-psc

I am excited about this series. I have recently studied this “Let us make…” clause in Genesis 1:26 and came out on the same side as you. We must always be careful to let the text speak for itself. Your argument is strong on two points: 1) Gen. 3:22, 11:7, and Isa. 6:8 do not refer to the Trinity. Thus, to interpret the same syntax in 1:26 in a different manner is difficult (although not impossible). 2) The Old Testament only hints toward Trinitarian theology. We should note that that Thomas doubted Jesus’ divinity at first, Peter didn’t understand it at the transfiguration, and the Pharisee’s wanted to stone Jesus when he claimed divinity for himself. Orthodox Yahwistic Judaism was monotheistic, and the Old Testament shows thismonotheism to be simplistic.
I would caution you on via Emmaus’s remarks above. Although Greg Beale’s work in his “The Temple and the Church’s Mission” is fantastic, he may push “The Temple in the Garden” motif too hard. I agree that the prophets (especially Ezekiel) apply Edenic categories to our expectation of New Creation. Further, the tabernacle and temple imagery is certainly alluding to the Edenic paradise (although much of this is also probably to be taken as royal imagery). However, at no point in the text of Genesis 1-3, nor the New Creation motifs in Genesis 9 and 12, link the Garden to it being a temple. Genesis 3 gives us the picture that Yahweh merely visited this garden. We do not get the idea that he resided there. Further, many take the verbs in Genesis 2:15 to be priestly verbs. It is true that they are only used together again in a priestly context; but, whatever words would have they used? So, was Eden a temple? Maybe. Did the temple use Edenic categories to help us understand its function? Yes. So what’s the point? Well, via emmaus noted that he struggled with not seeing Genesis 1:2 as a reference to the Holy Spirit. He wants to make it such because it fits his “Eden is a temple” scheme. I think we should be careful. Calling the spirit/wind in Genesis 1:2 the Holy Spirit requires many layers of conjecture. I think it would be better to argue as you have and see Genesis 1:26 (and possibly Gen. 1:2) as references to the heavenly court. Via Emmaus asked, “What do angels do in “concert” with God in creation?” I think Deuteronomy 4:26 can help us here. It reads, “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that you will soon utterly perish from the land that you are going over the Jordan to possess. You will not live long in it, but will be utterly destroyed.” The prophets pick up on this exact theme in many of the judgment oracles. The idea is that “heaven and earth” were to witness what God was doing. Read Revelation 4 and 5, this is exactly what is going on in the “heavenly court.” Their role in creation is to simply witness to the fact that this creator – Yawheh – created it. They serve the same role in the Covenant, Yahweh will call the heavenly court (to paraphrase) into the courtroom to testify to his faithfulness. Anyhoo, just some food for thought. Great post.

Scripture confirms the Father, Son, and Spirit as all participating in creation, and we SHOULD regard that as truth. You are right to point out that it would be heresy to deny this. However, I am arguing that we cannot validate that claim from Gen. 1:26, or even Genesis 1 for that matter.

Good question! Thanks for making me clear it up.

- Josh

Josh, I think Brandy ask the first question that I had, concerning “in concert.” I am still puzzled by the the involvement of angels in creation. One of the marks of God’s uniqueness in the OT is the fact that he alone is the Creator (cf. Isaiah 40-48). This is one of the most shocking things about Jesus and NT Christianity, he is co-creator with God. Yet, your analysis “involves the heavenly court in his plans”… saying that they are his audience and that they are his associates are miles apart.

So, my question is this: what do angels do “in concert” with God in creation? If they are active participants, even if under obedience to YHWH, why does the Bible make so much of creation as the singularly unique act of God? I am concerned that allowing “the gods” to participate in creation diminishes a high Christology (cf. Richard Bauckham), and blurrs Creator-creation distinctions.

Moreover, on the spirit in Genesis 1:2, see theologue Sinclair Ferguson and biblicist Meredith Kline who argue for more than a “rushing wind.” Especially, in light of the temple imagery in Genesis 1-2 and Revelation 21-22, I think it would be hasty to deny the Spirit as simply a cosmic phenomena (cf. GK Beale).

Love you bro!
Prov. 27:17
Dave

Good questions! But the first one is really hard, and I’m not sure of the answer. Perhaps Psalm 45 or 110 could be first. Isaiah also has a lot of Spirit language in chapters 40-66. Coupled with Isaiah’s language about the “Servant of the Lord” (a clear reference to the Messiah), and further language about the incomparability of God the Father, this could be one of the main OT passages for evidence of the Trinity.

For your second question, given the later passages in the OT where God says, “us,” I would argue that God is involving the divine beings in the venture but not seeking their advice (Isaiah 40 makes this clear). The text always portrays God as supreme, and since he is so fixed in his authority and security he can involve the heavenly court in his plans and even bestow “dominion” to humans.

I’m not sure what you mean by “against the reality of the inspiration of Scripture.” Of course all Scripture is inspired, but that still doesn’t give us credence for reading NT theology into OT texts. I believe Moses was carried along by the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily writing about the Spirit.

Perhaps God could have “placed in Moses’ mind traces of the Trinity,” but that is conjecture. Provide a textual example! Of course there are seeds in the OT that are in full bloom in the NT (resurrection, life after death). But can you point to any other Mosaic text that would validate your claim (without using “angel of the Lord” – another topic, someday)? Furthermore, your argument doesn’t stand up against the grammar I’ve mentioned in the post. The forms are clearly attested elsewhere in Scripture which further helps my argument and which I will hold to over against assumptions. If you think that “us” refers to the Trinity, grammatically you must hold that Gen. 3:22, 11:7, and Isa. 6:8 also refer to the Trinity. I believe that the grammar and infrequency of texts to validate your claim gives us reason to deter from the Trinitarian view. Be minded, however, that I’m not arguing against divine inspiration nor God’s redemptive historical plan. I am, however, arguing against the Rule of Faith.

You write, “Imposing all of the rules of grammatico-historical exegesis in a straight-jacket sort of way on a divinely inspired text is to risk choking out such divine inspiration.” I would go farther! Imposing all the ill-defined rules of Christocentrism and the Rule of Faith in a textually deviant way to support a doctrine that is clearly not in the text (although the doctrine may be unquestionably present elsewhere) risks misinterpreting what is actually being written, as well as the author’s own intention.

Great discussion, Garrett! As I’ve told you before, I’m working through these issues, albeit slowly. I don’t want to come across as the “I’ve got it figured out” guy. I’m open to critique and persuasion!

Also, you say that,

“does this mean that Gen. 1:26 says humans are made in the image of God and the angels, and not just God? Far from it!… Rather, God is the addresser of his court: the addressees. He is the primary actor, so to speak, but acting in concert with the divine beings.”

So, do you believe that although we are not created in the image of angels, they are integral in the creation of mankind? And if so, how do the divine beings act “in concert” with God in the process of creation?

Very thought-provoking essay by the way. As a lay person it’s very eye-opening to hear this critique. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard it preached that Gen. 1:26 was the first mention of the Trinity. I think I even wrote that in the margin of my Bible b/c of a pastor’s direction… I hope it was in pencil!

It may be against the rules of grammatico-historical exegesis to read the theology of later texts into earlier one, but is it against the reality of the inspiration of Scripture?

Could God have placed in the mind of Moses traces of the reality of the Trinity, that God then clearly revealed through NT authors? Scripture gives us nothing that would deter us from such a thought. And I would suggest that the reality of divine inspiration and a clear plan of redemption in Scripture should push us in that direction.

Imposing all of the rules of grammatico-historical exegesis in a straight-jacket sort of way on a divinely inspired text is to risk choking out such divine inspiration.