Who is the “us”?

Genesis 1:26 Let us make man. 
Genesis 3:22 Behold, the man is become as  one of us.
Genesis 11:7 Let us go down.
Isaiah 6:8 …Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?

Some Trinitarians believe the “us” to be three members of the Godhead, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. [1] Trinitarians frequently refer to a member of the Trinity as “in the Godhead” as though he were a member of a Godly board of directors.  This is an inappropriate application of the word “Godhead.” Godhead is used three times in the Bible:  Acts 17:29 theios #2304 (thi’-os), Romans 1:20  theiotes  #2305 (thi-ot’-ace), Colossians 2:9 theotes #2320 (theh-ot’-ace).  In each instance  a different form of  the word “theotes” is used.According to Strong’s Greek Dictionary,  theotes means “divinity or deity.”  You can’t be “in the divinity” as you can be in a board meeting of the board of directors.  Instead of saying “in the Godhead” to promote implications of Jesus as a member of the Godhead, they should translate or state “Jesus is divine” or “Jesus is the deity.” We cannot know WHO God is refer­ring to when he uses the word “us” or IF He is referring to anyone because He does not tell us. I do know that these verses are difficult to understand as they appear in the English language. The “us” texts have never posed a prob­lem of plurality of God for the Jews. 

The second principle of Biblical interpretation mentioned earlier directs us to understand difficult verses in the light of those more easily understood; therefore, looking at verses which clearly teach the general truth of the Bible would be helpful at this point. Deuteronomy 6:4 states that “the lord (yhwh) is one” and Je­sus reiterates this in Mark 12:29. The scribe replied to Je­sus in Mark 12:32, “Master, thou hast said the truth:  for there is one God; and there is none other but he.”  In addi­tion to these texts, the 10,000 examples of implicit and explicit texts mentioned earlier teach that he is the only God, alone in creation.With these texts/truths in mind, is it reasonable to conclude that the “us” with God are God-partners?Absolutely not!  How could God be alone while spreading out the heavens and earth if he had two coequal, coeternal partners with Him? It would be impossi­ble for God to be alone if that were the case! If He were not alone as God the creator, then those other texts are false. If those texts are false, trusting any part of the Bible would be a mistake. Thank God that is not the case.  No one knows the intentions of God in the “us” verses. God does not explain that he was referring to anyone. If he was referring to someone or to several individuals, he does not explain who it was with him.  People have many theories concern­ing the ob­ject of God’s state­ment in Genesis 1:26.

The Trinitarian theory is not universally accepted but is represented here by a portion of Adam Clarke’s commentary of Genesis 1:26.

The text tells us he [man] was the work of ELOHIM, the Divine Plu­rality, marked here more distinctly by the plural pronouns US and OUR; and to show that he was the masterpiece of God’s cre­ation, all the persons in the God­head are repre­sented as united in counsel and effort to pro­duce this aston­ishing creature.[2]

E.A. Speiser translates the verse: 

Then God said, “I will make man in my image, after my like­ness…” and he supports his translation in the following manner:  For the singulars “my image, my likeness” He­brew employs here plural posses­sives, which most transla­tions reproduce.  Yet no other divine being has been men­tioned [emphasis mine]; and the very next verse uses the singular through­out; cf. also ii 7.  The point at is­sue, there­fore, is one of grammar alone [emphasis mine], without a di­rect bear­ing on the meaning. It so happens that the com­mon Hebrew term for “God,” namely, Elohim is plural in form and is so construed at times (e.g., xx 13, xxxxv 7, etc.). Here God refers to himself, which may ac­count for the more formal construction in the plural. [3]  

The next three quotes demonstrate the Jewish/Rabbinic perspective. The first is titled “Everyman’s Talmud.” The Talmud is “The most significant collection of the Jewish oral tradition interpreting the Torah.”[4]

The Rabbis also had occasion to defend the monotheistic view of God against the attack from the early Christians who sought a foundation for their trinitarian doctrine in the text of the Hebrew Bible. The principal passage bearing on the subject reads: ‘The Minim* asked R. Simlai, “How many gods created the Universe?” He answered: “Let us consult the former days; for it is written, ‘Ask now of the former days which were before thee since the day that God** created man upon the earth’ (Deut. iv. 32). It is not written here ‘created’ as a verb in the plural, but in the singular, denoting therefore a singular subject. The same answer applies to Genesis i. I.”

‘R. Simlai said: “In every place where you find a text which is used by the Minim in support of their opinions, you will find the refutation by its side.” They returned and asked him: “What of that which is written, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ (Gen i 26)?” He answered: “Read what follows: it is not said, ‘And gods created man in their image.’”[5]

*Minim: The word denotes ‘sectaries’ [members of a sect] and usually refers to Christians.

**God:  The Hebrew word for ‘God,’ Elohim, has a plural form.

The second Jewish text is taken from “The Torah Anthology.” “The Torah Anthology is a clear, modern translation of Me’am Lo’ez, hailed as “the outstanding work of Ladino literature” Written by Rabbi Yaakov Culi, one of the greatest Sepharadie sages of his time, the book was first published in 1730. It changed the spiritual climate of the entire Mediterranean region. Eastern Jews esteemed Me’am Lo’ez as a major classic, affording it virtually the same status as the Talmud and Midrash. Many count Me’am Lo’ez among the best commentaries ever written on the Torah-in any language. The book is a veritable encyclopedia of Jewish knowledge” (Bookstore description).

This verse must be explained carefully, since its wording is very surprising. Nonbelievers argue that there is a multiple godhead, attempting to use this verse a proof text for their contention since it says, “Let us make man,” in the plural.

Because of this the sages changed this verse when they translated it for King Ptolemy. Instead of “Let us make man,” they wrote, “I shall make man.”

The Jew is a master of his soul, and believes that “God is One and His name is One” (Zechariah 14:9). We are not impressed by their “proofs,” since we always find refutation close at hand. In this case, the very next verse states, “And God created (in the singular) man” (ar®`b=Y]w  <yhù!ýa$)).  This is a clear indication that the Creator is an absolute unity. The verse uses the word VaYivra (ar®`b=Y]w)) ) in the singular for “created,” and not VaYivr’u which would be the plural.[6]

The Torah Anthology explained the use of “us” in Genesis 11:7 in the following way:

The reason that God used the plural for is the same as His reason for saying “Let us make man” (1:26). Here too, he was consulting with the angels. The Torah uses this expression to teach us the lesson that even a great person  should consult with his friends before doing something, although these friends may be greatly inferior to him.” [7]

The following alternative explanation provided by Robert A. Sabin discusses how God could be speaking externally or internally: 

“God is speaking in Genesis 1:26. GOD, the entire Deity, it does not say that one of the persons of the Trinity is speaking, but it says the Deity is speaking.  I say the entire Deity is speaking, not because I be­lieve that the Deity can be divided up but because the Trinitarian doctrine does in­deed di­vide up the Godhead though they claim they do not.  It di­vides the God­head and adds society to it and de­clares that the per­sons of the Godhead can speak to each other.  I say in contrast to that, that the Bible says, “God said.”If the Bible had said, And God the Father said, Let us make man in our im­age, then we would have the doctrine of the Trin­ity because we would have one of the persons of the God­head being the speaker.  But it does not say that.It says, “And God said ‘Let us make man in our image….’” 

“If God is speaking, He can be speaking in only one of two directions.  He can be speaking externally.  That would mean that he would be speaking to others, which would mean that others were involved in the act of cre­ation.  These “others” would be others in ad­dition to God, or “others,” other than God.  Could God have been speak­ing to others?  Not according to Malachi 2:10:  Have we not all one Fa­ther?hath not one God created us?There is no in­dication in scripture that God, the Deity, the first cause, the prime mover, the creator, had others with him in the act of creation who were collaborating with him in cre­ating mankind or any other part of cre­ation.  If we say that God was speaking exter­nally, such as to the angels, then we must show how the angels participated in creation.  Did an­gels create man?  Not according to Genesis 1:27:  God created man in his own image.  It does not say, “God and the angels;” it does not say, “God the Fa­ther and God the Son.”  It does not say, “God through the agency of the eter­nal Son of God cre­ated man in his own image.’  It says simply God created.  The whole act of God and his creation is com­pleted with that statement.  God created man in his own image.  I would conclude that God was not speaking exter­nally.  He was not speaking to oth­ers, other than himself.”

“If he was not speaking externally, then there is only one other direc­tion that he could be speak­ing and that would be internally.  That would be speaking or communicating with himself, if he is communicating at all, if it is not just a rhetorical statement.  If he is communicating, and it is not external communica­tion, then it must be internal communication.  We can all speak in only two di­rections:  I can speak to you or I can speak to my­self.  I can speak to others or I can speak to myself.  The end result is that I am speaking either exter­nally or internally.  If God spoke inter­nally, (mind you I am not saying that God spoke either exter­nally or internally because God did not say how he was speaking) he made no explanation of it in this verse.  In Old Testament days, nobody even asked; they simply took it for what it said, that God cre­ated man all alone. The fact that the “us” and the “our” was there was not a problem.” 

If someone says that God spoke internally (that he spoke to himself), they proceed to tell us that he spoke ei­ther majestically (using the plural of majesty) or spoke de­liberatively (using the plu­ral of deliberation).  The plu­ral of majesty would be the plural of a very important person or poten­tate using us or we in reference to himself (not to in­clude in the reference other corroborative or collaborating per­sons) in the plenitude of his power.

Is speaking in the plural of deliberation possi­ble (God deliberat­ing within himself)?  Can God deliberate after the counsel of his own will (Ephesians 1:11)?  Were either of these two things possi­ble?  I would have to say that I be­lieve they are at least pos­sible though I would not tell you that he is speaking ei­ther one way or the other way be­cause the Bible simply does not say; nor was it a problem.  Those who read it did not consider it an introduc­tion to a composite character of God’s being.  It was simply the way God said something.

Regardless of what scholars determine God to mean, they are speculat­ing as to God’s intentions be­cause he does not say to whom he was speak­ing, or if he was speaking to anyone.[8]

The footnote for Genesis 1:26, 27 in the He­brew-Greek Key Study Bible (King James Ver­sion) states,

Is God singular (Deut. 6:4; 32:39; Isa. 45:5; John 17:3; I Cor. 8:6) or plu­ral (Gen. 3:22; 18:1-3; Ps. 97:7; Isa. 48:16; John 10:34-38)?  The He­brew word for God is ‘elohim (430), a plural noun. In Gen. 1:1 it is used in grammati­cal agreement with a singular verb, bara (1254), “created.”  When the plural pro­nouns in “Let us make man in our image after our likeness” are used, does it mean an august plural of excellence or majesty?  Is God speaking to the angels or the earth or nature?  Or is this a germinal hint of a dis­tinction in the divine personality?  No one can be certain. [emphasis mine] Until Jesus came, the internal unity of the Godhead was not under­stood.[9]

The “plural of majesty” has been mentioned sev­eral times thus far and the topic may arise again in subsequent sections.  The question has been raised by a prominent Trinitarian concerning the claim that the plural of majesty is a legitimate explanation to the “us” verses and  plurality in the word Elohim.

…You can’t find the “plurality of majesty”–you nor any­body alive can find it–in ancient Near East litera­ture before the Christian era.  That’s number one.  You will not find it!  You search any literature you want–they’ll never find the phrase, “plurality of majesty.”  Sec­ondly, the term itself ac­tually came into existence in the 13th cen­tury of the Christian era ….[10]

Ezra 4 disproves Dr. Martin’s assertion. Ezra tells a story of the enemies of Judah writing a letter to the King of Persia, Artaxerxes, to complain about the Jews rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. Ezra 4:11: (This is a copy of the letter they sent him.) “To King Artaxerxes, From your servants, the men of Trans-Euphrates….” The letter was clearly written to King Artaxerxes yet in his response to the letter in verse

18, the king says, “The letter you sent us [emphasis mine] has been read and translated in my presence.” Artaxerxes using “us” to refer to himself is an example of the plural of majesty.

The very fact that many Trinitarians refer to the use of a plural of majesty should make one suspi­cious of the validity of the statement made above. Dr. Martin may be correct in saying I cannot find the phrase “plurality of majesty,” but I am about to quote several authors that will document its use before the thirteenth century of the Chris­tian era.  Acceptance of the concept of plural of majesty is widespread among Bible scholars. 

Let us make man. Let us could indeed be taken sim­ply as a plural of majesty, for the custom of rulers speaking in the plural appeared with the Per­sians.[11]

The “plural of majesty” did not arise first in Is­raelite tradition as a re­sult of the identification of Elohim with Yahweh or the gradual development from polytheism to monotheism. On the contrary, this is an ancient pre-Is­raelite expression which was employed in Babylonia and Canaan even with a sin­gular verb. Thus in Akkadian the plural word ilanu (“gods”) could be used in homage to a par­ticular god, like the moon god Sin, to express the wor­shipper’s view that he is the highest God, in whom the whole pantheon is represented.  In the Amarna Letters, Can­naanite vassals addressed the dei­fied pharaoh as ilania (“my gods”), thus saying that the fulness of deity is concen­trated in him.[12]

The noun Elohim, although a Hebrew plural form of Eloah, is char­acteristically used except when polytheistic heathen divinities are in view (Ps. 96:5; 97:7) with a singu­lar verb or ad­jective in strict con­formity with the uncompro­mised monotheism of He­brew revealed reli­gion…..A su­perficially similar phe­nomenon oc­curs in the fourteenth century (B.C.) [emphasis mine] Amarna letters with a differ­ent result.  The letters use ilani, which as the plural of El appears fre­quently in Akkadian for “the gods,” with a singu­lar verb in order to designate “the de­ity,” thereby concen­trating emphasis on one par­ticular god….[13]

The plural “We” was regarded by the fathers and ear­lier theologians al­most unanimously as in­dicative  of the Trinity: modern theologians, on the contrary, regard it ei­ther as pluralis majestatis; or as an address  by God to Him­self, the subject and object being iden­tical….No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majes­tatis–(an interpreta­tion which comprehends in its deepest and most in­tensive form  (God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plu­ral number, not reverentiae causa),  but with ref­erence to the fulness of the divine pow­ers and essences which He possesses).[14]

It is not my intention to saturate this paper with quotes to convince anyone God utilized the plural of majesty  when plural pronouns were used.  It is my intention to doc­ument scholarly opinions to show the question of plurality within the na­ture of God is not con­firmed to any degree by the evidence supplied by Trinitari­ans.  I have not proven that the phrase “plural of majesty” existed before the thirteenth century of the Chris­tian era.  I have proven that scholars believe that a similar practice took place centuries before the birth of Christ; and that it has a le­gitimate potential in explaining the “us” verses and the use of Elohim to describe God.  Most of the sources quoted are Trinitarian in their doctrine but the ma­jority of them are of the opinion that the “us” verses cannot be used to sub­stantiate any plurality in God.

It must be remembered that the Bible does not in­form us to whom God was speaking or whether he was speaking to anyone. Theolo­gians are making nothing more than edu­cated guesses when they make a determi­nation since God did not designate any ob­ject of his declaration.

I mentioned at the beginning that anyone willing to study will be exposed to con­flicting informa­tion. Many people will not be satisfied with any explanation un­til they get to heaven and ask God personally.  Until then I am satisfied with the knowledge of who was not with God.  It could not have been another God or even a partner God within a God-corporation because God said He was alone.

[1] The term God the Father is an accurate description of the spirit of God to Jesus, his son. It is used 18 times in the New Testament. The way Trinitarians use the term to describe the Father as one of the three members of the Trinity is not Biblical, as God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not Biblical. They represent Trinitarian concepts and are therefore italicized.

[2] Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, (Abingdon. First released in England in1810), Genesis 1:26, p. 38.

[3] E. A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible, Genesis. (Doubleday & Co. 8th Printing), pp. 4 & 7.

[4] https://www.jewfaq.org/search.shtml?Keywords=Talmud&Ask.x=0&Ask.y=0

[5] Every Man’s Talmud, The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages by Abraham Cohen. Copyright © 1949 by E. P. Dutton. First published by Shocken Books in 1975, p.5.

[6] The Torah Anthology, Genesis, Book One, Yalkut Me’Am Lo’ez, Copyright © 1977 by Maznaim Publishing Corporation, p. 107.

[7] The Torah Anthology, Genesis, Book One, Yalkut Me’Am Lo’ez, Copyright © 1977 by Maznaim Publishing Corporation, p.421.

[8] Robert A. Sabin, To Whom Was God Speaking?     (Published by Oneness Ministries,1987, quoted from a tape).

[9] Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., Compiler and Editor, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (King James Version),  (Baker Book House © 1984) , p. 2.

[10] Walter Martin, Quotation from transcript of The Trinity or “Jesus Only”:  What Do the Scriptures Teach? (© 1985  by The John Ankerberg Evangelistic Association),  Transcript, p. 31.

[11]  George Buttrick, Editor, The Interpreters Bible  (Abingdon Press), p.182.

[12] Bible Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible  (Abingdon Press), p. 416.

[13] Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority  (Word Inc. 1976), Volume II, p. 185.

[14] Keil and Delitzsch commentary on O.T.  (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949), Volume l,  p. 62.