Identity of the Divine Council in Genesis Creation
The identity of the "us" in Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness") has been a subject of theological discussion, with various interpretations offered throughout Christian history. This plural pronoun, appearing in the creation account, has led many to understand it as an early indication of the Trinity [2].
One prominent interpretation, particularly within Trinitarian theology, is that the "us" refers to the three persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This view suggests an internal divine deliberation or consultation among the persons of the Trinity in the act of creating humanity [2]. The Son, the Word of God, is understood to be actively involved in creation, as all things consist through Him and in Him [3]. The Spirit of God is also described as resting upon the waters in Genesis 1:2, further indicating the Spirit's presence and activity in creation [4]. This understanding aligns with later New Testament affirmations of Christ's role in creation, such as Colossians 1:15-17, which states that "through Him and in Him all things consist" [3].
However, other interpretations exist. Some Jewish writers, for instance, have suggested that God was consulting with the earth, out of which man was made, or with angels [2]. These interpretations are generally rejected by Christian theologians. The idea of consulting the earth is considered "wretchedly stupid" by some, while the notion of consulting angels is dismissed because angels are not part of God's "privy council" and were not involved in creation, especially not in the creation of humanity [2].
John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis, acknowledges the Trinitarian interpretation but also offers a nuanced perspective. While he affirms the distinct personality of the Word (Christ) and the Spirit, he also suggests that the plural number "expresses those powers which God exercised in creating the world" [4]. Calvin argues against interpretations that would deny the distinct personality of the Word, contending that such views might replace divine persons with mere qualities or attributes [6]. He emphasizes that the creation account, though simple, is "pregnant with the highest truths" and forms an integral part of the historical book of Genesis [5].
The concept of God's knowledge and action in creation is also explored in scholastic theology. Thomas Aquinas, for example, discusses how divine things are named by human intellect, not as they are in themselves, but in a way that relates to created things [7]. This perspective suggests that human language, even when describing divine actions like creation, operates within the limitations of human understanding.
The historical development of Trinitarian doctrine, particularly concerning the person of Christ, also sheds light on these interpretations. Controversies like the Nestorian controversy, which emphasized the divinity of Christ, indirectly reinforced the understanding of Christ's full participation in divine actions, including creation [1, 8]. The insistence on calling the Virgin Mary the "Mother of God" (Theotokos) was, in part, a vindication of Christ's divinity, asserting that the person born of Mary was truly divine [1]. This theological precision regarding Christ's divine nature supports the view that the "us" in Genesis 1:26 includes the Son as a co-creator.
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 43: ( a .) That it was rendered rather as a vindication of the divinity of Christ, than as an exaltation of the glory of the Blessed Virgin. It had its origin in the Nestorian controversy. Nestorius was accused of teaching that the Logos only inhabited the man Jesus, whence it was inferred that he held that the person born of the Virgin was simply human. It was to emphasize the assertion that the “person” thus born was truly divine that the orthodox insisted that the Virgin should be called the Mother of God. ( b .) There is a sense in which ”
- Genesis (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Genesis 1:26: And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness,.... These words are directed not to the earth, out of which man was made, as consulting with it, and to be assisting in the formation of man, as Moses Gerundensis, and other Jewish writers (f), which is wretchedly stupid; nor to the angels, as the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, and others, who are not of God's privy council, nor were concerned in any part of the creation, and much less in the more noble part of it: nor are the words spoken after the manner of kings, as Saadiah, using the plural number as ex”
- CCEL (Patristic) “Athanasius of Alexandria, Select Works and Letters, section 88: by the governance and providence and ordering action of the Word, Creation may have light, and be enabled to abide alway securely. For it partakes of the Word Who derives true existence from the Father, and is helped by Him so as to exist, lest that should come to it which would have come but for the maintenance of it by the Word,—namely, dissolution,—“for He is the Image of the invisible God, the first-born of all Creation, for through Him and in Him all things consist, things visible and things invisible, and He is the Head of t”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 5.7: himself; because he is one of the Persons of the Elohim by whom the Son is begotten. — Ed . because Moses afterwards subjoins that the Elohim had spoken, and that the Spirit of the Elohim rested upon the waters. If we suppose three persons to be here denoted, there will be no distinction between them. For it will follow, both that the Son is begotten by himself, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of himself. For me it is sufficient that the plural number expresses those powers which God exercised in creating the world. M”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 36: rude speculation, the Scriptural account is simple, intelligible, and pregnant with the highest truths. (2.) From the fact not only that it is presented as a matter of history in a book which all Christians recognize as of divine authority, but that it also forms an integral part of the book of Genesis, which is confessedly historical. It is the first of the ten divisions into which that book, in its internal structure, is divided, and belongs essentially to its plan. (3.) It is no only an essential part of the book of Genesis, but it is ”
- CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 5.12: in the cloud, and in the pillar of fire. (See Calvin’s Institutes, Book II. c. xiv.) This illustrates what Calvin means when he says, that Servetus imagines a new quality in God when he begins to speak. The distinct personality of the Word being denied, qualities or attributes of Deity are put in his place. Against this Calvin contends. His argument seems to be to the following effect: — The creation of the indigested mass called heaven and earth, in the first verse, was apparently — though not really — without the Word, inasmuch ”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), Of the Persons in Relation to the Essence, Art. 2: Article: Whether it must be said that the three persons are of one essence? I answer that, As above explained (Question [13], Articles [1],2), divine things are named by our intellect, not as they really are in themselves, for in that way it knows them not; but in a way that belongs to things created. And as in the objects of the senses, whence the intellect derives its knowledge, the nature of the species is made individual by the matter, and thus the nature is as the form, and the individua”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 50: because he is God, not God because he is man, and neither God nor man because he is both at once. Christ, therefore, as God and man, possessing natures which are united, but not confused, we conclude that he is our Lord and the true Son of God, even according to his humanity, though not by means of his humanity. For we must put far from us the heresy of Nestorius, who, presuming to dissect rather than distinguish between the two natures, devised a double Christ. But we see the Scripture loudly protesting against this, when the name”