Gen 3:22, Who are the US here?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

There are two issues, 1 They were present at the creation of man and shared a similiar image so God addressed them including them in His plans. 2 Though not necessary, it is possible that angels participated in the MAKING of man but not in the creation of man. Had anyone really read this quote and my subsequent explanations the differences between create and make would already be known.

There have been some really interesting replies here. I'm wondering if Chan's and Prax's (and other's) point might be better understood by reading Hebrews 1 and 2 and looking at the way angels, "the Son" and human beings are being discussed. You can even work with it from a trinitarian viewpoint for purposes of discussion - though "God" is said rather expressly to be "a (singular) person" in this passage.

But concerning the "participation" of the angels at the time of creation- compare the angels at creation with the presence of angels at the giving of the Law at Sinai (as discussed in Heb. 1 & 2). In both cases a close reading of the OT narratives show God alone to be the primary, even exclusive actor. "God said... " and it was so. "God spoke..." to Moses, and so forth.

Yet, when he harkens back to the giving of the Law, the writer of Hebrews says, "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward ..." Now, where in Exodus does it say "angels spoke" in the giving of the Law? And, before you try and pounce - I am standing on good ground here in asserting that Heb. 2:2 is a reference to the giving of the Law; even the Jewish Talmud makes this point. See also Galatians 3:19, "and it (the Law) was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses)."

So, on the one hand we have a narrative (in Exodus) where God is the exclusive actor; and on the other hand, much later, we have inspired sources (and others) who state that angels were present and involved. I don't think angels performed the "ex nihilo" work of creation any more than they inspired the Law, but they were there and if nothing else, their praise and even their wonder would contribute to the tableau of creation. Remember, angels look at us to find the "wisdom of God" - Ephesians 3:10 and 1 Peter 1:12.

This is the view that was always held concerning the "us" of Genesis 1:26, all the way up until around the 3rd century A.D. There is a huge body of Jewish literature on this subject, and at no time did the Jews ever attribute the "us" to being a mutiplicity of "Persons" within the nature of God. To this day, nothing even close to that conclusion can be found in Jewish/Hebraic sources.

Of course, God still might be a "Tri-Unity" of "distinct Persons," but Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 really give us no information that He is. Of course, we haven't even scratched the surface of "the image" and what that's about. Though obviously, it is something that God, angels and man all share. But, it also appears to be something "the Son" has in a degree far greater than angels or ordinary man.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How about the way Jason did it? I already started off with that. Everyone keeps saying they read it, but then they ask me questions answered in the article or make assertions like this position means angels created when the quotes and posts by myself and Chan NEVER assert angels created and in fact deny it...

The only beings created at this point were the angels, so it seems best to understand angels to be the recipients of God's address. The Jews have always believed that angels were the ones being adressed by God in these verses. We know that the angels were present at creation (Job 38:4, 7), so it is very possible that God was speaking to them. He addressed the angels in a courteous manner, acknowledging that they too had an image like His. God created man in the image of Himself, an image shared by the angels also.


Two objections might occur at this point: 1. How could angels be said to have an image or likeness to God?; 2. How could angels help God create man?



In response to the first objection, it seems best to see the "image" in which man was created to be one of moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional qualities rather than any physical qualities or similarities. God and angels both possess all of these attributes that men have. Sometimes we view angels as android beings created by God that have no choice but to serve Him in holiness and righteousness, being emotionless, and have no way of thinking for themselves. This is an unbiblical view. Peter said angels are interested in the activities of the church when he said concerning the gospel being preached with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, "which things the angels desire to look into" (I Peter 1:12). We see from this verse that angels do have a will of their own by the fact that they desire to look into these things. God does not command them to do this, but they have a desire to do so. This indicates that angels have an emotional spectrum and intellectual independence. They have spiritual qualities in that they worship God and moral qualities in that they choose to stay pure.4

Regarding the second objection, angels did not participate in any way with the creation of man, but they did participate in some way in the making of man. The Hebrew word translated "make" in Genesis 1:26 is asah. The Hebrew word meaning "create" is bara. Angels do not have the power to create anything, but might have shared in the making of man from the dust of the ground. Vine's comparison and contrast of the two Hebrew words is helpful here:

In <Gen. 1:26-27>...`asah must mean creation from nothing, since it is used as a synonym for bara'. The text reads, "Let us make [`asah] man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created [bara'] man in his own image...." Similarly, <Gen. 2:4> states: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara'], in the day that the Lord God made [`asah] the earth and the heavens." Finally, <Gen. 5:1> equates the two as follows: "In the day that God created [bara'] man, in the likeness of God made [`asah] he him." The unusual juxtaposition of bara' and `asah in <Gen. 2:3> refers to the totality of creation, which God had "created" by "making."
It is unwarranted to overly refine the meaning of `asah to suggest that it means creation from something, as opposed to creation from nothing. Only context can determine its special nuance. It can mean either, depending upon the situation.5

That the creation consisted of creating and making can be seen in Genesis 2:3-4: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created [bara] and made [asah]. These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created [bara], in the day that the LORD God made [asah] the earth and the heavens." The TWOT is also helpful here.

The significant interchange between the words bara "create" and asah is of great interest. The word bara carries the thought of the initiation of the object involved. It always connotes what only God can do and frequently emphasizes the absolute newness of the object created. The word asah is much broader in scope, connoting primarily the fashioning of the object with little concern for special nuances.
The use of bara in the opening statement of the account of creation seems to carry the implication that the physical phenomena came into existence at that time and had no previous existence in the form in which they were created by divine flat. The use of asah may simply connote the act of fashioning the objects involved in the whole creative process.
The word asah is also used elsewhere in Scripture to describe aspects of the creative work of God (Psa 86:9; Psa 95:5; Psa 96:5).6

It might be best to understand the creation of man in a two-fold manner. He was both made and created. He was made (asah) in that his body came from the dust of the ground (earth). The earth was already created by God, so Adam was made from a substance which was already created. He might be said to have been created (bara) in that "God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and He [Adam] became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7). The life invested into the body was a creation of God; a creation which the angels could not participate in.


Because angels could not actually create man, it might be wondered why God even bothered speaking to them concerning man. The reason might be two-fold. First of all, God might have addressed them in a courteous manner because of their intimate presence at this amazing time. Secondly, He addressed them to declare His intentions of making man in their image as well as His: a moral, spiritual, intellectual, and emotional image. After God allowed the angels to participate in the making of man, He created in him a living soul which possessed this image of God and of the angels.

The angels participation in the making of man might be compared to the manner in which believers work miracles. Jesus said, "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). This does not mean that we have the power in and of ourselves to work miracles, even though Jesus spoke these things in the imperative as though it was our responsibility to see that they come about. Although we are to do these things, we do them by relying on the power and will of God. Just as we do not actually work miracles apart from God, neither could the angels actually make man apart from the power and will of God.


--------
There are two issues, 1 They were present at the creation of man and shared a similiar image so God addressed them including them in His plans. 2 Though not necessary, it is possible that angels participated in the MAKING of man but not in the creation of man. Had anyone really read this quote and my subsequent explanations the differences between create and make would already be known.

Okay, Prax, I've reread the portion of the article you supplied. I know Jason gives four possible reasons for the 'us' in Genesis and this is his preferred explanation.

I'm going to look up the word, image, and see what it means. I'm still not completely convinced this is the best explanation of 'us'. The Jews were blind to the fact that the Messiah would be the image of God. So they would never think of 'us' in that way.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by pelathais

There have been some really interesting replies here. I'm wondering if Chan's and Prax's (and other's) point might be better understood by reading Hebrews 1 and 2 and looking at the way angels, "the Son" and human beings are being discussed. You can even work with it from a trinitarian viewpoint for purposes of discussion - though "God" is said rather expressly to be "a (singular) person" in this passage.

But concerning the "participation" of the angels at the time of creation- compare the angels at creation with the presence of angels at the giving of the Law at Sinai (as discussed in Heb. 1 & 2). In both cases a close reading of the OT narratives show God alone to be the primary, even exclusive actor. "God said... " and it was so. "God spoke..." to Moses, and so forth.

Yet, when he harkens back to the giving of the Law, the writer of Hebrews says, "For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward ..." Now, where in Exodus does it say "angels spoke" in the giving of the Law? And, before you try and pounce - I am standing on good ground here in asserting that Heb. 2:2 is a reference to the giving of the Law; even the Jewish Talmud makes this point. See also Galatians 3:19, "and it (the Law) was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Moses)."

So, on the one hand we have a narrative (in Exodus) where God is the exclusive actor; and on the other hand, much later, we have inspired sources (and others) who state that angels were present and involved. I don't think angels performed the "ex nihilo" work of creation any more than they inspired the Law, but they were there and if nothing else, their praise and even their wonder would contribute to the tableau of creation. Remember, angels look at us to find the "wisdom of God" - Ephesians 3:10 and 1 Peter 1:12.

This is the view that was always held concerning the "us" of Genesis 1:26, all the way up until around the 3rd century A.D. There is a huge body of Jewish literature on this subject, and at no time did the Jews ever attribute the "us" to being a mutiplicity of "Persons" within the nature of God. To this day, nothing even close to that conclusion can be found in Jewish/Hebraic sources.

Of course, God still might be a "Tri-Unity" of "distinct Persons," but Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 really give us no information that He is. Of course, we haven't even scratched the surface of "the image" and what that's about. Though obviously, it is something that God, angels and man all share. But, it also appears to be something "the Son" has in a degree far greater than angels or ordinary man.

This is a well thought out and written post. I enjoyed reading it . What do you think 'image' means?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes HE does. When HE, God, is referring to some OTHER beings besides HIM. What OTHER Beings are with the ONE God? Other Gods? Thanks for calling God a HE and not a THEM

The plural 'US' doesn't refer to other beings, but to the one God, who as the Father and the Son (Hebrews 1:2) and also as the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4) creates.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Are you saying God was being polite to include the angels in on His plans?

No, I'm suggesting that God speaks for all the hosts of Heaven and, thus, when He says "let us" to the angels, He's telling the angels, "this is what I'm going to do."

Are the angels created in the image and likeness of God also?

Scripture doesn't say. However, like God, they are spirit beings.

Hmmmm... What is this image and likeness? How would you describe it?

I'd say the primary thing would be being or having a spirit. There are probably other characteristics that make the angels and/or us in the image and likeness of God but the Bible doesn't specify what they are.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Chan the pronoun 'us' at genesis 1:26 obviously DOES refer to the act of creation; 'let US make man in our image after OUR likeness' can't refer to the passive act of listening. Whomsever is being addressed at this verse CREATES!!!

That still doesn't necessitate that there was someone OTHER THAN GOD that did the work of creating, particularly since the very next verse says that God created in HIS image. Even based on your argument, God is clearly talking to someone other than Himself. The only way He can be doing that (without the supposed "royal we" or "plurality of majesty") and not be talking to the angels is if there is more than one divine being. It makes no sense for God to be talking to so-called "persons" that aren't individual divine beings because, in so doing, He's just talking to Himself (since even trinitarians believe there is one God).

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

The plural 'US' doesn't refer to other beings, but to the one God, who as the Father and the Son (Hebrews 1:2) and also as the Holy Spirit (Job 33:4) creates.

Nope. There is only One God. One God is speaking to someone other than Himself. So God is speaking to other beings, angels

Originally Posted by Chan

That still doesn't necessitate that there was someone OTHER THAN GOD that did the work of creating, particularly since the very next verse says that God created in HIS image. Even based on your argument, God is clearly talking to someone other than Himself. The only way He can be doing that (without the supposed "royal we" or "plurality of majesty") and not be talking to the angels is if there is more than one divine being. It makes no sense for God to be talking to so-called "persons" that aren't individual divine beings because, in so doing, He's just talking to Himself (since even trinitarians believe there is one God).

God is NOT talking to somebody other than himself, for he himself is Yahweh God not somebody other than himself - as if that were eveen possible. I also never mentioned 'persons' I simply said that Yahweh God is Father (Galatians 1:1), Son (Hebrews 1:8) and Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4), so the one Yahweh God of the Bible (who created us) is Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

(I wrote this last night, but have forgotten whom I was replying to)

Who does the ‘US’ refer to?

Yahweh God himself tells us clearly and emphatically that he created (quote) ‘all alone’ and ‘by myself’ (Isaiah 44:24), so he did not create together with the angels or with anyone else’s help. However, the New Testament throws more light upon the Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 passages, for at Hebrews 1:2 we read that the Father together with the Son together created us and then at Job 33:4 we additionally read that the Holy Spirit is also our creator. So my explanation for the plural pronouns at Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 would be that these plural pronouns refer to the Father, the Son and also to the Holy Spirit who together are the one Yahweh God of the Scriptures who created both us and this universe.

The argument used by some Oneness people that Genesis 1:26 band 3:22 is referring to the angels as passive observers in the creation process by God is nonsensical, for the plural pronouns ‘us’ and ‘our’ at these two passages is referring to the active act of creation and not to any mere passive observers of such an act. Therefore if God were only one person who had wished to refer to the angels as mere passive observers then he would have said something like; ‘Let me make man in my image and after my likeness with the angels as passive observers in this act of creation by myself.’

Finally, the fact that the creator, being omniscient, knows both good and evil which Genesis 3:22 so clearly states; ‘behold the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil,’ completely rules out the unfallen angels in heaven in the context of this verse. For they being both without sin but not being omniscient (like Yahweh God) cannot know both good and evil as Genesis 3:22 so clearly ascribes to the creator who knows both good and evil, even if he being omniscient only ever practices good.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

(I wrote this last night, but have forgotten whom I was replying to)

Who does the ‘US’ refer to?

Yahweh God himself tells us clearly and emphatically that he created (quote) ‘all alone’ and ‘by myself’ (Isaiah 44:24), so he did not create together with the angels or with anyone else’s help. However, the New Testament throws more light upon the Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 passages, for at Hebrews 1:2 we read that the Father together with the Son together created us and then at Job 33:4 we additionally read that the Holy Spirit is also our creator. So my explanation for the plural pronouns at Genesis 1:26 and 3:22 would be that these plural pronouns refer to the Father, the Son and also to the Holy Spirit who together are the one Yahweh God of the Scriptures who created both us and this universe.

The argument used by some Oneness people that Genesis 1:26 band 3:22 is referring to the angels as passive observers in the creation process by God is nonsensical, for the plural pronouns ‘us’ and ‘our’ at these two passages is referring to the active act of creation and not to any mere passive observers of such an act. Therefore if God were only one person who had wished to refer to the angels as mere passive observers then he would have said something like; ‘Let me make man in my image and after my likeness with the angels as passive observers in this act of creation by myself.’

Finally, the fact that the creator, being omniscient, knows both good and evil which Genesis 3:22 so clearly states; ‘behold the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil,’ completely rules out the unfallen angels in heaven in the context of this verse. For they being both without sin but not being omniscient (like Yahweh God) cannot know both good and evil as Genesis 3:22 so clearly ascribes to the creator who knows both good and evil, even if he being omniscient only ever practices good.

Still ignoring our arguments I see. Robert, what you are doing is just offering polemics. You are not interacting with our arguments directly nor point by point, which is what you want us to do with your posts. What you are doing is just offering polemics and then expecting us to refute what you said while you don't have to do the same. Second, since mostly what you do is just repeat the same thing over and over, you are also just posting ad nauseum