read to the very end! And as always, we are eager to hear from our readers; your interpretation if it’s different from ours. We all learn from each other, yeah? —- Admin1]
—————————
Q: We have heard it explained that Genesis 1:26 “Let US make man in OUR image” is simply the language of majesty, just like a king who addresses his earthly subjects in his earthly court in the plural,— “we” and “us” — referring to himself. But if the heavenly court consists of God and His angels, “OUR” image doesn’t make sense . . . since we understand from other verses that man is made in God’s image, and not the image of angels because angels were not made in the image of God—as far as we understand Scripture.
So why use “our” thereby giving Christians one TNK verse to support their Trinitarian Godhead ? Surely our Creator God in His foreknowledge would have foreseen that using the plural pronoun would be misused and misapplied, so why give Christian interpreters justification for their three-in-one God using this one line as “prooftext”? Thank you.—S6K
A: Rabbi M. Younger/Aish.com
Shalom —
Thank you for your note.Your observation is very correct and, in fact, was first raised by Moshe/Moses.The Midrash Rabbah explains that when Moshe came to this verse, he asked G-d what the meaning of this was, and why He was giving the opportunity for heretics to claim that there is more than one G-d.
G-d answered,
“If someone will err, let him err. But let those who are righteous understand that when it came to creating Man, G-d sought counsel of the Ministering Angels.”
This shows that Man was created with thought and wisdom, rather than just with physical effort. “Let us create…” rather than “let the Earth bring forth…” I hope that this has been helpful.
With blessings from the Holy Land.
————————————-
S6K postscript, 5/22/14:
Revisiting this Q&A, may we add this insight two years later.
We have insisted nonstop about not lifting isolated verses out of their literary context and emphasize reading only IN CONTEXT. ‘Context’ includes not only the immediate surrounding verses, but the whole chapter as well, and in fact throw in all the teaching on the topic/subject in the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, the TNK.
That said . . . if the ‘Old Testament God’, the God of Israel, the God Who speaks and Whose words are recorded in the TORAH, and the rest of the TNK —if that God keeps repeating He is ONE, “there is none before, none after”, then that consistent declaration is part of “context.” If the language of God includes expressions similar to formal language such as when a king would say “we” when referring to himself, just as that self-reference does not change the king’s singularity, as one person, it applies as well to the One True God. The peculiarity of royal language has nothing to do with the king’s being more than one which he is not.
It is the peculiarity of the dialect I speak, Tagalog [Filipino national language], that when strangers are addressed, we use the plural form . . . so we say “Sino po sila?” —“who are they please?” referring to just one person knocking at the door; and that person answers “may we ask for directions please” . . . the exchange continues using plural pronouns, expressions of politeness between two strangers. It is rude to simply say “who are you and what do you want?”
The Hebrew language has peculiarities of its own and English translators attempt to reflect those. Isolated verses using “we” and “us’ do not make the OT God a plurality when He consistently emphasizes His ONENESS throughout the TNK.
It is man who changes God’s nature by insisting on his own made-up theology, then tries to justify it by looking for isolated verses which are fewer than verses that keep repeating the ONENESS of God. This dishonest thinking leads to dishonest teaching if the teacher is aware — or simply ignorant—a way of thinking that leads to passing on his ignorance if the teacher is not aware. We could give them all the benefit of the doubt, for who indeed would want to fool anyone in matters relating to the God of Truth Who insists He is ONE?
In the end, why don’t we simply listen to YHWH’s self-declarations and self-revelation?
Hear O Israel, (hear O Gentiles),
YHWH is ONE.
That should settle this Q once and for all as it does for Israel but obviously, it is not sufficient for others who have a different explanation for ‘monotheism’ and a different definition of One.
Dig?
NSB@S6K
