To what does the “let us” refer?

Explanation:

When we reach Genesis 1:26, the narrator describes God as self-deliberating, stating, Let us make… Before bringing forth another aspect of creation, God deliberates. What is peculiar about God’s deliberation is that he refers to himself in the first-person plural. That is, instead of using the first-person singular of to make, which would translate as, “Let me make…,” God says, “Let us make.” And in case there is any doubt that we should take the subject of to make in the first-person plural, the direct object of the verb, man, is modified by two prepositional phrases in our image, after our likeness. Why does the narrator use the first-person plural in Genesis 1:26?

It is important to note that all throughout the creation account we find God speaking, Let there be, or Let [x] bring forth, followed by things coming into existence. From the beginning of the account to the end, God is the only one who creates and makes or causes other things to make.⁵ When we reach Genesis 1:26, God says, Let us make, and this is followed up in Genesis 1:27 with, And God made. Clearly God is the one who brought forth man, just as he brings forth all of the other elements throughout the passage. Since God is the only subject who creates in Genesis 1, we should conclude that when God pauses to deliberate, saying, Let us make, he is referring to himself, while also displaying the plurality of persons within the Godhead.

Counterargument:

Reading Genesis 1:1–31 in the twenty-first century, we have the benefit of the New Testament and church fathers who have articulated the three persons of the Godhead. But to suggest that the author understood the plurality of persons within the Godhead is anachronistic.⁶ The author would have found himself in an ancient Near Eastern culture that held to a plurality of gods. Considering this ancient Near Eastern culture, we should think that the author is mostly concerned with presenting creation as the work of the one God of the universe.⁷

Response to counterargument:

The argument here is not that the author of Genesis 1:1–31 held to the Trinity. We know from the New Testament and church history that the doctrine of the Trinity developed after Jesus’ ministry. Still, we have to let the author speak for himself. First, there is the consistent theme that God is the subject who creates and makes (or who causes other things to make). Second, the grammar indicates that God deliberated with himself in the first-person plural. Further, after stating that he will make man in Genesis 1:26, we read that God follows through and creates (third-person singular) man (Genesis 1:27). Whether or not the Trinity will later be revealed is not at stake. What is at stake is interpreting the text based on its plainest sense, and the plainest sense is that God reveals himself as a plurality of persons within the Godhead.

Explanation:

Although the author is most probably not aware that the one God is three in person, the notion that God is a plurality of persons is not entirely foreign to his thought. The plurality of the divine persons is introduced already in Genesis 1:2, where the Spirit of God hovers over the face of the waters.^8,9,10 The creation of man in Genesis 1:27 is the climax of the creation account, and the event is prefaced with God in a moment of self-reflection. Given the significance of creating beings after his own image, it is no surprise that the narrator describes God working with the Spirit, introduced in Genesis 1:2.

There are other passages from the Old Testament that indicate a plurality in the Godhead at creation. For example, in Job 33:4, Job reflects on the fact that the Spirit of God made him and gave him the breath of life.¹¹ Psalm 104 also connects God’s Spirit and creation in Psalm 104:30: When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.¹² Also, Proverbs 30:1–33 nods toward a plurality in the persons of the Godhead in the sense that the author personifies wisdom as being with God when he created the universe.¹³

Counterargument:

There is more than one way to translate Genesis 1:2. The reason is because the noun רוּחַ can be used to denote spirit, breath, or wind. In order to decide which translation is best we need to consider the context, and when we do, we notice that the preceding clause states that the earth was formless and void. Given the chaos of the state of the earth, it makes most sense to think that there was a wind hovering over the waters. Added to this, the term אֱלֹהִים, often translated God, can also be translated awesome or powerful.¹⁴ Therefore, when Genesis 1:2 states וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּֽיִם, the best translation in light of the context might be, And an awesome wind hovered over the face of the waters.¹⁵ Of course, if this translation is right, then we cannot assume that the author has already mentioned the plurality of the Godhead in Genesis 1:2. Rather, he has mentioned the awesome wind that swept over the surface of the earth when it was still formless and void.

Counterargument:

This interpretation will not do for at least two reasons. First, if we exclude Genesis 1:2, the noun אֱלֹהִים is used thirty-one times in Genesis 1 and in every instance, there is no question that it is a name referring to God. If the author wanted to refer to an awesome wind in Genesis 1:2, it is very unlikely he would use the noun אֱלֹהִים to convey this. Second, we already reviewed two other passages from the Old Testament, Psalm 104:1–35 and Job 33:1–33, which directly connect the Spirit of God with creation. That there is a thematic connection between Genesis 1, Psalm 104, and Job 33, and that God’s Spirit was involved in creation, seem impossible to overlook.

Explanation:

We know that the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully revealed until the New Testament writers reflected on the work of Christ and on the Old Testament. Still, Genesis 1:26 seems to indicate that the plurality of persons within the Godhead was not completely foreign to the author of Genesis 1:1–31. Further evidence that the author of the earliest portions of Genesis understood something of the plurality in the Godhead comes to us by way of Genesis 11:1–32.¹⁶ There we read that the people had one common language and decided they would build a tower into the heavens. God is angered by this development because the tall tower reflects the pride of the people, so he decides to interfere with the effort. God says to himself, Let us go down and there confuse (Genesis 11:7). Once again, the narrator uses the first-person plural form to indicate a plurality. This is immediately followed up by, So the Lord dispersed them. Once again, we have God in a moment of self-reflection within the plurality of the persons of the Godhead before he acts as a singular agent.

Counterargument:

While it is true that the first-person plural is used in both Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7, this does not mean that in both cases the narrator uses it to refer to the plurality of persons within the Godhead. In fact, it is just as likely that the narrator uses this as a literary device to empathize self-deliberation (see Interpretation 2).¹⁷ In both Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 11:7 the author uses the device to highlight the significance of God’s action. God did not take it lightly when he created humans after his image, nor did he take it lightly when he stifled the building of the tower of Babel.

Response to counterargument:

The point is not that the instance of God’s referring to himself in the first-person plural in Genesis 11:7 proves the plurality of the Godhead in Genesis 1:26. For it would be circular reasoning to assume that the one proves the other, and vice versa. Rather, the point is that Genesis 1:26 is not the only instance where it seems like God deliberates in the plural before taking an important action. In fact, there is one more example in Genesis 3:22. After Adam and Eve sin, God self-deliberates, and once again he does so in the first-person plural, stating, Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. It is another important example of God potentially shown to be deliberating in the plurality of persons in the Godhead.

If there were no other cases in Genesis (and especially the history of Genesis 1:1 – 11:32) suggesting a plurality in the Godhead, it would be more difficult to take Genesis 1:26 as such. With two other plausible examples we have a reason to think that the author is expressing a plurality of persons in the Godhead.

Explanation:

The culmination of God’s creation is humanity, and the author of Genesis 1:1–31 highlights the uniqueness of humanity through the literary device of self-deliberation.²¹ Humans are created in God’s image and will be given dominion over all that God had made. That humans are created in God’s image and are to rule creation is significant, so much so that the author portrays God in a moment of self-deliberation before the event takes place.

Counterargument:

The notion that humans are the culmination of the creative activity is fine as far as it goes. Still, if the author wanted to depict God in a moment of self-deliberation to emphasize the uniqueness of humanity, why would he use the first-person plural of the verb to make and attach the first-person plural pronominal suffix to the prepositional phrase, in our image, after our likeness? In other words, it would have made more sense for him to use the first-person singular, Let me make…in my image and likeness to depict God self-deliberating. Since the author uses the first-person plural, we have reason to analyze the passage for further insights.

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that the author could have used the first-person singular to convey a moment of self-deliberation, this misses the point. The point is that the creation of humanity is so unique that not only does the author of Gen 1 convey God as pausing for a moment of self-deliberation but he uses the first-person plural to convey this importance with greater force than if he had used the expected first-person singular. By using the first-personal plural, the author draws us into the narrative so that we wonder about what it means that humans are created in the image and likeness of God. In other words, the first-person plural is an especially emphatic literary device.²²

Explanation:

When we scan the Old Testament, we find other examples where an author has God using the first-person plural to refer to himself in a moment of self-deliberation. For example, in Genesis 1:1–31, Isaiah has a vision of God where God appoints Isaiah to be a prophet to his people. In the vision, Isaiah hears God say, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? (Isaiah 6:8). In this example we find the first-person singular construction of the verb to send in the primary clause, and the first-personal plural of the prepositional phrase for us in the subordinate clause. This is a clear instance of an author using the first-person plural as a literary device to convey self-deliberation, meant to highlight an important aspect of the account—in the case of Isaiah 6:8, finding a messenger fit for the Lord’s service.

Counterargument:

While it might seem as though the author is using the first-person plural to convey self-deliberation, it is just as likely that God is speaking to the angelic council that surrounds his throne.²³ We know from other places in Scripture that God is surrounded by a heavenly council. For example, in Psalm 89:6–8 the psalmist wonders who is like the Lord among the heavenly beings, and states that in the council of his holy ones God is greatly feared. Another example comes from 1 Kings 22:19 where the prophet Micaiah sees God sitting on his throne with the multitudes of heaven standing on his left and his right. Job 1:6 reflects something similar, where the author explains that the angels present themselves before God. In other words, we have good reason from Scripture to think that God surrounds himself with a heavenly council, so when he says, Who will go for us? it is likely that he is addressing the heavenly council.

Response to counterargument:

While Scripture does explain that God has a heavenly council who stands in his presence, there is no indication from Isa 6 that God is addressing this council. A careful reading of the passage reveals that God will send Isaiah to prophesy against the Israelites for not turning to the Lord for healing (Isaiah 6:10). This means that when God wonders, Who will go for us? God intends to send a messenger to convict the people of sin for turning their back on God. If God uses the question, Who will go for us? to include the divine council in his deliberation, this suggests that the Israelites have sinned against God and the divine council, so God will send someone on behalf of this group of heavenly beings. Of course, this will not do, because Israel does not sin against the angels but against God alone (Psalm 51:4). Given the reason for deliberation, it seems more likely that God is deliberating with himself, and not a council of heavenly beings.

Explanation:

The decision to create humans is a significant moment. Interestingly, other ancient Near East creations also emphasize the creation of humans by prefacing the activity with a moment of self-deliberation. For example, in the Enuma Elish, Marduk is depicted as deliberating with decision to make humankind with Ea.²⁴ Moments later Ea is said to make man with his blood.²⁵ In an Assyrian text we find something similar. The account states, What are we to change, what are we to create? o Annunaki, you great gods, What are we to change, what are we to create? We will slay Lamga, the double (deity), We will create mankind from its blood.²⁶

In both the Enuma Elish and Assyrian texts, there is a pregnant pause of self-deliberation before the creation of humankind. So the point in Genesis 1 is not that the author is borrowing from these creation myths. Rather, the point is that highlighting an important aspect through the literary device of self-deliberation was a common tactic in the ancient Near East.

Counterargument:

In order for this argument to succeed it must establish not that there is a pause before the creation of humanity but that the moment of self-deliberation uses the first-person plural to refer to a single being as a literary device to convey importance. The notion that Marduk shares his thoughts with Ea does not parallel Genesis 1:1–31, where God is the sole originator of all creation. The Assyrian account suffers from a similar flaw. Clearly the narrator and Annunaki are cooperating in their effort. Therefore, it is no surprise that the account would use the first-person plural to capture the subjects in the grammar. Since there is more than one subject, the first-person plural is the only grammar that makes sense.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness of this view is that on the face of it, it is not obvious to use the first-person plural to convey emphasis. That God would pause for a moment of self-deliberation is enough to highlight the importance of the creation of humankind, but for him to refer to himself in the plural does not seem to underscore the significance. It is possible that the author is using the first-person plural to convey self-deliberation, but we need better examples to reinforce that this is plausibly the case in Genesis 1:1–31.²⁷

Explanation:

We know from other places in Scripture that there is an angelic host that surrounds God’s throne (Psalm 89:6–8; 1 Kings 22:19; see Interpretation 2, b), counterargument). Still, there is no mention of the angelic host in Genesis 1:1–31, so how can we be sure that when God says, Let us make… (Genesis 1:26), he is addressing the heavenly council? A solid piece of evidence comes by way of Job 38. Finally, after Job makes his complaint, God answers him from the whirlwind in rhetorical fashion. God asks Job if he was present when God laid the foundation of the earth (Job 38:4), when the morning songs sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy (Job 38:7). In other words, was Job present when God created, and the angelic host shouted with joy? This seems to indicate that indeed, there was an angelic host present when God created. This insight from Job 38 opens the way for understanding that when God says, Let us make, the author uses the first-person plural because God is addressing the heavenly council.

Counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation is that the grammar of Genesis 1:26 not only uses the first-person plural of the verb to make but it also includes the first-personal plural suffixes on the nouns for image and likeness. This means that God not only says, Let us make man, as though he were addressing an audience, but he follows this up with in our image, after our likeness. If God is addressing a heavenly council, this would imply that God is creating humans after the image and likeness of himself and the heavenly council. In other words, God would be including the stature of created beings as models after which humankind was fashioned. Given the significance that humans are created after God’s image, it seems highly unlikely that the author wants us to think that humans are created in the image of God and angels.

Possible weakness:

The possible weakness of this view is that there is no indication from the text that there is a heavenly council present. The fact is, the author has elevated the supremacy of God by having him create the universe simply by the power of his word. It almost runs counter to the rest of the account to suddenly introduce the angelic host.²⁸