WHY DOES THE PROTAGONIST REFER TO HIMSELF WITH A PLURAL PERSONAL PRONOUN IN GENESIS?

WHY DOES THE PROTAGONIST REFER TO HIMSELF WITH A PLURAL PERSONAL PRONOUN IN GENESIS?

Why would God use the word us? I am referring to the use of the plural pronoun in Genesis 1:26. In the interest of presenting a variety of viewpoints, I will examine the verse’s literary context as well as scholarly, Jewish, and Christian viewpoints on the answer to this question.

Genesis 1:26 is the verse in which the plural pronoun us first appears. The verse is from the first book of Hebrew scriptures, Sefer Bereshit. Sefer Bereshit is the first book of the Torah. In English translations, Sefer Bereshit is called Genesis. At the beginning of the book, the creation account of the world is told. After the creation of the heavens and the earth, including its terrain and animal inhabitants, the protagonist, who is called God, creates man: “God created mankind in his own image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) I find it curious that the narrator uses a third person singular pronoun to refer to God while God uses a first person plural pronoun to refer to himself.

The scholarly perspective provides analysis of the context of the verses, as opposed to their intrinsic meanings to any one certain religion.

In his article “The Enigmatic Plurals like ‘One of Us’ (Genesis I 26, III 22, AND XI 7) in Hyperchronic Perspective”, Lyle Eslinger considers the use of the protagonist’s first person plural pronoun “enigmatic” (171). In his hypothesis concerning plural first person pronouns in Genesis, Eslinger notes that each use of the protagonist’s use of us “emanate from the same speaker in similar situations” (173). Eslinger continues: “They express a common rhetorical purpose: to mark out the ontological boundaries between gods and humans. Their unusual grammar signposts a series of attempts to assert or reassert defining boundaries at these margins when a new being (the creation of the human) or an evolutionary development in that being (humans become self-aware or human collectivity self-assembles to rival the gods) appears or intrudes on the horizon of divine consciousness” (173, 174).

Eslinger proposes that the first use in Genesis 1:26 is “pre-emptive, expressing some need for the distinction between the gods and the godlike” (174). The next two uses in Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 11:7 are “reactionary, strong reiterations of the sentiment of the premonition that reiterate the boundary in a mantra that complements God’s concrete initiatives to defend the divine-human border” (174). Eslinger concludes his hypothesis by saying the inclusion of others in the plurality and the grammar involved have prohibited the words’ ability to retain their meanings in God’s soliloquy.

Genesis 1:26 incorporates the first use of the plural us. According to Eslinger, “Humans’ apparent superiority to animals is ensconced by divine decree.” Eslinger argues for “taxonomic logic” of humans as “them” with the creator “we” (175). Eslinger continues his analysis of the first use of the plural, posing it is not accidental that the history of the Bible is surrounded by a polytheistic history, as polytheism provides for what Eslinger refers to as “generic logic” (175).

He also asserts that the use of us is “not an address to the occult agencies of court, angels, nor even the blessed Trinity” (175). Characteristics of humans and animals also allow them to be categorized differently than the divine: they must reproduce and consume food. In reading Eslinger’s article, it is interesting to note that the protagonist, in presenting what the author calls a soliloquy, can be read as not only a protagonist but as a male lead in a drama. From this view, Adam and Eve are acting in supporting roles only, not as the male and female leads they wish to portray by becoming like gods.

The second use of the plural us occurs in Genesis 3:22. In this verse, the protagonist notices that Adam and Eve have chosen to eat of the forbidden fruit. Eslinger proposes that this is the first instance in which antagonism is present. He notes that the choice of narrowing the gap between the divine and man is common in other creation myths of Southwest Asia. Eslinger continues, “The contrastive plurals resurface precisely at the point of God’s reaction and obstruction” (177). Concluding this section, Eslinger writes that God emphasizes the separation of divine and man by separating them physically. This also reiterates man’s inferiority to God. He notes that God then speaks and then banishes Adam and Eve to work in the soil from which they are made, further separating them from divinity.

The separation of Adam and Eve from Eden, while physical, is like a scene change in the work, providing the world outside of Eden as the backdrop in front of which the rest of the actions of the book of Genesis will occur. Future generations are forced to live in an imperfect world, filled with horrors that occur throughout the rest of the Tenach, from a flood, to murder, slavery, and many other travails.

The third use of us occurs in relation to the story of the Tower of Babel. Eslinger claims that human and divine action are against one another in this narrative. He asserts, “For the first time, the antagonism is overt and conscious” (178). He adds, “God reuses the contrastive generic plurals to express his resolve to oppose this manifestation of humans’ collective cultural consciousness-clearly the most important source of humans’ potential to rival the gods” (178). The protagonist directly interacts in Genesis 11:7. Eslinger says that God, before cataclysms to come, destroys the threat of man by separating them and affecting their ability to communicate. The people who followed this god would have seen him as vengeful, destroying their civilizations.

Judaism is a religion based almost entirely on the works of the Hebrew Bible, of which Genesis is a part. Rabbi Tovia Singer, founder of Outreach Judaism, has written a response to a question he received concerning Genesis 1:26. At the beginning of his response, he writes that the Trinity “has no greater foe than the Hebrew Scriptures.” He continues his argument, saying that monotheism was promoted by the prophets of Israel. Singer also provides textual evidence provided by Christian scholars who indicate Genesis 1:26 incorporates the use of a magisterial pronoun. According to Singer, “when the Almighty speaks of ‘us’ and ‘our,’ He is addressing His ministering angels.” He then cites Genesis 3:22-24, when God sends cherubim down to earth to guard Eden. In concluding his response, Singer states that the Torah enforces to the Jewish people that God is one and only He is worthy of praise.

Rabbi Singer is also the author of Let’s Get Biblical: Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah?, a work in two volumes. In volume I, he lists Maimonides’ Thirteen Fundamental Principles of Faith (132-136). The list is a summary of the core beliefs of Judaism. Principles one and two exclude the belief of the Trinity within Judaism. The Thirteen Principles serve as a guide for those of the Jewish faith, illustrating the Jewish people's concept of God, affecting their interpretation of theological texts.

I believe that while this Old Testament course examines the literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible, it is only reasonable to offer a concession for the Christian religion, another Abrahamic faith. This is because Christianity has its roots in Judaism. Christianity is a religion that develops out of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who Christians believe is the Messiah and the Son of God. The Trinity is the belief that God is a unity made up of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is a belief shared by most Christian denominations. It seems, however, that Christian groups are divided on the issue of the use of us in Genesis.

Tom Schreiner, a New Testament scholar, examines intertextuality between the Old and New Testaments to suggest that the book of Genesis is referring to the Trinity, as Schreiner states that “A canonical approach supports a Trinitarian reading, which is suggested by the actual words of the text and confirmed by the entire canon.” He goes on to point out two passages from Hebrew Bible that, in his opinion, confirm the Trinity, one of which is Genesis 1:2. He links New Testament verses to the Hebrew Bible, applying intertextuality between the two parts of the Christian Bible, the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is the Tenach. In doing this, he establishes Christianity's literary framework for the Christian messiah.

After reading and researching the topic, I have come to concur with Eslinger, who presented the scholarly viewpoint. The protagonist was not speaking to a trinity or angels. Us differentiates between the protagonist from human beings. I believe that this perspective is the most convincing because it presents textual facts without religious bias.