Let Us Make Man: The Revelation

[A.W. Bowman]

Originally Posted by rrford

Uhm, I am not quite persuaded that the "image" refers to the angels.

Here is the condensed version as I do not have time to dig out the full version.

I believe the first form of man that God saw was the person of Jesus Christ who was "the firstborn of all creation" and "the express image of God's invisible person."

That being said, God created Adam to look like what Christ would one day look like. Therfore, "Let us make man in our image" is saying "Let us form man in the image that the physical body of Christ will one day have."

Now that, brother, merits some real consideration! Bring on the rest, when you have the time.

[Nina]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

As a post script to all of my comments:

We have just gone through an exercise that demonstrates why there is so little understanding and agreement concerning even the basic biblical doctrines (not including those doctrines developed by men).

Everyone, it seems, feels like God has have moved upon them and given them a particular revelation of truth. This then leads to our judging others for NOT experiencing that same truth, with the "same experience". While one may "experience" truth, truth is not an experience! An over statement? Look to our splits and schisms for the evidence.

Look to the "plan of salvation" as understood by the Oneness camp. There are at least three - perhaps four different competing camps.Ask some one what the gospel is and most likely they will recite Acts 2:38. Ask them to explain the difference between the gospel of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven and they relate to both Acts 2:21 & 38 and expect a fist fight.

An error preached by a well known and respected spiritual leader is usually accepted without question. That preaching may then be turned into a teaching and published as a doctrine. Then that error will be defended unto death, rather than for anyone to admit they were wrong. Truth, on the other hand, is often times dismissed in favor of a more comfortable/acceptable doctrine. Again, I submit that our many different positions taken and held - even to the point of condemning brethren to hell - are all over differences in what we all call "the truth", and judging Trinitarians as not possessing that which we cannot, ourselves, agree on! Now, gentle folks - what is wrong with that picture? Now, consider it from God's point of view!

We judge all others according to our understanding of Scripture, with the assumed beliefs that our understanding is the "correct" and acceptable understanding. Many of use will judge others even to hell because they hole to a "false doctrine", when I demonstrated in a very small way, most of us also hold to at least one "false doctrine". Have we then not set ourselves up for judgment according to how we have judged others? It is one thing to contend for the truth as we perceive it, it is something else to compare ourselves to others and to judge them as being spiritually deficient and/or in doctrinal error, when we, ourselves, neither possess nor uphold all of the truth of (or in) the Bible.

Enough.

I may have missed something elsewhere but this post begs the question:

Are You a Universalist?

Nina

[Scott Hutchinson]

Certainly God is plural in attributes,but one in being.
We usually focus on God being revealed as Father,Son,Holy Ghost but He is so much more than that.
All of the fullness of divinity dwells in Jesus Christ.

[mfblume]

One time on a forum I noted that there is a pattern that explains LET US MAKE MAN. IN the six days of Genesis 1, God always SPOKE TO SOMETHING and using that something, He worked. He told the waters to gather together. Dry land appeared. He commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and it did. But in making man, He spoke in the plurality of majesty, I believe, to Himself, per se. This was a special creation, and God spoke in indication He alone made man and since man was to be in His image, He spoke to Himself... not to the earth nor the waters. Himself.

When I noted that, another brother came onboard and said he was thinking the VERY THING for the first time about that period, and had been chatting with his pastor about it! I was amazed and felt it was a witness.

My thoughts, anyway.

[bishoph]

Originally Posted by rrford

Uhm, I am not quite persuaded that the "image" refers to the angels.

Here is the condensed version as I do not have time to dig out the full version.

I believe the first form of man that God saw was the person of Jesus Christ who was "the firstborn of all creation" and "the express image of God's invisible person."

That being said, God created Adam to look like what Christ would one day look like. Therfore, "Let us make man in our image" is saying "Let us form man in the image that the physical body of Christ will one day have."

rrford,
I believe you are absolutely correct! I began teaching this some years ago. Everything that God created up to this point was made by his spoken word. In John 1 we find that the "Word" or logos became flesh and dwelt among us. While I have written quite a bit on this matter suffice it to say that I believe this "let us make man in our image and after our likeness" is simply God stating "let me and my word create man in our image and after our likeness." So God created man in his own image....the image of the Word that was to be made flesh.

I'll write a little more later.

[Sam]

One of my pastors, F.E. Curts, taught that the days of creation were 7,000 years each. At the time I was attending that assembly (late nineteen fifties and early nineteen sixties) he taught that we were in the 6th creative day and that when God said, "Let us make man" He was talking to the church. He said we would not be in the image and likeness of God until the resurrection (Psalm 17:15, Philippians 3:20-21; 1 John 3:2; 1 Corinthians 15:49), and that God had chosen the church (called "us" in Ephesians 1:4) before the foundation of the world to work with Him. He died in 1969 so did not get to see the dawn of the last thousand years (millennium) of the 6th day (2000-3000 AD).

Some teach that Genesis 1:26-28 was spoken by YHWH to Noah and his family as they departed the ark into the new world. YHWH encouraged them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, populating it with folks made in the image of God and man.

Others, such as the late Nathaniel Urshan taught that God was speaking to the angels in Genesis 1:26.

This is the passage from the Jonathan Targum with a variant reading from the Jerusalsem Targum.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by HaShaliach

Now that, brother, merits some real consideration! Bring on the rest, when you have the time.

That is a possibility. Romans 5:14 says that Adam was the figure of him that was to come. This could imply that Adam's creation was patterned after God's then-future incarnation.

[jackbauer]

My Pastor has a Doctorate in hebrew and has studied this passage and talked to several Rabbis about it. The consensus among most Rabbis believe that God was talking to the earth which in hebrew is Adama where the name of Adam come froms. The meaning of Adam is Man.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One time on a forum I noted that there is a pattern that explains LET US MAKE MAN. IN the six days of Genesis 1, God always SPOKE TO SOMETHING and using that something, He worked. He told the waters to gather together. Dry land appeared. He commanded the earth to bring forth grass, and it did. But in making man, He spoke in the plurality of majesty, I believe, to Himself, per se. This was a special creation, and God spoke in indication He alone made man and since man was to be in His image, He spoke to Himself... not to the earth nor the waters. Himself.

When I noted that, another brother came onboard and said he was thinking the VERY THING for the first time about that period, and had been chatting with his pastor about it! I was amazed and felt it was a witness.

My thoughts, anyway.

If God always spoke to something, could He have been speaking to the earth here?

[Sam]

I "stole" this from another forum:

"LET US MAKE MAN..."
J. R. Davis
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.
.