Posted on 07/02/2009 4:26:40 PM PDT by TaraP
"LET US MAKE MAN..."
Gen 1:26 "And 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
To Whom was God speaking? Was the Father speaking to the Son? Or was the Son speaking to the Father? Was it the Holy Ghost speaking to the "other two"? Is there a proper interpretation of this verse which does not divide God into separate persons?
The scripture plainly states in Deut. 6:4, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" And in Eph. 4:5, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism,".
"God," in Genesis chapter one, comes from the Hebrew, "Elohim."
Note the comment from the Ryrie Study Bible, "Elohim, a generic term for deity as well as a proper name for the true God. It is used of pagan gods (Gen. 31:30; Ex. 12:12), angels (Ps. 8:5), men (Ps. 82:6), and Judges (Ex. 21:6), though most frequently of the true God. Its basic meaning is "strong one, mighty leader, supreme Deity." The form of the word is plural, indicating plentitude of power and majesty and allowing for the NT revelation of the triunity of the Godhead."
It should be noted, the more knowledgeable advocates of the triune doctrine do not often use Genesis 1:26 to further the Trinitarian suggestion, but merely indicate an allowance for the doctrine in a "New Testament revelation." Perhaps it is difficult for them to reconcile who is speaking to whom in Genesis 1:26, since a purely Trinitarian defense of this scripture may indicate tritheism rather than co-subsistance.
H. C. Leupold, a staunch Trinitarian, somewhat angrily declares in his commentary ‘Exposition of Genesis’, "The hortative ‘Let us make,’ is particularly striking because it is plural. Though almost all commentators of our day reject the view that this is to be explained in connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity and treat this so-called Trinitarian view as a very negligible quantity, yet, rightly considered, this is the only view that can satisfy."
Leupold continues, "K. C. Koenig (another commentator who is Trinitarian), may brush it aside with the very briefest remark to the effect that ’the number three cannot be expressed by the plural,’ yet he like many others labors under a misunderstanding of the Trinitarian view.’"
Watch out when Trinitarians disagree on their own doctrine. The fur may fly! Perhaps the "misunderstanding" is not of the Trinity itself, but of the very nature of God.
Leupold then continues, "Those that hold that a reference to the Trinity is involved do not mean to say that the truth of the of the Holy Trinity is here fully and plainly revealed." Then Leupold confesses, "But they do hold that God speaks out of the fulness of His powers and His attributes in a fashion which man could never employ."
So, we see that Elohim refers not to the Trinity in three persons, but to the fulness of the Godhead as one God, manifested in the fulness of His powers and attributes, both moral and natural.
Ryrie in his Study Bible points out, "Vs. 1:26, us . . . our are plurals of majesty. Image . . . likeness are interchangeable terms (Gen. 5:3) indicating that man was created in a natural and moral likeness to God. When he sinned, he lost the moral likeness, which was his sinlessness, but the natural likeness of intellect, emotions, and will he still retains (cf. Gen. 9:6; James 3:9)."
Matthew Henry Commentary says, "Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him. God said, ‘Let us make man.’ Man, when he was made, was to glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. It is the soul of man that especially bears God’s image."
It is amazing how close some Trinitarians come to Oneness doctrine and baptismal formula.
From the above comments we should understand that God, in Genesis chapter one, was a Spirit. "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24). Also understand that God, as a Spirit, had no flesh and bones. Note the words of Jesus, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luke 24:39.
The question arises, how could God come to earth and redeem mankind on the cross of Calvary when He had no body to be crucified? The answer was to beget a body of flesh on earth. How? Through the virgin birth by Mary of the One named Jesus...Emmanuel...God with us. Matt. 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This body born in Bethlehem was a male child, a son, the Son or Body of God.
Where was the Father? He was in Heaven, but was also in Christ.
Note II Cor 5:19, "To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself..."
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
Also 1 Tim 3:16, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh..."
Where was the Holy Ghost? He also was in Christ. Why and how? Because God is One.
One God and One Person. The One and the Same. Inseparable. Not co-equal with other persons but One and only One. One Person. Jesus is the Father. Jesus is the Son. Jesus is the Holy Ghost. Elohim - all that God is. The fulness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:9 declares plainly, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Ryrie comments on this verse, "In Jesus Christ, deity (the divine attributes and nature) dwelt in His earthly body—a strong statement of the deity and humanity of the God-man."
So why say "us" and not "me"? (Gen.1:26).
God needed an image after which to mold the first man, Adam. That image was Jesus Christ. Romans 5:14, "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." God looked into the future and saw Jesus (the one that was to come) and formed Adam after that image. Therefore God said, "let us make man in our image:" so that man would possess the spiritual or moral attributes of God, as well as the physical or natural attributes of God in flesh, Jesus Christ. Thusly man is not a spirit being only, but a physical being as well. Body, soul, and spirit. (1 Thes. 5:23). If God had made man in his image (spirit) only, then man would be spirit only.
Note Gen 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." It is interesting to see verse 27 saying that God created man in his own image, not their own image. The clarification has already been made and understood in verse 26.
Consider Hebrews 1:2-3, "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,..."
God looked into the future by His foreknowledge and saw His Son, the body that would redeem the world. That body was the flesh of God. God fashioned Adam after that body so that man would not just be a spirit as God is a spirit, but would possess physical attributes as well.
Therefore God said, "Let us...". Spirit and flesh. Created in God’s own image.
Man will now possess the moral (spiritual) and natural attributes of His Father the Creator, God.
Note Col. 1:15 as it refers to Jesus, "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"
So, Who created man? He? Them? They? Ease the confusion. Believe in only One Creator. The "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph. 4:6).
Col. 1:16 refers to Jesus, saying "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"
Also note Isaiah 44:24, "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"
Are there "three persons" in the Godhead or "three titles" for one person? A man can be a husband to his wife, a son to his father, and a father to his son. Is he three persons? Or is he is one person with three titles? He will relate to his wife in one manner. He will treat his son in a different manner. He will behave to his father in yet another manner. Yet he is still only one person. One person with an identifying name.
God is also one. One with three different manners or modes of operation.
One with three different titles or offices. One person with an identifying name, the name Jesus. However, He is the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. Three offices and manners of manifestations. Yet, the one and only God.
God manifest Himself as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.
Jesus told his disciples he would be leaving them in the physical manifestation they see Him in, but He would not leave them comfortless. He said He would send another comforter to them, the Holy Spirit. This comforter would abide with them forever. Jesus then said, "I will come to you." (John 14:16-18). God now would benefit mankind by His indwelling Spirit.
He does not vacate one office to fill another, but is always completely and fully God.
. The same Person, but different modes of operation.
Simple. Read what comes BEFORE “...let us make man in our image...”
It says “God created.” God created this, then God created that. It gives NO other information about who or what God is. Just that he creates.
Thus, for man to be made in the image of God means that man is to be in some sense a creator.
He still had to create MAN from an IMAGE...It did not say Let us make MAN in the image of the Stars or Angels, he had an image that would lead us to pro-create as People.
SO an image of a human being had to be in existence before MAN...
I listen to Jack Van Impe on his website.Yes he is very knowledgable about End Time Events...I agree...Jesus Christ has always been ONE with GOD.....That is why we have the likeness and the Physical Image of GOD because of Jesus Christ......
Is this an open forum?
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.
Yes..definetly...
Try asking a Jew what God meant by “US”!!! I have heard ANGELS and everything else.....they just don’t know how to answer.
“Let us make man in our image” means “in the image of God.”
TaraP:
The problem with what is written here is that this basically the “Modalism” or “Sabellianism.” With the desire to stress the oneness of God, implicitly the doctrine articulated here denies that Christ is “Light from Light, God from God”, as it states in the Nicene Creed. If we reject the Creedal statement above, then Christ did not become incarnate and he did not die on the Cross. To say that Christ is another mode of God, as is the Father and Spirit, then in reality all three became incarnate and died on the Cross. Or stated differently, if say Christ and the Father are not distinct, then the Father also dies on the Cross. Yet, Christ offered a prayer to his Father in the garden (c.f. John Chapter 17).
Sacred Scripture does affirm that Christ and the Father are distinct, and thus the Modalism proposed in this article is not in reality orthodox Christian doctrine, of which not only Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians hold to, Confessional Protestants as well [Traditional Angilicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc].
Regards and God Bless
CTrent said: ...the desire to stress the oneness of God.
The writer of this article stressed the oneness of God - and you seem to think this is bad? I don’t know that I agree with everything the article said, but the basic precept of it makes sense to me. In my years of Biblical study, the oneness of God seems to stand out, It must be one of the most, if not the most, fundamental things taught in the Bible.
To reverse your statement, your desire must be to stress the threeness of God instead of God’s oneness. Is this really what you believe the Bible stresses?
I would think that our conception of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ought to be in accord with the emphatic Bible mandate of oneness. Make Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one, in other words, not three. You are determined to make them three it seems. A committee of three people?
sasportas:
Fair point, but not at all what I was applying. There are two extremes that ultimately lead to unorthodox views of God, at least in the orthodox Christian theological context, that should be rejected. These are that in theology, one must avoid emphasizing the oneness of God to the exclusion of the Trinity, which speaks of three distinct persons, yet One God in communion and relation, and also avoid putting so much emphasis on the Trinity of Persons, so as to destroy the Unity or Oneness of God.
The views in the article hint at Modalism [also called Sabellianism after Sabellius ca 200 AD, one its major proponents] which was rejected in the early Church around 210 to 220 AD. Other views around that time that were rejected included Adoptionism [professed by Paul of Samosata ca 260 AD], which is related to what the article cites, stressted the Oneness of God by stating that Christ was adopted, but not God himself, a view which clearly contradicted the Gospel of St. John.
Anyway, just my two cents
One God and One Person. The One and the Same. Inseparable. Not co-equal with other persons but One and only One. One Person. Jesus is the Father. Jesus is the Son. Jesus is the Holy Ghost. Elohim - all that God is. The fulness of the Godhead is in Jesus Christ. Colossians 2:9 declares plainly, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Ryrie comments on this verse, "In Jesus Christ, deity (the divine attributes and nature) dwelt in His earthly body—a strong statement of the deity and humanity of the God-man."Compare to the Athanasian Creed:
...Are there "three persons" in the Godhead or "three titles" for one person? A man can be a husband to his wife, a son to his father, and a father to his son. Is he three persons? Or is he is one person with three titles? He will relate to his wife in one manner. He will treat his son in a different manner. He will behave to his father in yet another manner. Yet he is still only one person. One person with an identifying name.
God is also one. One with three different manners or modes of operation.
One with three different titles or offices. One person with an identifying name, the name Jesus. However, He is the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost. Three offices and manners of manifestations. Yet, the one and only God.
God manifest Himself as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration.
...The same Person, but different modes of operation.
(1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. (3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. (7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son and such is the Holy Spirit. (8) The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. (9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. (10) The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. (11) And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. (12) As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. (13) So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; (14) And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. (15) So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (16) And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. (17) So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; (18) And yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord. (19) For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord; (20) so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There are three Gods or three Lords. (21) The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. (22) The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. (23) The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. (25) And in this Trinity none is afore, nor after another; none is greater, or less than another. (26) But the whole three persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. (27) So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. (28) He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
(29) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (30) For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. (31) God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and made of the substance of His mother, born in the world. (32) Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. (33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. (34) Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. (35) One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. (36) One altogether, not by the confusion of substance, but by unity of person. (37) For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; (38) Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; (39) He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; (40) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (41) At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; (42) And shall give account of their own works. (43) And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. (44) This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
raynearhood:
Thanks for the support. It was pretty evident to me, after reading it that this article was not in line with both Sacred Scripture and the theological defintions expressed in the ancient Creeds [Nicene, Apostles and Athanasian], which of course clarified and defined theological issues that were disputes about what Scripture meant.
So yes, for any orthodox Christian, be they Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Confessional Protestant, this article is unorthodox doctrine.
Regards
They know perfectly well how to answer. The answer just doesn't satisfy you. They've been interpreting scripture about 1,500 years longer than Christians have. Try some humility.
Jesus always was.
In the image of God; Father - Son - Holy Spirit
Man; Spirit - Body - Soul
The last words of your post: This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
Your tying in the Trinity theory, a man made theory, with Catholicism, for me, a Protestant, doesn’t help your case at all.
I tend to believe that the Protestants didn’t go far enough in their examining of, and rejection of, Catholicism. Since the Catholics consider the Trinity “the catholic faith,” and one cannot be saved unless he believes it, it prompts me to search this out. The early Protestants didn’t, they seemed to have given the very foundation of Catholicism, the Trinity, a pass.
These are the same people who burned thousands at the stake believing they could not be saved unless they believe the Catholic faith, remember. According to Paul’s allegory in Gal. four, those who persecute and kill others whom they disagree with, disqualify themselves as people of truth.
The dogmatic works of Zwingli contain the germs of the evangelical Reformed theology, in distinction from the Roman and the Lutheran, and at the same time several original features which separate it from the Calvinistic System. He accepted with all the Reformers the ecumenical creeds and the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, and the divine-human personality of Christ. He rejected with Luther the scholastic additions of the middle ages, but removed further from the traditional theology in the doctrine of the sacraments and the real presence.Luther (another early Protestant) held to all three ecumenical creeds: The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed (which I quoted in full), though he changed the word catholic to Christian in his larger and smaller catechisms... for obvious reasons.
Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare and sanction....It is the catholic faith, and most Protestants believe they hold to the catholic faith, while the papal church is apostate.
...We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God. And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd error, but gross impiety. For those who class the three thus—Essence, Son, and Spirit105 —plainly do away with the essence of the Son and Spirit; otherwise the parts being intermingled would merge into each other—a circumstance which would vitiate any distinction.106 In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union of one God with two creatures.
To the objection, that if Christ be properly God, he is improperly called the Son of God, it has been already answered, that when one person is compared with another, the name God is not used indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, regarded as the beginning of the Godhead, not by essentiating, as fanatics absurdly express it, but in respect of order. In this sense are to be understood the words which Christ addressed to the Father, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” (John 17:3). For speaking in the person of the Mediator, he holds a middle place between God and man; yet so that his majesty is not diminished thereby. For though he humbled (emptied) himself, he did not lose the glory which he had with the Father, though it was concealed from the world. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:10; 2:9), though the apostle confesses that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, he at the same time hesitates not to assert that he is the eternal God who founded the earth. We must hold, therefore, that as often as Christ, in the character of Mediator, addresses the Father, he, under the term God, includes his own divinity also. Thus, when he says to the apostles, “It is expedient for you that I go away,” “My Father is greater than I,” he does not attribute to himself a secondary divinity merely, as if in regard to eternal essence he were inferior to the Father; but having obtained celestial glory, he gathers together the faithful to share it with him. He places the Father in the higher degree, inasmuch as the full perfection of brightness conspicuous in heaven, differs from that measure of glory which he himself displayed when clothed in flesh. For the same reason Paul says, that Christ will restore “the kingdom to God, even the Father,” “that God may be all in all,” (1 Cor. 15:24, 28). Nothing can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ’s divinity. But if he will never cease to be the Son of God, but will ever remain the same that he was from the beginning, it follows that under the name of Father the one divine essence common to both is comprehended. And assuredly Christ descended to us for the very purpose of raising us to the Father, and thereby, at the same time, raising us to himself, inasmuch as he is one with the Father. It is therefore erroneous and impious to confine the name of God to the Father, so as to deny it to the Son. Accordingly, John, declaring that he is the true God, has no idea of placing him beneath the Father in a subordinate rank of divinity. I wonder what these fabricators of new gods mean, when they confess that Christ is truly God, and yet exclude him from the godhead of the Father, as if there could be any true God but the one God, or as if transfused divinity were not a mere modern fiction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.