In this issue we begin to look at Dr J.V. Fesko’s brief treatment of Genesis 1.26 found in his excellent book, Last Things First. ^[1]Fesko, J.V. Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology. (Christian Focus Publications, 2007), pp. 40-45. After an introduction, we’ll present three common treatments of the passage.

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.”

Genesis 1:26, ESV

When one enters upon the subject of the image of God the typical starting point is
Genesis 1:26 […] Scholars have spilled much ink over the use of plural pronouns in this verse: ‘let us make man in our image.’

There are of course two major questions packed into this little phrase: (1) why does God speak in the plural and (2) what does it mean to be in the image of God? Understanding the nature of God will assist in the definition of God’s image.

In other words, Is God triune, and Does the image of God in man reflect God’s triunity?

The Nature of God

At least three explanations have been offered for the text’s use of the plural: (1) God speaks to His heavenly court; (2) it is a plural of majesty; or (3) it is a nascent reference to the Trinity.

Option 1: Heavenly court.

From the earliest times rabbinic interpreters thought that God was addressing His heavenly court.

There are glimpses of the heavenly court in various parts of Scripture: the seraphim, cherubim, and elders that surround the throne of God (Isa 6:2-6, Rev. 4:4). A recent advocate of this position is Meredith Kline. Kline argues that God addresses His heavenly court based upon several passages of Scripture (Gen. 3:22–24, 18:21–19; Isa. 6:2–8).

Option 2: Plural of majesty.

Others have argued that God speaks in a plural of majesty. C.F. Keil argues that verse 26 is ‘God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural of number’ and ‘with reference to the fullness of the divine powers and essences which He possesses’. Though Keil allows for trinitarian implications, he argues that the primary force is in the plural of majesty, something like the royal ‘we’ in English.

Option 3: The Trinity.

Gordon Wenham notes that this verse has traditionally been cited as a proof-text for the Trinity but says ‘it is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.'^[2]This is a logical fallacy called Argumentum Ad Populum, (argument to the people). Yet this is not necessarily so. Early Jewish explanations of this passage saw the tension between the singular subject and the plural verb, Then God said [sg.], “Let us make [pl.] man in our image.”‘^[3]Cp. Matthew 28.19- Go therefore and make disciples…, baptizing them in the name [sg.] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [pl.]

The book of Jubilees, written in the second century BC, gives an account of the creation of man based upon Genesis where the plural verb disappears: ‘And after this, he created man, a man and a woman created he them’ (Jub. 2:14). The Talmud likewise recognizes this tension and argues that because Genesis 1:27 refers to one God, Genesis 1:26 must also refer to one God. Jewish interpreters recognized the grammatical tension and sought to eliminate it.

In other words, the author and original audience most likely saw the oddity of the verse. While the author might not have understood the complete implications of the grammatical tension, it could be an adumbration of the essential unity yet plurality of the Godhead.

This is certainly a possibility given the progressive revelation of God as triune from the Old Testament to the New. In other words, while one must acknowledge the human author’s intention, he must also remember that God is the ultimate author (2 Tim. 3:16). God, for example, often revealed more to His prophets than they themselves understood (1Pet. 1.10-11).

Of the three options, which is the best? That’s the question we will answer next time.

For Christ and the Gospel,
—Pastor Tony