Expert: Clifford H. Readout, Jr. - 3/22/2004

Question
Mr. Readout....

Thank you for your response and the learned conclusions you drew about my question.

I have come to understand that I am a person who views Truth as "personal and experiential," not "eternal and absolute" and as such, new understandings that come my way are generally extremely subjective in nature. They meet me, not vice-versa.

My understanding of any "new" Truth that presents itself to me on my journey must deeply "ring true" in order to become an integral part of my spiritual makeup. Consequently, I find the predictable parsing of "what if(s)" and "therefore we can conclude(s)" to be of no deeply felt value to my Truth-seeking and my spiritual unfoldment.

You write....<<This question (about Genesis 1:26) is seldom asked with a sincere desire to gain an understanding, but rather as an objection to one doctrine or another (almost always a Trinitarian's objection to the Absolute and Exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ). >>

I do not fall into the latter categories, but rather am a lifelong searcher with a "sincere desire to gain an understanding."

I sincerely appreciate your response(s)and the exhaustive references you utilized to assist me. Further, I respect and praise you for your unselfish giving to any and all who seek spiritual understanding.

God bless and Shalom....

Dan McCurdy
  
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
Sir:

What explanation(s) have been given for the three plural references God gave in Genesis 1:26 and the plural reference in Genesis 3:21-22?

To wit:

King James version:
Genesis 1:26 -- And God said, Let *us* make man in *our* image, after *our* likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth

Revised Standard version:
Genesis 1:26 -- Then God said, "Let *us* make man in *our* image, after *our* likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

--------------------------------------------------

King James version:
Genesis 3:21-22 -- Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of *us*, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

Revised Standard version:
Genesis 3:21-22 -- And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them. 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of *us*, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever"    
--------------------------------------------------

Many thanks in advance for helping to shed light on this seemingly contradictory conundrum to the view of "one God."

Sincerely,

Dan McCurdy
Answer -
Dear Mr. McCurdy,

Thank you for your questions, and interesting comments about the conundrum. I hope my answer will indeed shine the light of Truth on the interpretive errors of common theology.

A full answer to your question is a bit too large to be transmitted through this forum, and would take more than three days to type into this text box. “What explanation(s) have been given for the three plural references God gave in Genesis 1:26 and the plural reference in Genesis 3:21-22?” there are more answers than are worth considering!  I will offer two explanations for your consideration, one from common theology, and the one I think to be the best expression of the truth of the texts.

Genesis 1:26:
I do not think there is a mystery to be solved in the text unless I put it there in my own thinking.  I can allow the other texts which relate to it, and show its fulfillment, to testify as to what was meant.  The very next verse, which is almost always ignored, contains the largest immediate solution.  Genesis 1:27, says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;”  Notice that it does NOT say: “So God created man in THEIR own images, in the images of God created They them.”  Since there is overwhelming testimony that God is One, and that He created everything by Himself (Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;), it does no disservice to either the Bible or to reason to expect that Genesis 1:26 does NOT indicate a plurality of persons in the Godhead.  If we eliminate “theological solutions” which contain contradictions to other clear pronouncements in the Word, we shall be left with solutions which do not create conundrums.  I know of a few such solutions, one of which I believe to be the most theologically sound, but more difficult to explain. We could, as the ancient Rabbinical commentators do, simply pass by it as a common usage of the “royal plural.” We could say God was speaking to the angels, which were created long before, but not implying that they would be co-creators.  Or, we could involve other passages of scripture which relate to the subject.  The result of “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” was the creating of Adam.  Adam was not three persons.  In addition,  Romans 5:14 says that Adam is the figure of him that was to come.  (See also 1 Corinthians 11:7.)  This indicates to me that “our image” (not, “our images”), and “our likeness” (not “our likenesses”), is the singular image we know as Jesus Christ.  (See Romans 8:29; 1 Corinthians 15:49; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 3:10.)  Thus it is apparent that the “image” and “likeness” after which Adam was created was an image and likeness which did not exist in creations' reality until God was manifest in flesh, thousands of years after the creating of Adam.  Thus, the image is that of the MAN Christ Jesus.

When we consider also the texts which attribute all creating to Jesus Christ (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17, etc.) in the light of Isaiah 44:24, etc. we ought not to make a plurality of persons in the Godhead and then try to explain away all the contradictions with theological double-talk.  Rather, we could think that Genesis 1:26 could be the record of a prophetic utterance in which God, beyond the limitations of time and space, and prior to His Manifestation, speaks through time to the Manifestation He would become, and says, “Let us make man in out image, after our likeness.”  Hence, the “us” is God “Transcendent” speaking into creation to the image He would become in “Manifestation.”  This is in harmony with the full testimony of scripture about God, creation, and man.  It also does not require any theological twisting of texts, or the invention of extra persons in the Godhead.  Neither does it require an innovative explanation of how “us” and “our” can refer to a “him” and a “his” rather than to a “them” and a “theirs.”

Trinitarian theology simply says that the “us” and the “our” are the Three co-equal Persons.  They do not explain why one of the Three Co-equal Persons gives instructions to the other two.  Nor do they explain how one of them can follow up with a claim to have done it alone.  Actually, I find that technique intellectually offensive.  Not having enough understanding to explain a puzzle does not give one license to invent contradictory solutions.  This question (about Genesis 1:26) is seldom asked with a sincere desire to gain an understanding, but rather as an objection to one doctrine or another (almost always a Trinitarian's objection to the Absolute and Exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ).

Genesis 3:21-22:
Questions like these can be deceiving, not only by the intent of the questioner and/or the form of the question, but also by the way the hearer interprets it.  In this case, the question contains a fallacy which offers no possibility of arriving at truth.  The text uses the word “as” rather than “like,” and that does make a small difference, but it isn't the fallacy.  The fact is, the text does not say “the man is become as one of us.”  It doesn't have the period to close off the thought at “us.”  Rather, it follows with an explanatory statement which specifies the manner of the similarity:  Genesis 3:22 "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

In what manner had “the man become as one of us”?  (Were I to be as ornery as some “theologians” are, I would make some demanding challenges, myself: “Had he become the Fourth Person in the Godhead?  If the “us” refers to the Three Persons of the Trinity, then the man became ‘as' one of them.”)  But the text specifies that the man had become “as” one of them who knew good and evil.  Since this is so clearly specified by the text, it seems reasonable to ask, “Who knew good and evil at the time this was spoken?”  Well, God did.  The angels had already endured the corruption of Lucifer and the fall of the third part of their host, so it might be reasonable to assume that they also “knew good and evil.”  So, if we reject the easy answer of the “royal plural,” we do have another easy answer which does not involve making Three Persons out of the One.

I hope this helps you.

Yours for Truth,

CR

Answer
Dear Mr. McCurdy,

First: Thank you for these very kind comments. I am so pleased that some of my comments brought some benefit to you. Thank you, also, for revealing something of your personal thought and position. I do not allow myself much liberty to ask a questioner to expose his preferences and presuppositions, or other personal information. I almost always must depend on some measure of spiritual discernment to provide me the insight necessary to make an eternal and absolute answer also personal and experiential for my questioner. Only occasionally do they write something which is, in itself, openly revealing. It delights me to correspond with others who have a sincere desire to gain understanding. The questions do not intimidate me, nor do I fear the answers! I, too, am willing to be led into greater illumination. So, again, thank you for making this a delightful exchange, rather than merely a response to a question.

Second: You state that you “do not fall into the latter categories.' Am I to conclude from this that you are neither objecting to any particular doctrine derived from Genesis 1:26, nor one who objects to the “Absolute and Exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ? Or merely that such issues are not concerns of yours? I understand that you were making a proactive claim to be a sincere seeker more than a denial of being the latter, but still, the question I pose remains.

Third: I would like to explore a concept with you, provoked by your comments relative to being “a person who views Truth as ‘personal and experiential,' not ‘eternal and absolute.' I would be happy to read your responses to the following considerations.

Must we be forced into a choice of viewing Truth as either “personal and experiential” or “eternal and absolute”?  It occurs to me that “Belief,” both “believing a lie” (2 Thessalonians 2:11) and “belief of the truth” (2Thessalonians 2:13), is most certainly always personal and experiential. But, the fact that not all belief is “of the truth” forces me to consider that there must be some means of validating belief. Those who believe it a righteous thing to murder those who disagree with them and those who believe to do so is sinful cannot both be correct. If there is no eternal and absolute truth, which either validates or overthrows belief, then nothing can be true in any meaningful sense, neither can anything be false in any meaningful sense.

John 8:30-32 records an interesting exchange; “As he spake these words, many believed on him.  31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

When I was a boy I had an occasion which motivated my father to give me a week long crash course in memorizing the multiplication tables. We worked hard at it, me necessarily blindfolded and threatened with suitable disciplinary action if I did not pay attention, my father diligently drilling me with multiplication questions, and neither of us satisfied until I could satisfactorily answer each challenge with the right number. On the day of the test which would determine my progress into the next grade, I was the first student finished. The test was the easiest I have ever taken, and I learned that nothing is as comforting in an examination as having learned the answers ahead of time. On the day the test papers were returned I was appalled to discover that my teacher had made a mistake in grading mine. She had marked one of my answers to be incorrect. Of course, I knew better than that, having learned the multiplication tables thoroughly, and to my own father's superior satisfaction. I went to the teacher and pointed out her simple error. She blatantly refused to acknowledge her error, insisting that seven times six did not equal forty-five. Of course, I “knew” I'd gotten it right, and there were a few moments of argument about it, which ended with her sending me to the blackboard to demonstrate how seven times six equaled forty-five. I was confident that I could show her, but had a problem making seven sets of six ones count up to more than forty-two. I counted them twice and came to know the truth. I also learned that it is possible to believe a lie, but that you cannot know something that is not true. Since then, knowing has always been better than believing, for me.

I have since applied that childhood illumination to my adult life's search for understanding. Much of the meaningless has been dispelled from my life, replaced by things of value to me and many others. Subjective experience may be validated by objective reality, but objective reality does not depend on personal experience to validate it. Only knowing the truth, the objective and external fact, frees one from the bondage of belief.

Thus, I postulate for other seekers that Truth is most certainly “eternal and absolute,” and ought to become “personal and experiential,” but “belief” is a most tenuous foundation. It is the goal of all spiritual service to translate for others the eternal and absolute into the personal and experiential.

What think ye of these things?

Yours for Truth,

CR