M SJ 24/2 (Fall 2013) 167-77

THE TRINITY IN CREATION

Bryan Murphy, Th.D.

Associate Professor of Old Testament
The Master’s Seminary

The New Testament makes it very clear that the G odofthe Bible is one God in
three distinct persons. It also directly states that thepre-Incarnate Word (or second
member o fth e Trinity) directly participated in every act ofcreation. Likewise, this
doctrine can be supportedfrom the text o f Genesis 1. While the use oftheplural noun
Elohim usedthroughoutthe Old Testament is inadequate to demonstrate it, theplural
pronoun and plural predication used in Gen 1:26 does strongly suggest it— indeed
demand it on the basis o f NT revelation.

Introduction

There is no denying that the doctrine ofthe Trinity is a fondamental tenet ofthe
Christian faith. This is readily evidenced by the extensive development of this doc-
trine throughout church history. While foe word “trinity” itself does not appear in
Scripture, foe sheer volume ofw ork done to defend and articulate it in both councils
and statements o f faith affirm its importance to foe Christian faith .‫ا‬
The chief reason this doctrine is so staunchly defended is due to foe fact that it
is an absolutely essential testimony ofthe NT revelation. The Trinitarian formulas
present it (cf. Matt 28:18-20). The indirect Trinitarian references affirm it (cf. Rom
15:16, 30). The foter-Trinitarian co n v^ations demand it. Jesus’ prayers are reduced
to nonsensical musings apart from foe doctrine ofthe Trinity (cf. John 17). The Fa-
ther’s audible affirmations o fth e Son during Jesus’ earthly ministry collapse into

١ For an excellent and succinet survey o fth e development o fth e doctrine historically, see Gordon
R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology: Three Volumes in One (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1996), 1:251-57. For a more extensive discussion o fth e historical formulation o fth e doctrine, see John
S. Feinberg, No One Like Him (Wheaton, JL: Crossway, 2001), 471-98. For a stellar defense ofth e histo-
ricity foe doctrine o fth e Trinity, see Nathan Busenitz, “Did Constantine Invent foe Doctrine o f foe Trin-
ity?” M S724, no. 2 (Fall 2013): 2 1 7 4 2 .

167
168| The Master's Seminary Journal

statements nf heresy ٠٢lunacy apart from the doctrine of the Trinity (cf. Matt 3:17‫؛‬
17:5;2Petl:17). This does not even begin to address the implications and theological
assertions related to the deity o f Christ and how they necessitate seeing a plurality of
persons within the Godhead. So, from a NT perspective, it is essential to affirm the
doctrine of the Trinity, which can be readily proven from the biblical text.
A significant truth conveyed in the NT is the direct involvement of the second
member of the Trinity in the original act of creation. John says the Word was not
only present but also active as a member ofthe Godhead during every act of creation
(cf. John 1:1-3). This is the same Word that became flesh (John 1:14). Furthermore,
Paul presents the Son as the one through whom and for whom all things were created
(cf. Col 1:15-17). These texts present the second member ofthe Trinity as directly
involved in foe original acts of creation recorded in foe OT.
The (question to be addressed in this article is simply this: Is there biblical evi-
dence to support foe doctrine ofthe Trinity in foe actual Genesis 1 narrative? This
article will examine two primary arguments: (1) the use ofthe plural noun for God
(cf. Gen 1:1, and throughout), and (2) foe use ofthe plural pronouns in Gen 1:26.

The Use ofthe Plural Nouu in Genesis 1:1

The first potential indication in foe creation nareative that there is a plurality of
persons within foe Godhead is foe use ofthe plural form Elohim to refer to foe Creator
in Gen 1:1 and throughout foe rest o fth e narrative. This noun is used repeatedly
throughout foe OT in a plural form to refer to both a plurality of gods (esp. in refer-
ence to pagan deities) as well as to foe God of Israel. But, does this grammatical
practice clearly convey a plurality ofpersons within foe Godhead in a way consistent
with NT theological conclusions?
The normal way to tell foe difference in most OT contexts is that Elohim is used
in conjunction wifo singular verbs and predicators when it refers to foe God of Is-
ra e l-e .g ., in Gen 1:1, “In foe beginning Elohim (pi. form) created (3rd singular verb)
foe heavens and foe earth.” In comparison, one can see that when Elohim is used in
reference to other gods conveying plurality, it is used wifo plural verbs and predica-
to rs-e .g ., in 1 Kings 20:10, “May foe gods (pi. form) do (3rd plural verb) so to me .
..٠' This practice is fairly conristcnt throughout foe OT, though not without excep-
tions.^ Nevertheless, foe rule of thumb is that Elohim is used in its plural form con-
sistently together wifo singular or plural predicators based upon whether it is being
used to refer to foe singular God of Israel or other gods (plural).‫؟‬

2 There are a few instances in which a singuiar form o f Elohim (Eloah; ‫ )؟؟אה‬is used to refer to
Israel’s God (cf. D eut32:15, 1?; ?ss 18:32[Heb.] ‫ ﻟﻞ؛‬4 ‫ت‬7 ‫ ث‬Hab1: 1 1 3 : 3 ‫)؛‬.
3 It is worth pointing out that Cooper makes a good case based upon an initial investigation ofm any
o fth e unique o c ^ e n c e s — particularly those exception cases where Elohim is used wifo a plural predi-
cator and is at the same time referring to foe God o f lsrael. He concludes accordingly that foe plural form
is therefore intended to be an early trinitarian revelation. His work is incomplete since his evidences are
based largely upon foe exception cases as a rule. However, his argumentation bears farther investigation
by scholars in order to consider the fall merits o f his ev id e n c e -e sp . as it may inform foe standard rules
o f predication. Cf. David L. Cooper, The G od o f Israel (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1945),
esp. 24—43.
 The Trinity in Creation |169

Now, the faet that there is a singular form used at all eould he grounds for con-
eluding that the OT writers, starting with Moses himself, intended to eonvey the idea
of plurality of persons within the Godhead from the beginning. The use of the plural
form as a standard practiee, coupled with singular verbs and predicators, was adopted
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to coincide ultimately with progrès-
sive revelation that was to follow. Some writers have taken this as grounds for con-
eluding that the plural form ofElohim, in reference to God, allows for the beginnings
o ^ n i t a r i a n conclusions in the OT. For example, one writer put it this way, “[ΕΪ0-
him is] a term eonveying both unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality
ofpersons.”*
The real question is, Does foe use of the plural form ofElohim aetually convey
this sense of plurality within foe Godhead doctrinally? Or, is this pressing foe use of
foe plural form farther than is grammatically and lexically defensible? To answer
this, a brief examination of the various uses of the plural and singular forms will be
conducted. The results ofthis exercise will greatly aid in forming a final conclusion.

^ a m m a tic a l c ^ s id e ra tio n s o f the ?lural Form

Flurality in BH^ is normally conveyed through foe use o fa plural ending.^ Most
first-year seminarians know that these forms are the fairly standardized endings (‫؟؛ים‬
or ni). These patterns are consistently followed and applied to masculine or feminine
forms—though them are, naturally, exceptions.^ Nevertheless, foe standard practice
in BH is to show plurality using these plural endings. Likewise, foe absence of these
endings typieally conveys singularity.8
However, plurality can also be conveyed through foe use o fa singular form in
BH in foe case of certain words. These words are typically classified as collective
singulars or singulars of species by Hebrew grammarians.‫ ؟‬Collective singulars are
found in basieally two contexts: (1) When a noun by definition refers to a group;*‫؟‬
(2) when a singular noun is used contexftrally to speak o fa group or species.* ‫ أ‬Ex-
amples of the first case include words like “flock” (‫ )צאן‬or “herd” ( 9 ‫)קר‬, which refer
to a single entity that is made up o fa plurality of individuals. Likewise, words like
“bird” (‫ף‬1‫)ע‬, “worm” (‫ י(ךמה‬and “tear” (‫ )ד؟עה‬can either refer to a collective or a true

4 Jack B. Scott, “‫להים‬$, ” in TWOT, 4 7 0 : ‫ أ‬.

5 Biblical Hebrew, hereafter written simply as BH.
٠ Or, in the case o f certain words like those refereing to body parts that normally occur in pairs—
e.g., hands or e y e s - t h e dual form is used, ft still refers typically to more than o n e - i.e ., two hands.
7 £.g., the masculine noun for father (‫ )אב‬takes a feminine plural ending. The plurality o f the term
is still clearly distinguishable even with the seeming gender conftict with the choice o f ending.
8 Tor more on the morphology for the singular, plural and dual forms, see ?aul Joüon, A Grammar
o f Biblical Hebrew, trans. and rev. T. Muraoka, Subsidia Bíblica 14/111 (repr.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 2005), 266-71 (§89-90); hereafter, JM.
9 Cf. JM 4 9 7 -9 9 (§135); Bruce K. Waltke and M. O ’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical H ebrew
Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 113-16 (§7.2); hereafter, W & o.
“>Cf.JM, 4 9 7 -9 8 (§135b).
" C f.J M , 4 9 8 -9 9 (§135c).
170| The Master's Seminary Journal

singular depending upon the eontext in which the term appears. In the second case,
words like “Adam” (‫ )אז־ם‬and “man” (‫ )איש‬are frequently used as a singular to refer
contextually to a group or species even though a plural form exists. Linguistieally,
this is not an uncommon feature of certain words in a given language. In English, one
might say, “I like fruit” or “Please give me a piece offruit.” In both cases, the singular
form of the word fruit is used. However, foe sense of singularity or plurality is con-
veyed not by foe form itself, but by foe context. The same thing likewise occurs with
words like “people” or “fish.” In faet, a plural ending is sometimes added to these
normally collective singulars in eertain contexts to convey foe sense o fa plurality of
groups, types, or species.^
The key point to glean from all of this is that a singular ٠٢plural form of the
word does not by itself always convey definitively a sense of plurality or singularity.
In EH, there are a number of terms that occur in dual or plural forms that are essen-
tially still individual entities or collectives. Grammarians identify several distinct
classifications ofthese exceptions. IhQplural ofcomposition is foe classification ap-
plied to words that are conveyed in the plural when they refer to a collection ofindi-
viduals, but in foe singular when describing foe species ٠٢natural state as a whole .‫ؤ‬ ‫ا‬
For example, “wheat” (‫ )חטה‬is used in foe plural to refer to foe collected kernels gath-
ered up at harvest, but in the singular when it refers to foe species. “Blood” (‫ )ן ם‬is
singular when it refers to it in its natural state still in foe body. However, when it is
spilled, it occurs as a plural (cf. Gen 4:10).^ It is important to note that no change
took place in foe blood itself. The switch from singular to plural is merely a means
to convey foe removal of the blood from its normal location within foe body in an
individual’s veins. There are other grammatical classifications worth noting as well.
The plural ofextension is used to describe terms that are always rendered in a plural
form, seemingly due to foe immense size or complexity of the referent of the noun
itself. Examples include words like “heaven” (‫ )שמים‬and “face” or “surface” (‫)פנים‬.
As has been shown, in many cases defining foe intended meaning of plurality
is not a simple matter of indicating a singularity ٠٢plurality of entities. At times,
plural forms are used to convey anything from complexity to intensity. At other
times, a change from the singular to foe plural conveys anything from a change in
context to the inclusion o fa plurality of collectives. Some words are simply plural
due to the nafnre of the word in BH.

12 There are a number ©fuses ©fthe e©lleeti¥e singular in the ereati©n narrative itself. In Gen 1:20,
“Let the waters swarm with a swarm (sg.) o f living ereature(s) (sg.).” One can ©bserve the use ©fthe
singular f©r swarm (and f©r bird in the sec©nd part ofth e verse) t© refer t© a c©llecti©n ©fcreatures, as well
as the use o fth e singular f©rm for “living creatares” used t© c©incide with the grammatical f©rm o fth e
c©llective. Then, in Gen 1:21-22, the details o fth e acc©unt c©nfirm plurals were in fact being c©nveyed
through the use ofth ese singular terms. The plural is used t© refer t© the sea m©nsters, and the “after their
(pi.) kind” summarizes the effects ©fthe creative act. Thr©ugh©ut the creati©n narrative, there are multiple
uses o f a singular n©un form which refers t© a plural referent.
13 € f. JM, 500 (§136b).
١* Cf. w & o, 119-20 (§7.4.1b).
 The Trinity in Creation ¡171

Contextual Considerations ofthe Plural Form

Many times the sense o f plurality or singularity must he based upon eontextual
factors beyond the mere grammatical form. The most relevant O ssification to this
discussion (i.e., o fa plural form that is used to refer to a singular entity with no direct
plural connotations derived from the form its e ^ is th eplural ofmajesty (a.k.a., the
plural ()/excellence or honorific plural)}5 This is best defined as an intensive use of
the plural ‫آها־ه‬ in which a singular individual is “so thoroughly haracterized by the
(Qualities o fth e noun that a plural is used.”16 Or, put another way, writers use the
plural form because it shows a heightened level of respect for foe individual being
referred to or addressed in foe context. The key, as it relates to this article, is in how
plurals ofmajesty are typically recognized. There are two primary ways grammarians
identify a plural ofmajesty. First, is to note that foe word, though it occurs in a plural
form in a given context, is used in conjunction with singular syntax in foe surrounding
immediate context. Second, foe word itself in this context speaks of or to an individ-
ual of significance or importance‫ ־‬or an individual that epitomizes a class.
The most common terms used as plurals ofm ajesty are, in fact, Elohim and
Adonay. Both are used in this way to show special reverence for foe one addressed
٠٢referred to in the context. Many examples appear throughout foe OT:

Psalm 7:10 reads (‫)؟؛ליהים צדיק‬-—i.e., “a just (sg.) God (pi.).”

Genesis 1:1 has (‫ —)ברא אלה ים‬i.e., “God (pi.) created (3rdsg.).”

In each case, foe plural noun is used with a singular predicator, identifying it as
a plural of majesty. Two other examples are worth citing. In Deut 10:17, Moses
writes, ‘Yahweh, Be (sg.) is God (pi.) of gods (pi.) and Lord (pi.) oflords (pi.).’ Bofo
lead plurals can be classified as majestic in this context. In 1 Kings 1:43, a majestic
plural is used in reference to a human king, in many ways certifying foe classification
itself. In this passage, Jonathan addresses Adonijah saying, “Our Lord (pl.), David
foe king (sg.), he made (3ms) Solomon king.”^ This regular pattern used throughout
foe OT compels foe interpreter to consider foe use ofthe plural form Elohim in these
kinds of conditions as a majestic plural unless there is overwhelming evidence to foe
contrary in a given context.

15 Cf.JM , 500-01 (§136d).

16w&o, 1 22-24 (§7.4.3).
17 It is worth noting that Waitke and O ’Connor include both the Behemoth from Job 40:15-16, and
19, as well as the generalization ofth e donkey as a species in Zech 9:9 in this broader classification on the
basis ofth e latter rule ( e f W & 0 ,122 ‫ ا‬7.4.3§‫) ﻟأل‬. The Behemoth is classified this way because it epitomizes
a creature beyond human control. The Zech 9:9 text literally says, “on a colt, the foal o f a donkey (lit.
donkeys).” See also JM, 502 (§136^— they classify it as a plural o f intensity, which is a classification
distinct from the plural ofm ajesty in their system. W&o put all intensives into the broad category o f
honorifics and the like. A case can be made for either system. O f primary importance is the recognition o f
the intensive plurals and their varying nuances and significances.
172| The Master's Seminary Journal

Conclusions Regarding the Plural Form

So, what answer can be given to the question posed earlier with regard to the
use of the plural form of Elohim as it relates to the doctrine of the Trinity? A close
examination of the use of Elohim in the context of Genesis 1 reveals the plural form
is used in an honorific or majestic way to refer to foe God of Israel and is therefore
not proof ofaplurality ofpersons within foe Godhead. This conclusion is based upon
foe following evidences: (1) The plural form oiElohim is used throughout foe Gen-
esis 1 narrative to refer to foe Creator God in conjunction with singular verbs.‫ ئ‬This
coincides with the normal rules for identifying a majestic plural. (2) The God of foe
Bible is an individual uniquely worthy of reverence due to His power and person that
most espeeially merits foe majestic plural form.
Gn these grounds, foe plural form of Elohim is ‫ آس‬, in itself, a clear indication
ofplurahty within foe Godhead. The best and most consistent way to understand foe
plural form in these cases is to take it as a majestic plural.٣ The plural form is used
in Genesis 1 and throughout the OT to refer to foe God of Israel (foe Creator of
Heaven and Earth) because it is an intensive way to acknowledge the absolute SU-
premacy ofthe One True God. This does not mean that foe plural form speaks against
a plurality ofpersons within foe Godhead.^ It simply means that one cannot reason
for foe Trinity on foe grammatical basis of this plural form atoned

The Use of the Plurai Pronoun in Genesis 1:26

While the plural form of Elohim has been shown to be an inadequate ground
upon which to conclude that foe Genesis 1 narrative gives an early indication of a
plurality of persons within foe Godhead, there is another grammatical issue worthy
of consideration from a Trinitarian perspective. In Gen 1:26 there is a significant
deviation from foe syntactical pattern followed throughout the creation narrative. A
statement of deliberation is m ade-seem ingly within foe Godhead itself.
There are several significant observations worth noting by way of introduction.
For the first time, foe pattem of divine fiat followed by divine evaluation is broken.

18 Cf. Gen 1:1, “God (pi.) created” (3ms); Gen 1:3, “then God (pi.) said” (3ms); Gen 1:4, “then God
(pi.) saw . . . then God (pi.) separated” (3ms); Gen 1:5, “then God (pi.) ealled” (3ms); ete.
19 Or, plural o f majesty.
2‫ م‬There are over 2,500 oceurrenees o f Elohim in its various forms throughout the OT. Heiser points
out that on average, 3 out o f every 5 times this r a ^ h o lo g ie a lly plural noun is used, it is the subjeet o f a
^mmmaticalty singular predicator— Cf. Michael s. Heiser, “Should ‫'( אלהים‬ÉTOHÍM) with ?lural ?redi-
cation n e Translated ‘Gods’?” Bible Translator 61, no. 3 (July 2010): 123-36, esp. 123. That means there
are a significant number o f other cases worth investigating, ?erhaps an exhaustive look at every occurrence
by a doctoral student at some point would yield a more definitive a n sw e r-esp . as it relates to Cooper’s
argumentation.
21 One could potentially make a case for the plural form coinciding with trinitarian doctrine on the
basis o f God being the author oflanguage— including the confusion o f languages (Gen 11). The argument
could be that He constructed the majestic plural into the framework o fth e Hebrew language in order to
ultimately coincide with progresstye revelation. However, this is still not a conclusion that would be nat-
malty drawn either from the text itself or from an OT saint’s p erspective-n or, for that matter, from a NT
believer’s perspective. The common understanding ofth e term Elohim with singular predication is to take
it as some kind o f intensive plural referring to a singular entity.
 The Trinity ‫ ط‬Creation |173

?rior to verse 26, God speaks; His expressed will is enaeted; then He evaluates His
creation as good. At this point, prior to the creation of man, a statement of delibera-
tion precedes the act of creation. Next, the deliberation reveals that this creative act
will be special. The creation ofm an is to be truly unique because man is to be created
in the image and likeness of God. No other part of creation is so specifically or
uniquely described. Most significantly, as it relates to this study, the consistent pat-
tern o f the plural form ofElohim is used with a singular v e r b - “then God (sg.) said
(3ms).” But it is followed by the use ofplural verb and plural pronouns that have God
as theh* clear n t e c ^ e n t - “Let us make (3cp) man in our (pi.) image and according
to our (pi.) likeness.”‫ ال‬What is the significance of the use of this plural verb and
^ n o u n ? Does it convey a plurality of persons within the Godhead—even if the use
ofthe majestic plural does not?
Due to the doctrinal implications ofthis issue, a number of solutions have been
presented through the ages. For the sake ofthis discussion, seven primary views will
be introduced.

The Mythical View

Gne possible solution is that the use o fth e plural is derived from an ancient
polytheistic myth narrative that was used by the editor ofthe Genesis text during the
course ofits development. The existence ofthe plural in this verse is merely evidence
of an inadequate effort on the part ofthe redaetor(s) to remove all foe pagan elements
from foe story. Skinner, for example, suggests that foe significant differences in phra-
seology between these verses and foe preceding sections “are sufficient to prove lit-
erary discontinuity o f some kind.”23 In other words, this exegetical issue is actually
a ٣٠٢ of literary dependence and redaction o f some kind. Obviously, this view con-
tradicts an evangelical view of inspiration and can thus be rejected.

The Majestic View

According to this view, God is addressing Himself in a way that is consistent

wifo foe plural o fm ajesty -i.e.. He is using foe plural pronoun in order to maintain
grammatical conformity wifo foe majestic plural use of Elohim. Speiser holds to this
view.^ McKeown lists fois as a possibility among several he poses as acceptable.^3

22 It is also worth mentioning that this is not the only occurrence o fth is type ofdeliberati¥e state-
ment in the Genesis narrative ( c f Gen 3:22; 11:7-8; see also, Isa 6:8).
23 John Skinner, A Critical an dE xegetical Commentary on Genesis, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1930), 35.
24 E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 7.
25 James McKeown, Genesis, THOTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 26.
174| The M aster’s Seminary Journal

The ehiefand convincing objection to this is the fact that plural predication accom-
panies the plural pronoun here in contrast to the consistent use o f singular predication
throughout for Elohim.26

The Deliberative View

This view is loosely referred to as foe “royal we” view. God is addressing Him-
self by means o fa plural of self-address or deliberation. Arnold describes it this way,
“foe verse does not refer to plural persons or beings involved in foe act of human
creation, but is a pregnant way of saying that God deliberated with himself about foe
creation ohum ankind.”^ The ggnificance of the plural is to show that God actually
takes a personal interest in foe creation o f man, rather than merely creating by divine
fiat. I.e., instead of the typical pattern of “let there be . . . and it comes to pass” there
is a statement of deliberation indicating that God will personally perform this act of
creation. This view can be supported on foe basis of the more detailed descriptive
statement given in Gen 2:7. As such, this deliberative statement conveys both foe
uniqueness and significance of the creation of mankind in comparison to all the rest
ofcreation.^
While foe argumentation behind this view is stronger than most, there are still
solid grounds for rejecting it. The chief objection to it is that there is no clear GT
parallel that similarly used foe plural form for this type of deliberation. Additionally,
Joüon and Muraoka demonstrate that the plural of majesty or intensifieation is not
used with verbs.^ As such, this view is doubly suspect.30

The l^ctorical View

This is something o f a variant on foe rhetorical view above. However, instead

of merely addressing Himself, God is including foe earth which will be involved in a
passive sense in the creation of man. The plural then refers to God directly and foe
earth in a rhetorical sense as foe raw material from which man will be fashioned.
Keiser attests to encountering this view occasionally, but does not cite a specific pro-
ponent.^ This writer has yet to find one personally. In any case, foe simple fact that
creation itself is not actually involved in foe act makes this suggestion dubious at

*٠ Bryan Murphy, “Genesis 1‫ ث‬2:3-1‫ت‬A Textual and Exegetieal Examination as an Objective Foun-
dation for Apologetieal and Theological Studies” (Sun Valley, €A : The Master’s Seminary, Th.D. disser-
tation, 2008), 272-73.
27 Bill T. Arnold, Genesis, NCBC (New York: Cambridge University Fress, 2009), 44.
28 See also K eil’s position in, C. F. Keil and F. Delitzseh, Commentary on the O ld Testament, trans.
by James Martin (repr.; Feabody, MA: Hendriekson, 1996), 1:38-39.
29 JM, 376 (§114e (1)). That is to say, foe “Eet us make” is all contained in foe plural verb form
itself in foe Hebrew text. N o appositional noun is supplied in a plural form in conjunction with a singular
verb. This necessarily eliminates foe conclusion that this is a kind o f majestic plural.
30 See also, Victor p. Hamilton, The Book o f Genesis: Chapters 1-17, NJCOT (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1990), 133.
31 Thomas A. Keiser, “The Divine Flural: A Litorar^Contextual Argument for Flurality in foe God-
head,” JSO T 34, no. 2 (2009): 1 3 1 4 6 , esp. 132.
 The Trinity in Creation |175

best, Eurthermore, the earth is “passively” involved in the majority of creation and
no need for deliberation like this was required. This view is, therefore, highly suspeet.

The Angelic View

This is a fairly popular view, and it boasts a small majority of contemporary

writers. It sees God as addressing the heavenly host or eourt that were present during
ereation week. This address ean include anything from God merely involving the
angelic host in the discussion about the creation of man to an actual tie to the ANE
world views that included a pantheon of gods of various levels. O f those that limit
the scope to God deliberating with the angelic host, a number of prominent contem-
porary scholars can be cited.^ The most compelling argument to date is probably the
one given by Walton.33
The greatest strength of the position is that there is biblical evidence of God
interacting with the heavenly host o f angels, including even Satan (cf. Job 1-2). Ad-
ditionally. Job 38:4-7 indicates that the angels were present at some point during the
actual creation week (esp. V. 7).
Nevertheless, this view should be rejected on the basis of the following objec-
tions: (1) There is no reference here, or elsewhere, to man being made in the image
of angels (contra Delitzsch).^ This alone makes “our image” very unlikely as a ref-
erence to anyone other than God Himself. If the “our image” is singularly refercing
to God, the “Let us make” must be equally limited to God. (2) There are no direct
references to angels ٠٢the angelic host in the creation narrative (i.e., Gen 1:1-2:3; or
even in 2:4-25). The nearest reference is in Gen 3:24 and it is too remote to be readily
associated with the plurality and the context of 1:26 with any level of certainty. (3)
The return in 1:27 to the grammatical pattern o f Elohim coupled with a singular verb
form, farther compels one to the conclusion that God alone both acts and is addressed
in the creation ofman. The restatement in 2:7 farther affirms God’s singular involve-
ment in man’s creation. (4) Even outside the immediate context of the creation nar-
rative, the Bible makes it clear that God consulted no one and involved no one in the
acts of creation (cf. Isa 40:12-14 )‫ﻗﺮ‬
Based upon these considerations, it is necessary to reject the angelic view. A
primary reason many seem compelled to look for a referent other than God in this
case involves their lack ofreadiness to concede to it as an early reference toaplurality
within the Godhead. However, the use ofthe plurals in this verse make it yntactically

32 E.g., Brace K. Waïtke with Cathi ‫ ل‬. Fradricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2001), 64-65; Gordon j. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1%?), 27-28‫ ؛‬and
Hamilton, Genesis, 132-34.
33 JohnH. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 129-30.
34 Franz Delitzsch, A Commentary on Genesis, trans. Sophia Taylor (repr.: Minneapolis, MN: Klock
‫ ه‬Klock Christian ?ublishers, 1978), 97-101.
35 A s additional secondary considerations, one might point to Isa 44:24, though the reference com
textoally speaks o fth e nation o f Israel itself‫ ؛‬and to Neh 9:6, which may suggest there was no angelic
participation in creation.
176| The Master's Seminary Journal

necessary to understand this as God consulting Himself, given the laek of any other
clear contexfoal antecedent.

The Plurality View

The grammatical and contextual challenges discussed above led many to con-
elude that the reference is in some way an early evidence of a duality or plurality
within the Godhead. Barth, for example, understood it as part of an l‫־‬Thou relation-
ship within the Godhead.^ Clines ties it back to the referenee to the Spirit of God in
Gen 1:2.37 A prevailing view today seems to be that though the expression contains
what Christian readers may view as the initial glimmerings ofa Trinitarian revelation,
it is unlikely that a writer as committed to monotheism as the author ofGenesis would
have “written something that was ambiguous enough to give any room for polythe-
istic interpretations. Gn the other hand, Genesis refers to God’s Spirit having a role
in creation, and the idea of God addressing himself or his spirit is not ^lytheistic,
nor is it a fully developed doctrine of the Trinity ٠٠. [and since none] of these expia-
nations ofthe plural in Genesis 1:26 has gained overall approval. . . the matter must,
for the moment, remain open.”38 In other words, it is acceptable to discuss the fact
that it does very much seem to convey plurality. However, one must not be dogmatic
and assert a Trinitarian position because there is no consensus and it seems to con-
tradict OT Jewish monotheistic beliefs.
There are two objections to this conclusion. First, a proper NT theological belief
is monotheistic and yet affirms a plurality of persons within the Godhead. Second,
the grammar does call for ^urality—and this can be dogmatically affirmed. The real
question is, How should this plurality be understood—e s ^ c i^ ly given toe additional
revelation provided by the NT?

r a e Trinitarian View

On toe basis o fthe argumentation given above, toe best answer seems to this
writer to be that the plural pronoun is in faet a clear reference to a plurality ofpersons
within toe Godhead that later revelation will both confirm and define as a Trinity.
The grammar demands a plurality to be involved in toe actual creation of man. The
context necessarily limits this to God. The rest of Scripture reveals a Trinity of per-
sons within toe Godhead.
Fassages like John 1 reveal toe presence ofthe Word in toe act of creation. This
later revelation confirms that a conversation took place between toe Father and toe
Word, with the spirit present and active throughout as well (cf. Gen 1:2). While toe
fullness ofthis may not have been comprehended by either Moses, toe human author,
or toe original readers (the nation of Israel immediately following toe Exodus),
through inspiration, God intended to convey Trinitarian in lv e m e n t in creation

36 Karl Barth, The D octrine ofC reation , trans. j. w. Edwards, o. Bussey, and Harold Knight, in
Church D ogm atics (Edinburgh: T،& T Clark, 1958), 60.
37 David j. a . Clines, “The Image o f God in Man,” TynBul 16 (1967): 53-103, esp. 63-69.
38 MeKeown, Genesis, 26.
 The Trinity in Creation 177‫؛‬

through the progress ofrevelation.^ In point offact, the Genesis 1 narrative eonveys
plurality. In progressive revelation, this is explained as three persons in one God. The
elear emphasis throughout the OT on one God must he balaneed from the beginning
on the basis ofthis early “plurality ofpersons” revelation. Moses, in Genesis 1, wrote
the first inspired rev^atory expression eonveying the truth about the plurality ofper-
sons within the Godhead. It is the rest of Seripture that confirms the reference to be
Trinitarian.
Lest this cause undue concern on the basis that historieally this was not fully
understood or perceived from an GT perspective, let it be noted that even when ٠٠٧‫־‬
pled with countless miracles, signs and wonders, the disciples themselves werc una-
ble to comprehend the clear declarations ofJesus Himself regarding His crucifixion
and resurcection until after He had opened their eyes (cf. Luke 24:44-47). But fol-
lowing this, they became ready ^‫־‬oclaimers, not just of the trcth of the resurrection,
but also of the scriptural prophetic statements fulfilled by it. Genesis 1 reveals God
as a single God with a plurality ofpersons within that Godhead. It calls for the rest
of Scripture progressively to confirm that plurality as the Trinity.

Conclusion

So, is there biblical evidence to support the doctrine ofthe Trinity in the Genesis
1 narrative? As has been demonstrated, the plural form Elohim does not argue for an
early Trinitarian revelation. The best way to understand this form in the Genesis nar-
rative is to take it as a plural of majesty due to the consistent use of singular predica-
tora. However, the plurals of Gen 1:26 coupled with the return to the consistent use
of Elohim in conjunction with singular verbs does attest to a plurality of persons
within the singular Godhead, ?rogressive revelation reveals this plurality as Trinitar-
ian-nam ely. Father, Son, and spirit.

39Murphy, “Genesis l: l- 2 : 3 ,” 275-77.

 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection w ith perm ission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, w ho also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may m aintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request perm ission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For inform ation regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaform atioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact inform ation for the copyright holder(s).

A bout ATLAS:

The A TLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions o f previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and m anaged by the Am erican Theological Library A ssociation
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endow m ent !)٦٥.

The design and final form o fth is electronic docum ent is the property o fth e A m erican
Theological Library Association.