Creation

[Barney]

Just reading the New Bible Commentary by IVP 1994.
Two points it suggests:
1. The six days may not be literal.
2. The Our in "let us create man in our image' may not mean the Trinity but God and the angels.

I always thought the six days where 24 hour days and the "Our" was taken as a hint of the Trinity.
What is the Reformed consensus on this?

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

The six days is literal.
The "our" refers to God (not the angels).

To clarify, does the book you are reading suggest that man was made in the image of the angels?

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't know enough about the author(s) to say where he is coming from or who it is. It might help to be aware of the different positions Reformed and evangelical folk have taken on it.

There is a strong prima facie case for six days creation. There are times, though, where yom doesn't mean 24 hour solar day.

As to "in our image." Obviously, we aren't made in the image of angels. However, I don't want to lean too hard on making the plural = Trinity. It creates a number of problems:
1) How are we made in the image of the Holy Spirit, which such a claim would include?
2) I don't have my Hebrew on me, but if the noun is plural and the verb plural, that would be difficult with the one will in the Trinity and that all the external acts of the Trinity are undivided.
3) If we say that God took council with himself, it can only be in an anthropomorphic sense, otherwise some members of the Trinity would be in the dark.

 

[Andres]

Not even out of the first chapter and already two MAJOR issues with the commentary. Unless you're doing academic work, my suggestion is to stick with old dead guys when it comes to commentaries.

 

[iainduguid]

Just reading the New Bible Commentary by IVP 1994.
Two points it suggests:
1. The six days may not be literal.
2. The Our in "let us create man in our image' may not mean the Trinity but God and the angels.

I always thought the six days where 24 hour days and the "Our" was taken as a hint of the Trinity.
What is the Reformed consensus on this?

If you want a simple introduction to the different views of Creation among conservative Reformed people, may I recommend my little book "Science, Faith and Origins: A (Very) Short Introduction" (shameless self-promotion)? It's available from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. In it, I survey and evaluate the arguments for the three main views (the traditional, the day-age, and various framework views), as well as how Christians should think about the science of origins. As someone who holds the traditional view, I think it is important that we understand accurately the reasons why quite a number of our Reformed brothers and sisters adopt a different position.

On the "Let us create..." question, there do seem to be places where it is plausible that the original hearers would have understood it to mean the Lord addressing his divine council (e.g. Isaiah 6). As others have noted, however, that doesn't seem to fit here, since we are not made in the image of the angels but of God. At the same time, even if we believe that there is a hint of the later revelation of the Trinity here, we must presumably also recognize that it had to make sense in its original context, among hearers who weren't thinking in those terms. A plural of majesty doesn't seem to fit, as elsewhere the Lord refers to himself in the singular. Perhaps the best option is a plural of self-deliberation. Of course, inter-trinitarian self-deliberation rises to a whole different level, but we as humans made in God's image sometimes speak similarly, as if we were consulting our inner selves. That understanding allows the passage to make sense in its original context, while also pointing forward to the richer NT revelation of God.

 

[Barney]

The six days is literal.
The "our" refers to God (not the angels).

To clarify, does the book you are reading suggest that man was made in the image of the angels?

Yes I always thought the same. I don't think differently at the moment but I'm having to think about why people question that.
It's easier for me to photo the writing and attach them. Is that allowed? I'm not great at typing so here is what is written..
Sorry can't seem to upload the photos.

 

[Jake]

Here's another good work that goes through the different views on creation from a Reformed church body: https://www.opc.org/GA/creation.html

 

[Barney]

This is what the IVP New bible commentary says but not necessarily what I think:

1. The commentary says the days were most likely not ordinary days. Partly because the Hebrew word for day covers a variety of periods. Other reasons are given too.

2. God was taking to the angels and not The other members of the Trinity. And that the words primary meaning does not mean the Trinity.

 

[Barney]

Here's another good work that goes through the different views on creation from a Reformed church body: https://www.opc.org/GA/creation.html

Thanks for that.
Would I be right in thinking the Presbyterian denomination is the main or strongest Reformed church in America?

 

[Andres]

Would I be right in thinking the Presbyterian denomination is the main or strongest Reformed church in America?

Which Presbyterian denomination as there are several in the U.S.? You'd also have to define your criteria for "strongest" lol

 

[RamistThomist]

This is what the IVP New bible commentary says but not necessarily what I think:

1. The commentary says the days were most likely not ordinary days. Partly because the Hebrew word for day covers a variety of periods. Other reasons are given too.

2. God was taking to the angels and not The other members of the Trinity. And that the words primary meaning does not mean the Trinity.

See Prof Duguid's post above. The Hebrew word for "day" doesn't always mean 24 hour day. Genesis 2 is clear on that. Of course, a natural reading of the text lends credence to the 24 hour frame.

I don't think God was talking to angels; on the other hand, would a Hebrew in 600 B.C. have understood the text to be outlining a fully orbed Nicene Trinitarianism? No.

 

[Barney]

Which Presbyterian denomination as there are several in the U.S.? You'd also have to define your criteria for "strongest" lol

I'm not sure to be honest! Churches are a bit different here in England, that I do know.
I guess if Sinclair Ferguson is presbyterian then the denomination that he's in is theologically Reformed enough. Do you know which denomination he is in?

 

[Barney]

See Prof Duguid's post above. The Hebrew word for "day" doesn't always mean 24 hour day. Genesis 2 is clear on that. Of course, a natural reading of the text lends credence to the 24 hour frame.

I don't think God was talking to angels; on the other hand, would a Hebrew in 600 B.C. have understood the text to be outlining a fully orbed Nicene Trinitarianism? No.

 

[Jake]

See Prof Duguid's post above. The Hebrew word for "day" doesn't always mean 24 hour day. Genesis 2 is clear on that. Of course, a natural reading of the text lends credence to the 24 hour frame.

In fact, day is used in 3 ways in the creation account of Genesis 1-2
1. Period of sunlight, as opposed to moonlight in Genesis 1:5a ("And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night")
2. Each of the 6 days of creation, a period of time covering the events, starting in Genesis 1:5b ("And the evening and the morning were the first day."); also note day 7 does not have an end.
3. The total period of creation over the 6 "days" is referred to as one "day" in Genesis 2:4 ("the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens")

Also it wasn't until the fourth "day" that the lights to be used for signs of "days" was created: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Genesis 2:14)

That's not to say the day could not have been 24 hours before the creation of the sun and moon, but as the text shows that's how we normally measure just how long a day is. I'm not dogmatic that the day is 24 hours before those are created as I don't think it makes a lot of sense to assert that, except for in continuity with the conclusion of each day of creation.

Additionally, you can't just go off the definition of "yom" to answer the question as it has a wider range than that.

(All Scripture texts from KJV in this post)

 

[Jake]

I'm not sure to be honest! Churches are a bit different here in England, that I do know.
I guess if Sinclair Ferguson is presbyterian then the denomination that he's in is theologically Reformed enough. Do you know which denomination he is in?

Unfortunately we have a variety of denominations in the US as in the UK. Sinclair Ferguson served as a pastor in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church while in the US (my present denomination). He presently serves in the Free Church of Scotland in the UK, which has congregations in England as well as Scotland.

 

[Barney]

Yes I understand what you mean and I agree.
Even though Sinclair Ferguson recommended the IVP commentary, and it is good, I can see dangers in it and a need to be on guard.
I've put Prof Duguid's little book in my basket ready to purchase.

 

[Barney]

If you want a simple introduction to the different views of Creation among conservative Reformed people, may I recommend my little book "Science, Faith and Origins: A (Very) Short Introduction" (shameless self-promotion)? It's available from Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. In it, I survey and evaluate the arguments for the three main views (the traditional, the day-age, and various framework views), as well as how Christians should think about the science of origins. As someone who holds the traditional view, I think it is important that we understand accurately the reasons why quite a number of our Reformed brothers and sisters adopt a different position.

On the "Let us create..." question, there do seem to be places where it is plausible that the original hearers would have understood it to mean the Lord addressing his divine council (e.g. Isaiah 6). As others have noted, however, that doesn't seem to fit here, since we are not made in the image of the angels but of God. At the same time, even if we believe that there is a hint of the later revelation of the Trinity here, we must presumably also recognize that it had to make sense in its original context, among hearers who weren't thinking in those terms. A plural of majesty doesn't seem to fit, as elsewhere the Lord refers to himself in the singular. Perhaps the best option is a plural of self-deliberation. Of course, inter-trinitarian self-deliberation rises to a whole different level, but we as humans made in God's image sometimes speak similarly, as if we were consulting our inner selves. That understanding allows the passage to make sense in its original context, while also pointing forward to the richer NT revelation of God.

Thanks. I'll digest what you wrote more tomorrow. I've also put your little book in my basket ready to purchase when back from holiday.

 

[Jie-Huli]

See Prof Duguid's post above. The Hebrew word for "day" doesn't always mean 24 hour day. Genesis 2 is clear on that. Of course, a natural reading of the text lends credence to the 24 hour frame.

I don't think God was talking to angels; on the other hand, would a Hebrew in 600 B.C. have understood the text to be outlining a fully orbed Nicene Trinitarianism? No.

Perhaps not, but does that really have a definitive bearing on what the passage means? I daresay Adam and Eve may not have had a “fully orbed” understanding of Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion when Genesis 3.16 was first spoken, but that does not make it any less a reference to Christ. God as the speaker knows all things from the beginning, even if they are revealed to men gradually. Likewise, the “our image” passage may not have been fully understood by the first hearers/readers, but is nevertheless Trinitarian, as we with our greater light can see.

 

[RamistThomist]

Perhaps not, but does that really have a definitive bearing on what the passage means? I daresay Adam and Eve may not have had a “fully orbed” understanding of Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion when Genesis 3.16 was first spoken, but that does not make it any less a reference to Christ. God as the speaker knows all things from the beginning, even if they are revealed to men gradually. Likewise, the “our image” passage may not have been fully understood by the first hearers/readers, but is nevertheless Trinitarian, as we with our greater light can see.

It may have meant Trinity, but we've given good reasons above why that's not an obvious reading. For one, as I have noted, if we are made in the image of the Trinity, then part of us must reflect the Father, another part the Son, another the Spirit. That brings us really close to Augustine's analogies of the Trinity in De Trinitate.

Imago Dei actually has a more obvious reading: we are God's vice-regents. That's actually attested throughout the ancient world and would have been the most natural reading of the text. Are there Trinitarian echoes? Sure, but that's not what the text is saying.

 

[Miss Marple]

Thanks for that.
Would I be right in thinking the Presbyterian denomination is the main or strongest Reformed church in America?

I would say the NAPARC churches are, if I am not mistaken. They (we) are confessional ones. Directory at naparc.org

 

[Jie-Huli]

It may have meant Trinity, but we've given good reasons above why that's not an obvious reading. For one, as I have noted, if we are made in the image of the Trinity, then part of us must reflect the Father, another part the Son, another the Spirit. That brings us really close to Augustine's analogies of the Trinity in De Trinitate.

Imago Dei actually has a more obvious reading: we are God's vice-regents. That's actually attested throughout the ancient world and would have been the most natural reading of the text. Are there Trinitarian echoes? Sure, but that's not what the text is saying

I do not see the difficulties you seem to find with the Trinitarian interpretation (which, with the full light that we have, is the much more natural reading I think). There are aspects of the Godhead which are common to all three persons of the Trinity - personality, intelligence, a will, the ability to communicate, moral nature, etc., to which most agree the “image” here is referring to. In any event there are many incommunicable aspects of God’s nature to which the Imago Dei found in man clearly does not refer. There is no need to speculate that for this verse to refer to the Trinity one would have to find facets peculiar to each member of the Trinity within the image given to man.

As for the heritage of the traditional reformed Trinitarian interpretation of the passage, see John Calvin, Thomas Boston, etc.

 

[RamistThomist]

I do not see the difficulties you seem to find with the Trinitarian interpretation (which, with the full light that we have, is the much more natural reading I think). There are aspects of the Godhead which are common to all three persons of the Trinity - personality, intelligence, a will, the ability to communicate, moral nature, etc., to which most agree the “image” here is referring to. In any event there are many incommunicable aspects of God’s nature to which the Imago Dei found in man clearly does not refer. There is no need to speculate that for this verse to refer to the Trinity one would have to find facets peculiar to each member of the Trinity within the image given to man.

As for the heritage of the traditional reformed Trinitarian interpretation of the passage, see John Calvin, Thomas Boston, etc.

That's a very dangerous line of approach, since it makes analogies for the Trinity.

Secondly, whatever imago dei means, it must mean it is unique to man and not animals. Yet we know that animals have intelligence, spirit (ruach), will and probably a host of things. That's why the "attributes" reading of imago dei simply won't work.

Finally, imaging the king in the ancient world has a very clear meaning: it means vice-regent, which is what it means in this case.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

An excellent book on day in Genesis 1 and 2 is Cornelis Van Dam's In the Beginning: Listening to Genesis 1 and 2. An excellent review of this by Wes Brendenhof, "An Exhaustive Exegetical Extravaganza". Van Dam takes the literal, traditional view.

Good to see your new avatar, Jacob – a young living saint! (ἅγιος hagios Rom 1:7).

 

[MChase]

I’d encourage anyone struggling with the days of creation to read this paper. You may not follow all of the Hebrew, but I believe it’s air tight.

Days of Creation - Mike Ericson | PRC

www.presbyterianreformed.org

 

[Barney]

Enjoying the different inputs.
I wasn't aware of differences in the interpretation of the Creation 'days' and whether the 'us' was a conversation between the Trinity.
If creation took longer than traditionally thought does this have any bearing on God's Omniscience?
If he wanted to, could he have created it all in less time?
I always loved the thought of the Trinity in 'Us', but also, if there wasn't a direct reference to The Trinity, it doesn't take anything away from The Trinity or the Bible.

 

[Jie-Huli]

That's a very dangerous line of approach, since it makes analogies for the Trinity.

Secondly, whatever imago dei means, it must mean it is unique to man and not animals. Yet we know that animals have intelligence, spirit (ruach), will and probably a host of things. That's why the "attributes" reading of imago dei simply won't work.

Finally, imaging the king in the ancient world has a very clear meaning: it means vice-regent, which is what it means in this case.

The danger is imagined. I am saying nothing beyond the consensus of classical reformed thought on the passage. To respond to a few points in turn:

1. I have never said that the "image of God" in which man was created does not include man's role as "vice-regent" (clearly there is such a role, which is stated separately in the dominion mandate of Genesis 1.28); but it does not do justice to the passage to limit the meaning to this. As Calvin said in his commentary on this passage: "The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God's vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God."

2. In any event, the main topic was whether the words "our image" can be understood in a Trinitarian fashion, and I do not think that the interpretation of vice-regent vs. a wider interpretation of "image" really has much of a bearing on this question anyway. Regardless of how you understand the "image" in this verse, it is still "Let us make man in our image", so one is left with the question of why the plural is used.

3. In speaking about the attributes, I was obviously referring to man's capacity in relation to those things as distinct from animals, which is hardly novel. I was just responding directly to the assertion that reading Genesis 1.26 as a reference to the Trinity created the problem of requiring us to identify how we were made in the image of each separate person of the Trinity (e.g. the Holy Spirit). There is no such problem. While for these purposes I make no comment on whether there may be aspects of the divine imprint on man that relate to specific members of the Trinity, if you read all of the classical reformed commentators in expounding this verse, they focus on aspects of God that are common to all three persons of the Trinity. I have given a few examples below (with emphasis added) to illustrate the classical reformed consensus on this point. Some of these also directly refute the interpretation referred to in the opening post that God was speaking with the angels. With so many clear expositions out there, it is hardly needful for me to multiply words about it.

Clearly the doctrine of the Trinity does not rise or fall with Genesis 1.26. Nevertheless, as an early witness to this truth within the very first chapter of the Old Testament, it is helpful and worthy of being defended.

Matthew Henry:

"And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make him, but is pleased so to express himself as if he called a council to consider of the making of him: Let us make man. The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it and concur in it, because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. . . . image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God's person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God's honour that is put upon man, who is God's image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king's impress upon the coin. God's image upon man consists in these three things:-1. In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his. . . . But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God's image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God's representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of God's image than his government of the creatures. 3. In his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. He was upright, Eccl. 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam. 3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen. 9:6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to God's service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!"

Matthew Poole:

"The plurals us and our afford an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It is plain from many other texts, as well as from the nature and reason of the thing, that God alone is man’s Creator: the angels rejoiced at the work of creation, but only God wrought it, Job 38:4-7. And it is no less plain from this text, and from divers other places, that man had more Creators than one person: see Job 35:10 John 1:2-3, &c.; Hebrews 1:3. And as other texts assure us that there is but one God, so this shows that there are more persons in the Godhead; nor can that seeming contradiction of one and more being in the Godhead be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a plurality of persons in the unity of essence. It is pretended that God here speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say: We will and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number, 2 Samuel 3:28, 1 Chronicles 21:17, 1 Chronicles 29:14, 2 Chronicles 2:6. And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea, even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as Ezra 6:8, I (Darius) make a decree; Ezra 7:21, I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary. It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery. Moreover, this device is utterly overthrown by comparing this text with Genesis 3:22 . . .

Quest. Wherein doth the image of God in man consist?

Answ. 1. It is in the whole man, both in the blessedness of his estate, and in his dominion over the rest of the creatures.

2. It shines forth even in the body, in the majesty of man’s countenance, and height of his stature, which is set towards heaven, when other creatures by their down-looks show the lowness and meanness of their nature, as even heathens have observed.

3. It principally consists and most eminently appears in man’s soul.

1. In its nature and substance, as it is, like God, spiritual, invisible, immortal, &c.

2. In its powers and faculties, reason or understanding, and freedom in its choice and actions.

3. In the singular endowments wherewith God hath adorned it, as knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, in which St. Paul chiefly placeth this image, Ephesians 4:24 Colossians 3:10."

John Calvin:

"But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God? 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. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him. . . .

The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God’s vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God. Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee ; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices. In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order. But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin."

 

[Jake]

If he wanted to, could he have created it all in less time?

As I understand it, this has been a common position in church history. Augustine for example at the end of his Confessions took the view that all of creation happened in one day and the week was only an analogy. Many believe this why the Westminster Confession of Faith spells out creation in "the space of six days" contra the common view of instantaneous creation at the time.

 

[RamistThomist]

The danger is imagined. I am saying nothing beyond the consensus of classical reformed thought on the passage. To respond to a few points in turn:

1. I have never said that the "image of God" in which man was created does not include man's role as "vice-regent" (clearly there is such a role, which is stated separately in the dominion mandate of Genesis 1.28); but it does not do justice to the passage to limit the meaning to this. As Calvin said in his commentary on this passage: "The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God's vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God."

2. In any event, the main topic was whether the words "our image" can be understood in a Trinitarian fashion, and I do not think that the interpretation of vice-regent vs. a wider interpretation of "image" really has much of a bearing on this question anyway. Regardless of how you understand the "image" in this verse, it is still "Let us make man in our image", so one is left with the question of why the plural is used.

3. In speaking about the attributes, I was obviously referring to man's capacity in relation to those things as distinct from animals, which is hardly novel. I was just responding directly to the assertion that reading Genesis 1.26 as a reference to the Trinity created the problem of requiring us to identify how we were made in the image of each separate person of the Trinity (e.g. the Holy Spirit). There is no such problem. While for these purposes I make no comment on whether there may be aspects of the divine imprint on man that relate to specific members of the Trinity, if you read all of the classical reformed commentators in expounding this verse, they focus on aspects of God that are common to all three persons of the Trinity. I have given a few examples below (with emphasis added) to illustrate the classical reformed consensus on this point. Some of these also directly refute the interpretation referred to in the opening post that God was speaking with the angels. With so many clear expositions out there, it is hardly needful for me to multiply words about it.

Clearly the doctrine of the Trinity does not rise or fall with Genesis 1.26. Nevertheless, as an early witness to this truth within the very first chapter of the Old Testament, it is helpful and worthy of being defended.

Matthew Henry:

"And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make him, but is pleased so to express himself as if he called a council to consider of the making of him: Let us make man. The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it and concur in it, because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. . . . image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God's person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God's honour that is put upon man, who is God's image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king's impress upon the coin. God's image upon man consists in these three things:-1. In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his. . . . But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God's image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God's representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of God's image than his government of the creatures. 3. In his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. He was upright, Eccl. 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam. 3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen. 9:6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to God's service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!"

Matthew Poole:

"The plurals us and our afford an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It is plain from many other texts, as well as from the nature and reason of the thing, that God alone is man’s Creator: the angels rejoiced at the work of creation, but only God wrought it, Job 38:4-7. And it is no less plain from this text, and from divers other places, that man had more Creators than one person: see Job 35:10 John 1:2-3, &c.; Hebrews 1:3. And as other texts assure us that there is but one God, so this shows that there are more persons in the Godhead; nor can that seeming contradiction of one and more being in the Godhead be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a plurality of persons in the unity of essence. It is pretended that God here speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say: We will and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number, 2 Samuel 3:28, 1 Chronicles 21:17, 1 Chronicles 29:14, 2 Chronicles 2:6. And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea, even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as Ezra 6:8, I (Darius) make a decree; Ezra 7:21, I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary. It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery. Moreover, this device is utterly overthrown by comparing this text with Genesis 3:22 . . .

Quest. Wherein doth the image of God in man consist?

Answ. 1. It is in the whole man, both in the blessedness of his estate, and in his dominion over the rest of the creatures.

2. It shines forth even in the body, in the majesty of man’s countenance, and height of his stature, which is set towards heaven, when other creatures by their down-looks show the lowness and meanness of their nature, as even heathens have observed.

3. It principally consists and most eminently appears in man’s soul.

1. In its nature and substance, as it is, like God, spiritual, invisible, immortal, &c.

2. In its powers and faculties, reason or understanding, and freedom in its choice and actions.

3. In the singular endowments wherewith God hath adorned it, as knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, in which St. Paul chiefly placeth this image, Ephesians 4:24 Colossians 3:10."

John Calvin:

"But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God? 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. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him. . . .

The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God’s vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God. Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Colossians 3:10, and Ephesians 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee ; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices. In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order. But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin."

I don't deny that God is speaking to God. I just don't think that text was trying to teach the Trinity. And Chrysostom is exactly correct: it is about vice-regency. In any case, Calvin doesn't actually disagree with Chrysostom. He just wants a metaphysical angle to it. That's fine. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, though. Other animals have some of those same qualities, but whatever is in the image of God has to be unique to humans.

 

[Barney]

As I understand it, this has been a common position in church history. Augustine for example at the end of his Confessions took the view that all of creation happened in one day and the week was only an analogy. Many believe this why the Westminster Confession of Faith spells out creation in "the space of six days" contra the common view of instantaneous creation at the time.

I should have wrote He when referring to God.
That's interesting. I appreciate it.
Out of interest, who is the picture of for your avatar?

 

[Jake]

I should have wrote He when referring to God.
That's interesting. I appreciate it.
Out of interest, who is the picture of for your avatar?

B.B. Warfield. You can read some of his works for free here: https://www.monergism.com/blog/16-free-ebooks-b-b-warfield

He's a 19th century Reformed scholar. He wrote a lot on the doctrine of inspiration and inerrancy. He has an essay on Calvin's view of creation too.