How can God be singular?

In the verse Genesis 1:26 in states:

Then God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

How then could God be singular?

 

Alright, for the sake of arguement let's say that the literal wording of the passages is important, and the text can be understood as a complete document, and not a mishmash of different materials.

You're still leaving out some important things. I'm not going to address them all, just try to stay with what's relevant. First we have this verse 1:26 and we see, yeah, God says "Let us..." So who is we?

Now we have the line that comes next, which you left out, 1:27. But there's a change here. It says God created them in "His" image, not "their" image. If the "us" was referring to God, and all of the words really are important, then shouldn't God be referred to as "They" if God really is a plurality? But God is not referred to as they, and if God is singular, then who are the "they" that accompany Him before man is created?

There are multiple opinions on this, as with most things in Judaism, but I'll give you one of the older and most well known ones. According to midrash this refers to the angels.

This is a translation of the relevant passage from Genesis Rabbah VIII, 5 taken from Barry Holtz' article on Midrash in Back to the Sources. Found on pages 191-192.

 

The use of the plural when God is speaking of itself comes from the royal use of the plural. cf. Victoria's famous "we are not amused." The passage quoted does not exclude a singual God.

On the other hand, if we are talking about god in general rather than the Xian god, I see no reason that god should not be a collection of consousnesses whose actions and words are attributed to the single entity we call "god". An analogy would be that NASA is a single entity. We can say "NASA landed on the moon" even thougth NASA is made up of several independant individuals.

Similarly, "god created the world" does not imply that god is indivisible. God might even be split into three seperate entities. Or even more.

 

Okay, my view is quite irrelevant as I'm just basing it on my logic and who am I to claim anything I say is true, but, according to my logic God must be nothing since he has always been, is, and always will be... the only thing that fits that criteria is nothing (which isn't so bad, theres great peace and constancy to be found in nothing), so maybe the use of "Let us make man in our image etc..." is because it is impossible to verbalize the essense of God, it is transcendant of language (arguably... well, then again, isn't everything arguable).

 

If the "US" is angels... then it puts imperfect angels, at par with God.

In the Jewish religion would that not be blasphemy?

 

How does that put angels on par with God? The only thing that interpretation necessitates is that if God did create man in His and the angels' image, that man would then have to resemble God in ways he resembled the angels. In other words, he would have to have some things in common with God that he also had in common with the angels.

Or, if it is understood differently, what it would necessitate is that the angels were a part of the creative process and not even necessarily an active one, but rather the servants fulfilling God's commands. In Judaism angels have no free will of their own, so that is the role they would have.

Or, to understand it diffferently, as Rambam explains the passage from the talmud, the Torah speaks in the language of man. So the reason we have God addressing the angels as his peers is because the Torah is written in the language of man, for people to understand, but what's actually going on with God is really a bit beyond that. For us though it's simplified. However imo it's not necessary to go as far that passage from the gemara to understand it. You don't have to be equal to someone to be their peer. There can be social situation in our human lives in which one person is a boss and leader, whose decisions are final. But that boss can still be surrounded by other people who aren't equal to her, and when a decision is made on something in a public forum, she may very well say, "We'll do this."


But because acccording to the biblical account God creates man in His image, and not theirs, it's all moot. Angels are not required to be part of the creative process according to the text, nor are they required to resemble us.

Edit: And I'd like to clarify what you mean by angels not being perfect, because it's a rather ambiguous word sometimes and I want an idea for what you really mean.

 

The word in the opening passages of Genesis that has been translated "GOD" is, in the original Hebrew, ELOHIM, a plural (and some say feminine) noun.

The Hebrew Bible includes many different names and words to represent different aspects of divinity. When it was translated by Christians, they lumped together all the divine references they approved of and translated them as "GOD" and those thy dissapproved of they translated "SATAN". Thus all the dramas and tensions within the grand and colorful spectrum of the divine imaging of the human condition have been rewritten as a struggle between pure good and pure evil.

 

Zajko,

I agree with you that Elohim is in origin a plural noun, most likely in its original, pre-biblical context referring to a pantheon of deities. In this passage it seems unclear whether its meaning had already begun to be understood differently. However I think interpreting it as feminine is making a real stretch. It has a clearly masculine ending. And besides, there are other words in Hebrew that much more easily translate into the Divine feminine like Shadai (in its original context probably a god of high places, but also potentially interpreted as a god of breasts,) Rachamim (the attribute of compassion which although it maintains a masculine ending in order to agree grammatically, also contains the Hebrew root for womb) and Shechinah (post-biblical for the Divine presence.) Plus there's chochmah, if you want to consider whether or not that's that's something being talked about besides a good trait. And if we just want to go off and list sacred things that are feminine we can talk about Torah, sukkah, etc.

There is also the way of understanding the different names of God as relating to different attributes, in which case Elohim is related to judgement. Its conterpart, related to compassion and mercy, is Adonai.

 

If you believe that the Angles were part of the creation process, then you donot believe Isa. 44:21. I am the Lord that MAKETH ALL THINGS, that strecheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth BY MYSELF. God alone was involved in the creation. He did not have any little helpers. The problem you have, is how do you explain US? Especially when God states, "let US make man in our image. When God states LET US MAKE, He cannot be speaking of angles and Himself. God exist as more than one person, and the text supports this. Even if your doctrine does not.

 

lol.. not quite....
as has been rightly stated earlier, it is the royal we that is being refered to here.
In french, when you are addressing another with respect, you use the word "vous" (which is actually the plural form), so why is it so hard for an english speaker to comprehend that in other languages, there is different words for showing different respect levels of the same thing???
I am an english speaker, and i have no difficulty in understanding it at all (which may be due to having studied other languages, but even then its hardly the most complex thing in the world to comprehend).

peace

 

campbell,

It's not about my beliefs. It's about how the text is and has been understood, as a whole, and more particularly by Judaism, as this is on the Judaism board. For myself I reject supernaturalism and thus cannot attribute any special sacredness to a text besides that which I and the people around me bestow upon it.

I don't believe you gave my posts a thorough read. Review it and I think you'll find I don't disagree with Isaiah 44:21 at all. This specifcally would answer your accusation. "But because acccording to the biblical account God creates man in His image, and not theirs, it's all moot. Angels are not required to be part of the creative process according to the text..."

Your post does raise an interesting question about the nature of angels. Angels in the Christian sense would probably raise a problem if they're in a scene involving God during creation. But in Judaism, angels are servants lacking free will, so it's not an issue. And to further confuse things we have the question of what an angel actually is, not just its role, but what kind of entity it is, and depending on our answer to this question, it is potentially possible to assert that angels were involved in creation. To better understand a Jewish approach that would make it possible, you can check out this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel#Jewish_views

As this post makes clear, the "us" can most certainly refer to angels.

 

Well the point I was trying to drive home here was the fact that God states let US make man in our image, and then we read God made everything alone and by Himself. WHY WOULD GOD SAY LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR IMAGE, AND THEN SAY HE MADE ALL THINGS ALONE AND BY HIMSELF? Did God change His mind? And after making such a statement, did God decide just to do it all Himself? Also, it would be incorrect to believe that angles donot have free will. This can be seen in the fact that about a third of the angles in heaven were involved in the rebellion.

 

campbell,

As with many things, Torah is written in the language of man. Certainly there are other episodes where it appears from a human perspective that God is changing His mind, like before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorroh, with Abraham. If that is not God changing His mind, then the same can be said for here. The Torah basically appears to be leaving out a big part of the story, which, according to Judaism, is quite possible. It is certainly possible that there is a gap in the text which remained part of the oral tradition, and was later written down.

In Christianity, maybe. But this is the Judaism board, and in Judaism the angels did not rebel. By definition they cannot because they lack free will. It is incorrect to apply Christianity to Judaism as if they were the same religion. They are very different, even though they do at times overlap, and some Christian sects share more in common with Judaism than others. But certainly evangelical sects tend to have quite a large gap with Judaism, for example because they evangelize. Judaism doesn't feel the need to do so because it doesn't see non-Jews as required to be Jewish in order to get on good terms with God. Next time you might try asking a question about Judaism instead of making an assumption.

 

In the story of God, Abraham, and Sodom & Gomorroh. God had no intention of ever changing His mind. And the reason for this is simple. God already knew that the good men that Abraham sought for, did not exist. And as far as big parts of the story being left out, I believe God gave us as much of the story as we needed.

And it is in the Old Testament, where we first learn of the rebellion. As stated in Isa. 14:12 How are thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer son of the morning! How are thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.

Lucifers responce. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most high. The rebellion, had already started. And from Lucifers responce, it appears He was using his free will.

I am not applying Christianity to Judaism, you are not reading your own Text.

 

And as I said, if God didn't change his mind there, then the same can be applied here. There is no reason why the text can't say they to refer to the angels and God and then just He to refer to God, without getting into a lot of details. Certainly if there is an accompanying oral story (or many different ones) like the one I posted above, then it's not an issue. The text has to be understood in context.

According to traditional Jewish belief, there was an oral element that went along with the written.

Well, the "Old Testament" is a Christian document. In Judaism there is nothing that would render the Tanach old, and, as in this case, differences in interpretation becomes an issue. If you go back to 14:3-4 you'll see "And when the LORD has given you rest from your sorrow and trouble, and from the hard service that you were made to serve, you shall recite this song of scorn over the king of Babylon..." empasis mine. It's Nebuchadnazzar being discussed, not a mention of a celestial rebellion.

And you are applying Christianity to Judaism because you're looking at the text in a Christian context instead of a Jewish one. A Christian context (in your case) presupposes the existence of Jesus' divinity, of a God Who isn't singular, and unless I'm mistaken of the validity of the NT.

To get the Jewish context, you have to stop letting all of your answers about the text be determined by what comes later on in the NT, or how a particular word is translated in a particular English version of the text. You also have to realize that Judaism is far from sola scriptura, and also that the approach it takes to scripture is often very different from Christianity because it's willing to interpret on many different levels of meaning, and even to get different readings from the same text.

 

The God of the Bible is not some goof who can't get it right. Never knowing what He wants one minute and changing His mind the next. Is it any wonder why Judaism missed their calling. You have reduced the God who split the sea and created the earth to some weak minded being who is one step away from a nursing home. And no, Christians did not write the Old Testament. It is a Text that came from the early Jewish writers. The prophecies of the Bible have been weaved into the Scriptures. When those prophecies are isolated the true message can be understood. By trying to make the prophecies fit the given Text, you are left with a written Text of nonsense. It was not by chance that Jesus fulfilled the 302 prophecies of the Old Testament. And it is not by chance at this time the Jewish people are returning to Israel. God is going to use Israel in our time to reveal to the world who He is. God tells us, He is going to do this not for the Jews sake, because they polluted my name where ever they wandered. I believe what God has stated here is the truth. God did not create the world and revealed His Word just for the Jewish race. The Jewish people missed their calling long ago, and that is why God in His prophecy has stated, that the Jewish people polluted His name.

 

Do you know anything whatsoever about the different Jewish views about God? I'm getting the impression from the way you're talking that you don't, in which case, as I said before, you'd be better off if you stopped making accusations and assumptions, and started asking questions, if you really have any interest in dialogue at all. Right now you're just coming across as self-rightous and ignorant.

What I mean is that the term Old Testament is a Christian one, for a Christian document, which does vary from the Jewish one. Jews call it the Tanach, which is an acronym for its three sections Torah, Neviim (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings.) The Christian OT has its roots in the Septuagint and Vulgate, which are Greek and Latin, while the Jewish text of choice is the Hebrew masoretic text, and there is no translation that is official, although the targumim could be seen as important commentaries, but then again there are many, many Jewish commentaries.

Aha! So you agree with me that it would be possible that those two lines with us and he should be read separately. You just only want to do it in the places where you think it should happen, in the places of Christian context instead of the Jewish ones, which really doesn't make sense on the Jewish board anyway.

No proof of that, nor is it relevant to the Judaism board.

Again you reveal your ignorance. Judaism never makes such a statement. Judaism is the religion of the Jews, for the Jews, but other people are completely capable of being in a relationship with God, of have a place in the afterlife, etc.

There is a midrash where an analogy is made. Some people are born as kohanim, the Jewish priests, but that's determined by birth so God doesn't care about that as much. He cares more that people are rightous and good. According to midrash, inherited traits are not what God considers. And in the same sense, we don't say that everyone has to be Jewish. The more important thing is to be a good and rightous person. The midrash even goes so far as to say that a gentile can be can be as rightous as the kohein gadol, the high priest. That's all paraphrased from midrash.

Judaism does not require people to be Jewish to have a relationship with God, or anything in any similar to that (it even says they don't have to be.) THat's what Christianity does, demanding that everyone become a Christian or burn in hell. Judaism doesn't even have hell. I request, if you wish to continue this conversation any further, that you please read this page on the differences between Judaism and Christianity because right now you are coming from a place where most of what you say is based on either false information or assumptions about a religion that is foreign to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparing_and_contrasting_Judaism_and_Christianity

It doesn't of course say everything, or give all views, but it is one of the best pages I have seen to try and make that kind of attempt. Thank you.

 

Stop using your scapegoat of "not relevant to the Jewish board" and debate! By debating we as Christians will learn and understand more. By complaining we learn nothing except that you might be a baby.

Debate = learning.... that is all that is asked.

 

Im not nearly as concerned about Jewish views, as much as I am with the clear teachings of the written Text. Yes, I would agree with you about seperation. And when you seperate 303 prophecies and find only one historical person by the name of Jesus fulfilling all of them, I think its more than simple chance. And I would say there is just as much proof for Jesus Christ, as there is for the rest of your Jewish views. Only I would say, the Doctrine of Jesus Christ has had a far greater impact on the world, than Jewish views. And the doctrine of Christ has reach out to all the people of the earth, and is not regulated to only one special intrest group. My belief is based not only on the Books of the Old Testament, but on the God that you deny. I have heard His voice. He is not silent to those who love Him. And I have seen His power. God said rightly when He stated, that His people polluted His name where ever they wandered. And Jesus was right when He said, the traditions of men (or Jewish views) have made the Word of God null and void. And if speaking the truth makes me sound self-righotous or ignorant, so be it. I cannot deny what I have heard with my own ears, and saw with my own eyes. The God of the Old Testament is the true God of this world. All religions that follow another, are lost. Jesus Christ is the arm of the Lord, and He was revealed to this world, and rejected by His own people, just as the Prophets fortold He would be.

 

I have been answering you point for point. If you're upset that I'm saying discussing Christianity is not relevant to the Judaism board, that's one thing. Don't preach or evangelize, and you'll stop hearing me say it.

And what do you learn by name-calling?

But you have said yourself that the text is not clear. In order to understand it you need to know how to read it. You need to know when to read lines separately as prophecies. This requires something beyond the written word of, say, Isaiah. You can't go to the NT and then say, "See, Isaiah is talking about this" by taking a line out of context if you're really going only by the text, because when Isaiah was written, that later text that told you to read it separately didn't exist. If you want to posit that it was always meant to be read that way, then you're positing some sort of oral tradition perhaps, which then makes possible an argument for the Jewish oral tradition.

" And when you seperate 303 prophecies and find only one historical person by the name of Jesus fulfilling all of them, I think its more than simple chance."

The problem is that many of those prophecies are fallacious, including for reasons of translation. They go beyond the "clear teachings of the written text." You can't both go by the "clear teachings of the written text" and separate. Now the way Judaism deals with this is by allowing for multiple interpretations, but prophecies are spelled out explicitly. Otherwise you end up with a sort of prophetic anarchy where any phrase in the bible can be interpreted to support anything. You also have the issue of the historicity of Jesus, including similarities of his mythos to that of the pagan dying gods and the Church' habit of creating false support of Jesus' historicity, like the doctored Josephus manuscripts which tend to raise skepticism about any "historical" document that's been in the hands of the church.

As an agnostic, I think you'd be hard pressed to find proof of either. Historically the Torah is a patchwork of multiple pieces of writing, by multiple authors, over a long period of time. The Jewish traditions for interpreting the Torah as a whole are often more authentic ways of interpreting the Torah as a whole since Christianity is really more a product of Rome, although they would still in many if not most cases be incorrect for interpreting the original meanings of the stories.

And I would say that this statement reeks of triumphalism. The fact is that most of what Jesus said was said by others, and some of what he said was downright ugly. His treatment of gentiles was terrible.

But what this really means it that evangelical Christianity is unwilling to live with the idea of a world where people hold different beliefs than them. For Judaism, we respect other religions. and it's not that we're an exclusive group either. We accept converts. We just don't seek them. People are free to believe what they want.

This is what is not needed on the Jewish board. Now you're just evangelizing. But it's good, because I can use you as an example. The problem is that you're taking your person truth (truth) and treating it like a Universal Truth (Truth.) I have had very powerful spiritual experiences, as have many other people who are not Christian. I have fallen asleep in God's embrace, confided in Him daily about my joys and problems and had Him answer, been with Him in meditative bliss, and in the ecstasies of the sweetest prayers. I've felt His presence as I've hiked alone through the woods and as I've spent time with close friends. Now, before you ask, "How can you call yourself an agnostic and talk like that?" I do not believe that it is humanly possible to know that what we know about reality is Truth. We can think that we know, and we can become very, very convinced, especially by spiritual experience but imo it would be incorrect to actually trust our subjective experiences as validation of our belief systems, and that is what you are doing.

You know, one of the beautiful things about the Tanach, the Jewish scriptures, we Jews put bad stuff about ourselves in our own books, and then we treated them as holy. We even have patriarchs who do some pretty questionable stuff, and we put that in there too. We recognize we're all human and we embrace that. We say that the mistakes, those are part of the whole process. If you stumble, you get back up again.

Proof positive right here that you're dealing with subjective experiences that have had a powerful experience on your life. But at the same time, other people have subjective experiences that are completely contrary to yours. What makes it true to you, is that it happened to you, and that is why I say it is your personal truth. For someone else there would be a different personal truth.

So would you posit then, that there are other gods besides God?

In other words, for those who don't read between the lines, "Believe what I believe or suffer eternal damnation." Or have I misunderstood?

While I humored you for much of the post, this is just the type of stuff that has no place on the Jewish board. You're just evangelizing. Instead of presenting evidence for your beliefs, you made an appeal to personal experience which you then claimed was unique to you. But spiritual experiences happen to people of all beliefs.

I would suggest that the experience itself is what's most significant, and not the cultural dressings it shows up in, even though all that cultural stuff such as deity, language, garb, custom, are what give each of our experiences that particular flavor.