Boards

My church

Greek

Reformation Theology

Disputes:
  v. JW
  v. Rome
  v. ignert

Systematics

Pleasures of God

Theo Links

Apolo Links

Software

Hardware

Photo

New

Comments and Responses Welcome

" Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (NASB)

The Watchtower's comments on Gen 1:26 in SYBT are found in this section under the subheading "Jesus a Separate Creation". Their comments are as follows.

It no doubt was to this master craftsman [the prehuman Jesus, a.k.a. Michael the archangel in Watchtower theology] that God said: "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) Some have claimed that the "us" and "our" in this expression indicate a Trinity. But if you were to say, 'Let us make something for ourselves,' no one would normally understand this to imply that several persons are combined as one inside of you. You simply mean that two or more individuals will work together on something. So, too, when God used "us" and "our," he was simply addressing another individual, his first spirit creation, the master craftsman, the prehuman Jesus [Michael the archangel]. (SYBT, p.14, [comments added])

A Heavenly Conversation
The Watchtower is right about one thing here. The use of "us" and "our" here does unmistakably indicate a conversation between persons. The problem is that the Watchtower wishes to make this a conversation between the Creator and His creature(s). Why is that a problem? Well, Gen 1:27 tells us that we are created in the image(singular) of God, not the images of the Creator and creature(s). If we ask whose image we are created in, the answer in Genesis 1:26-27 is God. We are created in God's image. Not "God and Michael". Not "God and angels". Not even "God and the archangel". We are made in the image of God, period. To introduce creatures into this discussion is to go beyond the text and brings the charge of eisegesis (reading into a text what is not there) solidly against the Watchtower.

Grammatical Evidence
That the conversation between persons here at Gen 1:26-27 is not one between the Creator and creature(s) is manifestly clear grammatically, both in English and especially in Hebrew. Morey notes several important details here.

First, the word "make" in the phrase "Let us make man" is a plural verb. The Hebrew grammar cannot be ignored. The main verb as well as the pronouns are all plural. This would indicate that God is the "Us" and "Our" who is speaking.
Second, that the plural pronouns refer to God and not to angels is clear from the singular nouns "image" and "likeness." Man is not created in the two images or two likenesses--God's and the angels. We are created in the image and likeness of God.
Third, this is also demonstrated by the repetition of the word "image" in verse 27. If the "image" in which man was created was reflective of angels as well as God, it would not have been rendered in the singular, but in the plural. (The Trinity, Morey, p.94)

Briefly stated, the context of Genesis 1:26-27 bears no indication that God is speaking to or including any created being in the creation of man. In fact, the grammatical evidence is quite to the contrary. The "us"(plural) "makes"(plural) man in "our"(plural) "image"(singular), not in the "images" of the "us" and someone else. Therefore, the "conversation between persons" indicated by the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26, is one more example displaying the multi-personal nature of the Triune God.

Not a "Plural of Majesty"
Jehovah's Witnesses may say that this is an instance of God speaking using a "plural of majesty" much like the Queen of England said of herself, "We are not amused." I will be doing a more detailed examination of the "plural of majesty" in the future, but for now I would like to include this short comment from Gleason Archer on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty".

This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Archer, p.359, emphasis added)

A Missing Foundation Topples the Watchtower
The Watchtower claims that its theology is all biblically based. In the quote from SYBT provided earlier they are stating that the image we are created in is the image of both God and angel. Where have they found a verse which teaches that angels are created in the image of God? What image is that? What is the "image" shared by both Jehovah and Michael that we are created in, as the Watchtower attempts to say here? Is it some kind of general "image" in the sense that both Jehovah and angels are invisible spirits? I doubt that is what they are trying to establish, since they deny that man has an immortal spirit which endures beyond the life of the physical body. Yet they claim here that God consulted with an angel and created man in some common "image" shared by both Jehovah and angels, yet they never define what that "image" is or where they find this doctrine of a shared "image" between Jehovah and angels in the Scriptures. It would appear that they took the concept of man being created in God's image, and somehow extended this (perhaps unintentionally) to angels. They have assumed that angels are created in God's image with absolutely no Biblical support.

JWs say, "But... but... but..."
It is important to note that I AM NOT claiming that Genesis 1:26-27 is a fully formed exposition of the Trinity down to the tiniest detail. I have visited with Jehovah's Witnesses enough to know they will say, after reading this far, "So where does it say here that God is three persons?" It doesn't and I don't say that it does. What it does provide us with is an indication of compound oneness within the Godhead. What we find here is fully in line with what we expect to see concerning the Trinity. If the Trinity is true, what kinds of descriptions of God would we expect to find? We expect to find God described using both singular and plural terms, which is exactly what we find here. Now don't misunderstand my emphasis here. I AM NOT saying that there is more than one God. Remember, the Trinity doctrine is monotheism--belief in one indivisible God. Deuteronomy 6:4 is too clear to miss concerning the uniqueness of God (but remember that it too contains indications of compound unity within the Godhead). I am not proclaiming "Gods" here. But there is an undeniable indication of compound unity here, just as we find in many other places in Scripture.

Man Exalted, God Dethroned by Watchtower
I want you to notice that the Watchtower's argument here hinges on how we, as humans, would use and understand a similar sentence. But wait a minute. Why is man the standard of measure here? Who put man at the top of the pyramid of existence, requiring everything else, including God, to conform to our image and understanding? We are created in the image of God, not the other way around. Instead, the Watchtower sets man up as the standard and then seeks to cast God in our image, according to our understanding of ourselves. You see, they have it backwards here. They have made man the standard and are trying to put God in a box that they can understand, instead of allowing the infinite Creator of all things to transcend their puny, finite minds. This is an exaltation of man over God which is not God-honoring. No, it is blasphemy. It is an exaltation of humanity beyond reason and a debasing of God to the level of man.

The Watchtower's Theology of Navel Gazing
To describe their reasoning here another way, they approach the question of God's nature by first trying to understand their own nature as humans. It's as if they say, "I will first look at how I understand my own existence. I am certain that God's existence will conform to the pattern I see in myself. I, as a single being, am not multi-personal, thus God cannot be multi-personal and the Trinity cannot be true." Presenting this kind of argumentation is not presenting a biblical argument against the Trinity. No, the Watchtower is using a man-centered, philosophical objection to the Trinity here concerning Genesis 1:26-27. Instead of man being created in God's image, the Watchtower here attempts to create God in man's image.

How Not to Argue Against the Trinity
That the Watchtower misunderstands the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is once again evident here. They continually argue against Trinitarian theology as if it was an old heresy called Sabellianism. Today this error is commonly referred to as "Oneness", "Jesus Only", or "Modalism." In Modalism, the "persons" of the Trinity are what might be called masks, worn by the one God at differing times. In Modalism, the Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. This is not the Trinity. The Watchtower's argument here ignores the fact that, in Trinitarian theology, discussion and cooperation can occur between the persons of the Godhead without dividing the one true God into three "gods". The doctrine of the Trinity does not limit the persons of the Godhead in such a way that they cannot converse and work together. In fact, this kind of interaction is expected in light of the multi-personal nature of the Triune God. Since they refuse to accept the concept of a multi-personal God, the Watchtower is forced to see Jehovah and someone else here in Genesis 1 for no other reason than that their theology demands that God is a single "person". So rather than letting the text of God's inspired word speak for itself, they are forced by their preconceived theology to see an angel here, contrary to the contextual evidence or grammatical construction.

Watchtower Fails to Refute Trinity

The Watchtower has failed to deal with Genesis 1:26-27. Their arguments in SYBT on Gen 1:26 are based upon man-centered philosophy and have no impact on the great truths our Triune God presented there.

What About Other JW Objections to Genesis 1:26-27?
The Trinity Exposed Website (referred to as TEW) is a site authored by an active Jehovah's Witness. Click here to read their thoughts concerning Genesis 1:26-27.

Critique of TEW's Comments
In its discussion of Genesis 1:26, TEW puts forth only one argument that deals directly with the passage. It is found in their first paragraph, where they identify that "us" and "our" does not explicitly mean three persons. In response, I refer you back to the earlier paragraph in this article, "JWs Say, 'But... but... but....'". I have also demonstrated that this is a false argument against the Trinity in the introduction to this series of articles, under the heading "Streams, Rivers, and the Great Ocean of the Trinity".

The other comments on Genesis 1:26 found at TEW are smokescreens, an attempt to cloud the discussion without interacting with the Hebrew grammar of Genesis 1:26. TEW comments on Psalm 110, Proverbs 8 and 30, Hebrews 1, and John 1 will all be dealt with individually in our verse-by-verse section.

TEWs comments on this passage are very brief indeed and have been quickly exposed as illogical and erroneous.