# Royal We in Genesis or Trinity testimony



## chuckd (May 28, 2015)

I was taught that the "Let *us* make man in our image" in Gen. 1:26 was a "royal we" and not a testimony of the Trinity.

For example (different case of a plurality in Genesis - referring to Elohim),


> Elohim is simply a plural expressing majesty, magnitude, fulness, richness.


-Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, p.65

I recently read Belgic Confession Article 9 which says otherwise.


> All these things we know
> from the testimonies of Holy Scripture
> as well as from the effects of the persons,
> especially from those we feel within ourselves.
> ...


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 28, 2015)

In my humble opinion, it can be taken either way. The skeptics will argue that it is a Royal we, the faithful will argue that it is plural because of the Trinity.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 28, 2015)

I was taught "royal we" in seminary; I believe it is a reference to the trinity.


----------



## Logan (May 28, 2015)

Interesting, I thought Calvin held the opposite position (that it wasn't necessarily evidence) but this from this commentary sounds pretty strong:



Calvin said:


> Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead.


----------



## Cymro (May 28, 2015)

I am led to believe that there are words used in Genesis apart from reference
to the Trinity, that express the plurality within the oneness.( The Genesis Account. J.Sarfati)
To quote concerning Gen 1:26,'the first word the Bible uses for God is plural.(Gen1:1)Some have suggested
that this plurality is merely a plural of majesty, like the royal we. The late linguist Dr Charles
Taylor says,'Nobody is in a position to show in Moses'day or earlier,people were in the habit of addressing kings and princes in the plural.In fact, there is no evidence at all from the Bible itself,
and the Bible is one of the oldest books there is.'


----------



## kodos (May 28, 2015)

As Calvin states (and helpfully quoted by Logan), it seems foolish to use the understandings of the world in interpreting Genesis. Instead, we use the Bible to interpret itself. As clearly revealed in the New Testament (though not without witness in the Old), God is Triune. We interpret Genesis in that light. Consider what is said of Christ in John's commentary on Creation:

*John 1 - *"1 In the beginning was the Word, and *the Word was with God*, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 *All things were made through Him*, and *without Him nothing was made that was made*."

So, does Genesis 1 make sense in light of this? "Let *us* make man in *our* image". I'd have a hard time recommending someone see the "royal we" as what is going on, just on the basis of this.

Of course, I don't think I would ever be witty enough to use a phrase as cool as "canine wickedness". I'm stealing that one. Sorry, Calvin.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 28, 2015)

I suppose the easiest way for me to put how I see it is this: For the believer the plural form loudly confirms the Trinity, but for the unbeliever, it barely says anything at all.


----------



## Jack K (May 28, 2015)

Rather than God assuming the royal "we," perhaps kings have wrongly assumed the trinitarian "we."


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 28, 2015)

As one much more inexperienced then most of you guys I feel like this We,Our screams of the trinity! I would be comfortable being pretty firm on that one at the moment.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 28, 2015)

C. John Collins in his Commentary on Genesis 1-4 takes the view that the Trinity being referenced is the most plausible.


----------



## SolamVeritatem (May 28, 2015)

I just wanted to add that as a former Oneness Pentecostal, it is important to note that some of their scholars would use the "royal We" interpretation of that passage to try and prove that God was talking to angels or that there was a plurality of majesty IN OPPOSITION of a Triune view. See below:

Is God one? - Apostolic Pentecostal Oneness

For the record, I'm under the persuasion that the Trinity is implied in that verse. 

In Him,

Craig


----------



## hammondjones (May 28, 2015)

Also, let's note that Genesis 1 records both



> And God said, Let *us *make man in *our *image, after *our *likeness





> And God said, Behold, *I* have given you every herb bearing seed



That is, Elohim taking both a plural and singular verb, which is the same case for YHWH Elohim in ch. 2. So, if it were the "Royal We", which I lean away from, I'd wonder why it would be so inconsistently followed.


----------



## chuckd (Jun 24, 2015)

This is in the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible article on God's Names:


> _God_. This is the most general term for deity. The Hebrew word can be either singular (_El_) or plural (_Elohim_). Both forms stress God's greatness. He is all-powerful; He possesses all authority; He is able to do whatever He pleases. This title also magnifies God's transcendence; He is exalted far above all creation, including man. *The plural form is a plural of majesty or excellence that highlights His power and greatness with even greater emphasis.* Significantly, this is His first self-revelation: "In the beginning God..." (Gen. 1:1; see Ps. 19:1). He is the Creator.


----------

