我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人

創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.


創1 : 26 : “我們要照著我們的形像,按著我們的樣式造人 .”所謂的 “我們” 該作何解? 筆者參考了下列書籍, 並提出筆者的看法.

(1) 證主21世紀聖經新釋 (福音證主協會)
本處是形容神與天使們的話, 也是本章內有其他超自然本體的唯一暗示. 這記載表示 “人” 同時有神和天使的樣式. (在傳統上, 基督徒看 “我們”和 “我們的” 是暗示三位一體的其他位格, 雖然這是一個颇合理的解釋, 但不是本處的首要意思.)
• 創1:27曰: 神就照著自己的形像照人, 乃是照著他的形像造男造女. 這裡很清楚的說是 “自己” 的形像造人, 又怎麼會是神和天使的行像造人? 彼後2:4曰: 就是天使犯了罪, 神也沒有寬容, 曾把他們丟在地獄, 交在黑暗中, 等候審判. 由此可知, 有犯罪的天使, 自然也有沒犯罪的天使. 沒有犯罪的天使又是怎樣的? 從創世記的資料推論, 應像還沒有犯罪的亞當和夏娃. 所以人和天使有共同的形像, 而這個型像就是來自神.
(2) 聖經新國際研讀本 (更心傳道會)
我們........我們的........我們的: 神以創造者和君王的身份, 對祂天庭中的萬軍宣告祂的顛峰作為 (見3:22; 11:7; 賽6:8; 又見王上22:19-23; 伯15:8; 耶23:18).
• 當神要作某事時, 會與先知和天庭中的天使們討論, 這可從王上22:19-23看出:
王上22:19: 米該亞說: “你要聽耶和華的話. 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.
22:20 : 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末去陣亡呢? 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21 : 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他.”
22:22 : 耶和華同他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作謊言的靈. 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘,. 你去如此行吧!”
22:23 : 現在耶和華使謊言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍於你”
留意22節耶和華說: “你去如此行吧!” 但在23節, 王上作者卻說是耶和華作的. 這與創1:26的 “我們” 和1:27的 “祂” 異曲同工. 創1:26是神說的話, 創1:27是摩西講的話. 這也就是說, 最後決定還是神本身.
(3) 聖經啟導本 (海天書樓)
26節的 “我們” 是神宣佈祂登峰造極的創造工作的自稱, 代表神的豐富華麗(3:22; 11:7)
• 神用六天創世, 把一切看著是好的 (創1:18; 1:21: 1:25; 1:31), 創1:28最後才創造人. 創1:28曰: 神就賜福給他們, 又對他們說, 要生養眾多, 遍滿地面. 治理這地. 也要管理海裡的魚, 空中的鳥, 和地上各樣行動的活物. 神創造人, 可說是登峰造極的創造. 神指著祂在創造人之前所造的一切, 可代表神的豐富華麗. 但神用 “我們” 宣告, 到底是跟誰說呢? 這裡沒有交代.
(4) 聖經簡釋本 (中國基督教協會) 以賽亞書中, 神也用 “我們” 來指稱 (賽6:8), 神並非獨自在天庭, “智慧” 也參與了神的創造 (箴8:30).
• 此註釋不詳. 所謂 “神並非獨自在天庭”, 是否指天庭是由神和 “智慧” 組成? 箴8:30曰: 那時, 我在他那裡為工師, 日日為他所喜愛, 常常在他面前踴躍. “我” 固然指 “智慧”, 但沒跡像顯示她參與創世工作. “工師” 只是耶和華面前 “踴躍” 和 “喜悅”. 前者是 “踴躍在她為人預備可住之地”, 後者 “喜悅住在人之間(箴8:31). 箴8:22-27只說耶和華創世之前 “就有了我”, “我已被立”, “我已出生”, “我在那裡” 就箴言整本書來看, 作者只是把智慧擬人化. 第九章更把智慧和愚蠢對比. 第1章20節開始敘述智慧在呼喚人, 第2章則說智慧的賞賜. 第2章6節說, 耶和華 “賜人智慧”. 也就是說, 人可得智慧, 並成為 “工師”. 第8章27-29節說神創世, 接下去的30節才說 “智慧” 為 “工師”. 如把此與創1:28對照, “工師” 是神委任管理萬物的人之身份.
(5) 聖經研讀版(環球聖經公會有限公司)
不同學者對這裡使用復數代名詞有各種各樣詮釋. 有人認為是指三位一體. 其他則從文法角度解釋, 視之為若不是用復數來表示威榮, 就是強調神性, 或是表示神對自己說話. 另有人認為這裡是指神與他在天上純潔的宮庭(見賽6:8).
• 三位一體的可能性很小, 因為此說須假設創1:26 是由一個位格或兩個位格對其他位格講話, 並須限定 “我們” 是三而已. 在聖經裡,無法找到支持此觀點的章節. 最接近的是太28:19, 此處指的是 “名” 而非 “體”. 換句話說, 父子聖靈只有一個名, 而非供同擁有一個體. 就算是 “我們(復數)” 是指神的三個位格, 單數的 “形像” “樣式” 是指神的一體, 第27節也應該是, 乃是造 “他們(復數)” 的 “形像(單數)”造男造女. 但聖經卻用單數的 “他” 及單數的 “形像”.
用復數來表示威榮, 強調神性, 或神對自己說話, 但 “我們” 卻顯示有講者, 亦有聽者.
第三個理由可能性最高, 但所引用的賽6:8根本與創1:26, 27節一樣, 証明不了甚麼.
(6) 聖經(思高譯本)
按古猶太人經師解釋, 是指天主和天使, 好似天主同天主商量; 但有些學者主張為 “威嚴復數” 或 “議決復數”. 教父和神學家多以為此復數暗示聖三的奧秘.. 此說若是啟示的演進說是對的 人相似天主是按靈魂説的. 相似天主有理智, 意志和記憶. 論人的肉身, 當天主造亞當時, 已預見作亞當第二基督(羅5:14).
• 此說是暗示三位一體的奧秘, 然後在新約中逐漸啟示神的三個位格, 即父在舊約工作, 子則在新約(四福音)裡工作, 最後是教會在傳教方面動工. 但主張三一論者又指出創1:1 的神(父), 創1:2 .是指聖靈,.創1:3是指子, 三個位格一起創造世界, 這已是明示而非暗示了.
如是“啟示的演進說,” 也就不會有天主教與東正教的 “和子” 的爭論而閙分裂. 筆者較傾於 “教義墮落說”. 關於三一說, 參(5).
人是由靈, 魂, 體組成. 活時還可免強說是三位一體. 但人死後, 體歸回塵土(創3:19), 靈歸於神(34:14), 魂則下陰間(太10:28)或進樂園(路23:43; 彼前1:9). 三者可以分開, 也必定分開. 然而, 三位一體之位格是永恆的, 是不能分開的.
神何止只有理智, 意志, 和記憶. 祂也是愛(約1:16), 公義(帖前1:6), 柔和謙卑(太11:29)等等.
(7) 聖經靈修版(國際聖經協會)
一種觀點認為這是指三位一體的真理, 聖父, 聖子, 聖靈都是靈. 另有觀點認為這樣的表達方式是表示威嚴, 好像西方國家的君主在傳統上也是以復數自稱的. 我們確實知道神的兒子基督和神的靈也參與創造的工作(參伯33:14; 詩104:30; 西1:16)
• 關於三位一體, 參(5)及(6). 必須指出的是, 聖經從未稱子為聖子, 只稱他為我的兒子 (太3:17), 我的愛子(太17:5), 獨生子(約3:16). 這說明子低於父, 不可能與父同等. 父的辈份比子高, 父是前辈, 子是後輩. 若是同等的話, 那他們應是兄弟關係.
其所引用的經文如下:
伯33:4 : 神的靈造我 全能者的氣使我得生.
詩104:30 : 你發出你的靈, 牠們便受造, 你使地面更換為新.
西 1:16 : 因為萬有都是靠他造的, 無論是天上的, 地上的, 能看見
的; 不能看見的. 或是有位的, 主治的, 執政的, 掌權的;
一 概都是藉著他造的, 又是為他造的.
伯33:4 和詩104:30的 “神的靈”, 根據三一論, 是指聖靈(羅8:9). 徒5:9之主的靈, 羅8:9之基督的靈, 徒16:7之耶穌的靈, 太10:20之父的靈, 全都指聖靈. 約4:24說神是個靈, 父是神, 子是神 聖靈是神, 卻不是三位神, 而是一位神. 那父的 “靈”, 子的 “靈” 又叫甚麼呢? 由於三一論不相信 “靈裡的一致”, 故只能推說父子聖靈是以一體來連繫三個位格. 那這一體是以甚麼方式存在呢? 三一論不能自圓其說.
至於西1:16, 我們先看1:15: 愛子是那不能看見之神的像, 是首生的, 在一切被造以先. 當提到 “首生” 時, 時間觀念已存在, 即有 “未生前” 及 “生後” 徒13:33曰: 神已經向我們這作兒女的應驗, 叫耶穌復活了. 正如詩篇第二篇上記著說: 你是我的兒子, 我今日生你. 由此可知, 16節的創造是指著有血有肉的子說的. 保羅的意思是說, 這個能讓人看見並摸到的子, 原是創造萬物的神. 創造萬物的神, 道成肉身, 來到世間, 並不表示在天上已沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 在地上的為子. 此節經文並非說子是一位參與創世工作的另一位格.
(8) 創世記注釋上冊(基督教文藝出版社)
我們稍為論述關於上帝提及自己. 在這裡, 就在這一章裡, 只在這個地方特別用第一人稱眾數的 “我們” 和 “我們的”(但29及30節, 祂又恢復用單數我). 這情形通常隱含基督教三位一體在創造中運行之意(第二位格是創造的道, 一直在發言, 而第三位聖靈則在第二節中), 但是古代希伯來人怎能知道這些東西是甚麼呢? 如今比較常見的, 是把這比作無上的或編輯的 “我們” ---- 但那是歐洲的見解, 而不是希伯來的. 然而, 如果它不能用這兩種解說中任何一種, 那麼它的意思又是甚麼呢?
詩篇第八篇類似的經文, 在這裡再給我們幫助.,其中第五節說上帝賜 “人冠冕”, 也說 “祢叫他比天使(或上帝)微小一點”; 或者像欽定本說, “ 比天使低 一點. 事實上, 希伯來文是伊羅欣(Elohim), 是上帝的正規字眼, 這是研究聖經的人都知道的, 而這字本身是眾數的. 這字一定是早期以色列的祖宗正像鄰邦一樣拜多神, 後來在他們成為一神的信徒時, 殘存下來的. 因為這字等於喚醒他們, 在別人有許多神靈, 分立而又常常爭執時, 對他們卻是只有一位獨神, 而且祂的旨意與目的是一致的.
不過, 在舊約中仍然有幾處地方是眾數的. 其中, 大多數指的是外族神, 正如出埃及記十二章十二節指埃及的多神, 或者在詩篇九十五篇三節: “ 耶和華為大神(伊羅欣), 為大王, 超乎萬神(也是伊羅欣)之上. 甚至第一誡: “除了我以外, 你不可有別的神”(出二十3), 其中的神字, 也是眾數的. 但是很偶然的纔指以色列的上帝有關的神. 一個好例子是詩篇一三八篇一節:“在諸神面前歌頌祢”.
在這些以外, 還要加上幾個稱為 “神的兒子” 所暗示的東西. 例如創世記六章二節(一段以後將給我們困難的經文)及約伯記一章六節與二章一節 ,在這些經文中, “神的眾子” 在上帝面前侍立.
在我們這段經文中, 還保留異教中的另一殘餘的東西. 那就是我們所熟知, 從荷馬來的神靈會議中得來的. 在那會議中, 男神女神不時集合來商討重要事件. 從以色列附近來的亞屈拉哈西斯敘事詩(epic Atrahasis)便是一個例子. 這詩包含米所波大米一個洪水故事.. 它開頭便是神會議, 先是眾神決定創造人類作他們的奴僕 (與本章差異多大啊!)而其後當他們喧嚷吵鬧, 以致眾神夜間不能睡覺時 卻又決定毀滅人類.
但是在希伯來思想中, 這些 “眾神” 是(可能除了剛才提及的創世記第六章二節那使人不安的經文之外)不容許威脅真神的獨一性或威嚴的. 他們並不是 “天使”, 天使是上帝的使者, 好像是較低一級的; 他們也不是舊約其他經文(例如創世記第三章廿四節; 以賽亞書第六章二節)的基路伯和撒拉弗, 他們是上帝的侍衛和護衛者 但是他們的任務並無很大的差別. 他們是希伯來人想像中的主要角色, 不是自己本有權利的人物, 而是上帝的延伸, 帶詩意地足以增強祂的榮耀和聖潔, 保衛祂的超越性而不是向祂挑戰.
對着這背景, 我相信欽定本詩篇八篇五節的 “天使” 比標準修正本的大寫 “上帝” 更為接近標準. 詩人正如創世記第一章的作者一樣, 給人高位, 而且把人描述得高至如天上上帝寶座周圍的神靈. 在這裡, 他----正如創世記第一章第廿六一樣----超出了舊約對人的看法不止一步. 但是他沒有遠至----希伯來人會嗎 ?----直接將 “人” 與那惟一的上帝本身相比. 縱然他 “比上帝微小一點”, 在希伯來人的經驗裡, 他仍然是太近乎上帝.
在本節的 “我們的”, 當然必得用類似的方法解釋. 創世記第一章的作者, 正如我們應當在好幾處注意到的 ,並不慣於用有詩意的詞語去描述上帝. 但是這裡他作了一個例外, 而他所以作這例外的原因並不難找出. 他是在警戒他的讀書, 提防他要論及 “人” 的話的危險性. 於是他故意打開天上宮庭的光景, 而暫時把上帝在祂的天使中隱藏起來. 這麼一來, 他就把祂於 “人” 相隔遠一點, 而準備被他讀者對接着來的奇妙語句, 有適當而均衡的暸解.
當我們考慮創世記第一章廿六節後來所成就的和神學上的價值時, 我們猜想作者的目的並未十分成功. 他怎麼知道他小心磨煉推測的話, 會落在那些對希伯來語的細緻特色毫無感覺的人手上呢?
• 此說法認為人不能與神相比, 所以摩西故意打開天庭光景, 暫時把神及天使隱藏起來, 取而代之的是諸神(詩138:1), 神的兒子(創6:2),及神的眾子(伯1:6; 2:1). 上述三種 “神”, 比天使低一點, 是神的延伸. 問題是 “諸神”, “神的兒子”和 “神的眾子”是誰? 聖經沒有交代. 筆者認為, 詩8:5的關鍵不在於譯為天使或神, 而是此句中的 “他”, 由8:1到8:9, “你”是指神, “他” 是指人. 因此, 人到底比天使高一級(譯為神)或比天使低一級都不是關鍵所在. 如把詩8:5譯為天使或神, 都不會影響 “他” 的意義. 此注釋者把 “他” 當作是神的侍衛和護衛者, 與天使不同, 任務卻與天使並無很大的差別. 這種說法, 未免太過牽強.
(9) The New Jerusalem Bible – Study Edition (Darton, Longman & Todd.
Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God and his
heavenly court (the angels, see 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood by the
Gk version of Ps8:5 (quoted in Beg 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses
the majesty and fullness of God’s being; the common names for God in
Hebrew is elohim, a plural form.
• 復數是指天庭裡的天使. 所引用經文以支持此觀點如下:
創3:5 : 因為神知道, 你們吃的日子, 眼睛就明亮了, 你們便如神能知道善惡
3: 22 : 耶和華神說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕
伸手又摘生命樹的果子吃, 就永遠活著.
創3:5告訴我們墮落天使的存在. 創3:1曰: 耶和華所造的, 惟有蛇
比田野一切的活物更狡猾. 蛇對人說: “神豈是真說不許你們吃園中
所有樹上的果子嗎?” 此節好像墮落的天使與其他活物同時被造, 其實不然. 啟20:3曰:他捉住那龍, 就是古蛇, 又叫魔鬼, 也叫撒但 把牠捆綁一千年. 如以此節與路20:3對比(這時 撒但入了稱為加人
猶大的心, 他本是十二門徒裡的一個), 我們可知道蛇是被造之物 是撒但進蛇中藉以迷惑人.
第3:22 的 “我們” 和1:26節的 “我們” 一樣都是神說的話, 而非該書作者講的話.
詩8:5 你叫他比天使微小一點, 並賜他榮耀尊貴為冠冕.
來1:14 天使豈不都是服役的靈嗎? 奉差遣為那將要承受救恩的人
效力嗎?
從此處, 我們可知天使的存在. 工作是服役與奉差遣的, 受命於神
所以創1:26的 “我們”, 應是指神與天使.
(10) The Jerusalem Bible(Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd)
It is possible that this plural form implies a discussion between God
and his heavenly court (the angles, cf. 3:5, 22); our text was thus understood
by the Greek version (followed by Vulg.) of Ps 8:5 (quoted in Heb 2:7). Alternatively, the plural expresses the majesty and fullness of God’s being;
the common name for God in Hebrew is Elohim, a plural form. Thus the way is prepared for the interpretation of the Fathers who saw in this text a hint of the trinity.
• “我們”是指神與天使的討論, 參(9). 如當神說是 “我們 “以示威嚴, 那賽6:8 又該作何解釋呢? 賽6:8曰: “我又聽見主的聲音說, 我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我”. 照此羅輯講, 應是 “我們”可以差遣誰呢? “我們” 暗示三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7).
(11) Fire Bible Global Study Edition – NIV (Life Publishers)
The use of word “us” (plural) suggests that God has a certain plurality, or multi-faceted nature (cf. Ps 2:7; Isa 48:16). This seems to be an early reference to the trinity, or the existence of God in three distinct but interrelated and unified Persons. The tri-unity (i.e., “three-in-One” nature) of nature does not become clear, however, until the NT (see Mt 3:17, Mk 1:11)
• 關於三位一體的討論, 參(5), (6)和(7). 茲將引用經文下列:
詩 2:7 : 受膏者說: “我要傳聖旨.” 耶和華對我說: “你是我的兒子, 我今日生你.”
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處外說話.
自從有這事, 我就在那裡. 現在主耶和華差我和他的靈來.
太 3:17 從天上有聲音說: “這是我的愛子, 我所喜悅的.”
可 1:11 又有聲音從天上來, 說: “這是我的愛子, 我喜悅你.”
為了實行救恩計劃, 神暫時 “分為三位”, 才有父子聖靈之分. 一旦救恩完成後, 再也沒有父子聖靈之別, 只有獨一真神. 啟22:3之 “寶座 “, “他 的面” 和 “他的名字”, 都是單數.
(12) The Case For Christ Study Bible – NIV (Zondervan)
God speaks as the Creator King, announcing his crowning work to the member of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:18; see also 1 Ki 22:19 – 23; Job 15:8; Jer 23.: 18).
• 此注釋可能性最高. 茲將引用經文列下並論之:
創 : 3:22 耶和華說: “那人已經與我們相似, 能知道善惡. 現在恐怕他伸手又摘生命樹果子吃, 就永遠活著.
下一節(創3:23 耶和華神便打發他出伊甸園去, 耕種他所自出之土.
創3:22 神用 “我們”, 而創3:23只說是”耶和華”而已, 這與創1:26 的 “我們” 與 “他” 相似.
創11:7 : 我們下去, 在那裡變亂他們的口音, 使他們的言語彼此不通.
同樣的, 接下去第八節曰: 於是耶和華使他們從那裡分散全地上, 他們就停工, 不造那城了. 第七節說 “我們”, 第八節卻說是耶和華. 讓我們繼續看下一個引文:
賽 6:8 : 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
接下去的第九節 “他” 說: “你去告訴這百姓說, 你們聽是要聽見, 卻不明白. 看是要看見, 卻不曉得.”
第八節用 “我們”, 第九節用的是 “他”. 綜觀上述討論, 所有經文都有一共同點: 當神說話時, 就用 “我們”. 當該書作者指神說話時, 卻用 “他” 或 “耶和華”. 再看看下列經文:
王上 22:9 米該雅說: “你要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐在寶座上, 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右.”
22:20: 耶和華說: “誰去引誘亞哈王上基列的拉末陣亡呢?” 這個就這樣說, 那個就那樣說.
22:21: 隨後有一個神靈出來, 站在耶和華面前, 說: “我去引誘他”.
22:22 耶和華問他說: “你用何法呢?” 他說: “我去, 要在他眾先知口中作慌言的靈.” 耶和華說: “這樣, 你必能引誘他, 你如此去行吧!”
22:23: 現在耶和華使慌言的靈入了你這些先知的口, 並且耶和華已經命定降禍與你.
上述經文說明有天庭和天使的存在, 而且神會與天使們討論. 然而, 作最後決定還是在於神. 所以創3:22用 “我們”, 創11:7 也是 “我們”, 賽6:8說 “我們”. 以此推論, 創1:26的 “我們” 應是指神與眾天使討論, 然後神(創3:23和11:8皆用 “耶和華”, 賽6:9用 “他” )才決定並進行所討論的工作.
伯15:8: 你曾聽見神的密旨? 你是將智慧獨自得盡嗎?
耶23:18: 有誰站在耶和華的會中, 得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有隨留心聽他的話呢?
上述經文指出, 有一個叫耶和華的會, 在此會中, 而 “天使和先知能或不能領悟或留心聽他的話” 再一次說明的確有天庭的存在. 而神也樂意讓天使和先知在天庭知道他的旨意. 如創18:17曰: 耶和華說: “我所要做的事, 豈可瞞著亞伯拉罕?”
(13) The Learning Bible – NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
The plural (us, our) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7; 1Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:8).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (11)和(12).
(14) Life Application Study Bible – NIV (Tyndale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make man in our image?” One view says this is a reference to the Trinity – God the Father, Jesus Christ his son, and the Holy Spirit – all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking of themselves. From Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16, we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(15) Quest Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan)
Why did God say, Let us (plural) make man in our image? (1:26) Often king refers to themselves in this way. The Hebrew word for God (Elohim) is plural, perhaps indicating that God was taking counsel with himself. This may also hint at the mystery of the Trinity --- in the unity of God there is plurality. Some think this describes God speaking to his heavenly court of angels.
• 此處提出三個可能性 行 (i) 神自言自語. 這個可能性很小, 因為 “我們” 表示有講者, 亦有聽者. (ii) 三位一體. 參(5) (6) (7) 和(11). (iii) 對天庭的天使說話. 從(1)可知未墮落的天使和未犯罪的人有共同的形像, 而這一個形像來自神. 因此神說話時用 “我們” (創1:26), 摩西寫的創1:27 是用 “他” 因為的確是 “他” 在進行創造工作. 參(12).
(16) Concordia Self-Study Bible-NIV (Zondervan Publishing House)
God speaks as Creator-King, announcing his crowning work to the members
of his heavenly court (see 3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8; see also 1K 22:19-23; Job 15:8; Jer 23:18).
• 同(13).
(17) The Wesley Study Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
Us and our in 1:26, points to the unique centrality of this moment of creation. This is a purposeful and measured action that God does not entrust to anyone else. Like most theologians of his day, Wesley assumes a Trinitarian interpretation of these plurals：“The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost”.
• 同(14)
(18) The New Interpreter’s Study-Bible-NRSV (Abingdon Press)
The plural us has been variously interpreted as the plural of “majesty” (the royal “we”) and, in Christian theology, as the Trinity. Here, as elsewhere in Genesis (e.g., 11:7), God is addressing the divine council, the assembly of heavenly being believed to assist God in governing the world and communicating with the human race (1 Kgs 22: 19-23; Job 1: 6-7; Jer 23:18, 22).
• 同(13)
(19) The Harper Collins Study Bible-NRSV (Harper One)
The plural seems to refer to the lesser deities of the divine assembly described in other biblical text. (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa 6::8). In the accomplishment of this utterance, however, God acts alone (God created humankind in his image, v.27). The reference to the divine assembly seems to acknowledge its presence but discounts its active participation in creation.
• 此注釋說, 若是神需要和天庭討論, 將會貶低其在創世中的角色. 但從 創3:33, 11:8, 賽6:9 王上22:23, 真正作最後決定及施行的是神.
(20) The Discipleship Study Bible-NRSV (Westminster John Knox Press)
The plural probably refers to the divine council (see Jer. 23:18-23). God here consults with other divine beings; the creation of human kind thus is the result of a dialogical act. God chooses to share the creative process with those who are not God.
• 耶 23:18 有誰站在耶和華的會中得以聽見並會悟他的話呢? 有誰留心聽他的話呢?
此節說明有 “耶和華的會” 的存在.
• 耶 23:19 看哪! 耶和華的忿怒好像暴風, 已經發出, 是暴烈的旋風, 必轉到惡人的上頭.
“惡人”是指16節的假先知
耶23:20 耶和華的怒氣必不轉消, 直到他心中所擬定的成就了, 末
後的日子你們要全然明白.
“他” 是指神, 也就是說, 神所擬定的成就時, “他”會使 “你們” (即先知)明白
耶23:21 我沒有打發那些先知, 他們竟自奔跑. 我沒有對他們竟自預言.
“他們”是指假先知.
耶23:22 他們若是站在我的會中, 就必使我的百姓聽我的話, 又使他們回頭離開惡道和他們所行的惡.
“他們” 指假先知. 由此可知, 假先知也在神的會中.
耶23:23 耶和華說: “我豈為近處的神呢? 不也為遠處的神嗎?”
這表示遠近的先知和天使都可知神的旨意. 為甚麼會知道呢? 因為神樂意把他的旨意告訴他們, 這也包括人(創18:17).
(21) The Orthodox Study Bible-St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint (St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology
The Holy Trinity also made man. God the Father is speaking to God the Son (John Chrysostom), and he uses the personal pronouns Us and Our. These pronouns indicate three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as noted in 1:1-3.
• 參(5), (6), (7)和(11).
(22) The NET Bible-New English Translation (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C.)
The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later Trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14, David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court. (see 1 Kgs : 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings”. If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.
• 茲將Job 1:6-12 及2:16列下:
伯 1:6 有一天, 神的眾子來侍立在那耶和華面前, 撒但也在其中.
1:7 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
1:8 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事.
1:9 撒但回答耶和華說: “約伯敬畏神, 豈是無故呢?
1:10 你豈不是四面圈上籬笆圍護他和他的家, 並他一切所有的.
他手所做的, 都蒙你賜福. 他的家產也在地上增多.
1:11 你且伸手毀他一切所有的, 他必當面棄掉你.”
1:12 耶和華對撒但說: “凡他所有的都在你手中, 只是不可伸手
害於他.” 於是撒但從耶和華面前退去.
上述經文有 “神的眾子”和撒但在耶和華面前交談, 再一次證明天庭中有討論這一回事.
伯 2:1 又有一天 ,神的眾子來侍立在耶和華面前, 撒但也來在其中.
2:2 耶和華問撒但說: “你從哪裡來?” 撒但回答說: “我從地上走來走去, 往返而來.”
2:3 耶和華問撒但說: “你曾用心察看我的僕人約伯沒有? 地上再沒有人像他完全正直, 敬畏神, 遠離惡事. 你雖激動我攻擊他, 無故地毀滅他, 他仍然持守他的純正.
2:4 撒但回答耶和華說: “人以皮代皮, 情願捨棄一切所有的 保全性命.
2:5 你且傷他的骨頭和他的肉, 他必當面棄掉你.”
2:6 耶和華對撒但說: “他在你手中, 只要存留他的生命.”
第三節說得很清楚 是撒但(你)激動神(我)攻擊他(約伯). 換句話說, 是神透過與撒但討論而做某事, 而聖經直接說是神做的.
賽 6:1 當烏西雅王崩的那年, 我見主坐在高高的寶座上. 他的衣裳垂下, 遮滿聖殿.
6:2 其上有撒拉弗侍立, 各有六個翅膀, 用兩個翅膀遮臉, 兩個翅膀遮腳, 兩個翅膀飛翔.
6:3 彼此呼喊說: 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 萬軍之耶和華, 他的榮光充滿全地.
6:4 因呼喊者的聲音, 門檻的根基震動, 殿充滿了煙雲.
6:5 那時我說: 禍哉! 我滅亡了! 因為我是嘴唇不潔的人, 又住在嘴唇不潔的民中. 又因我眼見大君王----萬軍之耶和華.
6:6 有一撒拉弗飛到我跟前, 手裡拿著紅炭, 是用火剪從壇上取下來的.
6:7 將炭沾我的口, 說: “看哪! 這炭沾了你的嘴, 你的罪孽便除掉, 你的罪惡就赦免了.”
6:8 我又聽見主的聲音說: “我可以差遣誰呢? 誰肯為我們去呢?” 我說: “我在這裡, 請差遣我!”
綜觀上述經文, 可知撒但, 神的眾子, 先知, 天使, 都可能是天庭中的成員. 此注釋亦提出神的眾子在創造時可能扮演的角色, 即讚美神. 如伯38:7曰: 那時, 晨星一同歌唱, 神的眾子也都歡呼! 再如
啟 4:6, 寶座前像一個玻璃海, 如同水晶. 寶座中和寶座周, 四個活物, 前後遍體都滿了眼睛.
4:7 第一個活物像獅子, 第二個像牛犢,第三個臉面像人, 第四個像飛鷹.
4:8 四活物各有六個翅膀, 遍體內外長了眼睛. 他們晝夜不住地說: “ 聖哉! 聖哉! 聖哉! 主是昔在, 今在, 以後永在的全能者.”
4:9 每逢四活物將榮耀, 尊貴, 感謝歸給那坐在寶座上, 活到永永遠遠者的時候,
4:10 那二十四位長老就俯伏在坐寶座的面前敬拜那活到永永遠遠的, 又把他們的冠冕放在寶座前, 說:
4:11 “我們的主, 我們的神, 你是配得榮耀, 尊貴, 權柄的. 因為你創造了萬物. 並且萬物是因你的旨意被創造而有的.
5:11 我又看見聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使的聲音, 他們的數目千千萬萬.
5:12 大聲說: “曾被殺的羔羊配得權柄, 豐富, 智慧, 能力, 尊貴, 榮耀, 頌讚的.
由此可知, 在將要審判世界的神的天庭, 包括人(長老)及天使, 而他們是以頌讚來參與神的工作.
(23) The Oxford Study Bible-Revised English Bible (Oxford University Press, Inc.)
The plural us (3:22; 11:7) may be a majestic plural, or else to the minor divine beings thought to surround God, like countries of a human king (1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6).
• 關於神的威嚴 參(5). 關於天庭 , 參(1), (2), (9), (12) 和(22).
(24) 1599 Geneva Bible-The Geneva Bible (Tolle lege Press)
Let us make : signifying, that God taketh counsel with his wisdom and virtue, purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.
• 參(3)和(4).
(25) The Essential Study Bible-Contemporary English Version (Penguin
Group)
The plural (we, us) may refer to God and the heavenly beings that make up God’s heavenly court (11:7: Isa 6:8; 1 Kgs 22:19).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(26 ) New Spirit Filled Life Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
God was speaking, not only to what the NT reveals to the rest of the Trinity, but to the entire host of heaven, the angels, as well.
• 關於三位一體 , 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(27) The Billy Graham Training Center Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
From the first chapter of the Bible, God reveals Himself to be “plural”. In this verse, we see all three personalities of God working together during the creation of the world. These three personalities are equal in glory and character, and they share the attributes of God revealed in the Old Testament. They are all eternal-meaning that none was created
• 參(5), (6)和(7)
(28) Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Let Us make is emphatic. It emphasizes the majesty of the speaker.
Furthermore, the use of plural for God allows for the later revelation of the
Trinity (see 11:7; Matt 28:19).The Us cannot refer to the angles that are
present with God because man is made in the image of God alone, not also
that of angels.
• 參(1), (3), (5), (6)和(7)
(29) ESV Study-ESV (Crossway Bibles)
The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have
suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court. Whom the
OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels”, but
a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is
there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings.
Many Christian and some Jews have taken “us” to be God Speaking to himself,
since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first
hint of the trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).
• 關於天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22). 關於神的威嚴, 參(5). 三位一體則參(5), (6)和(7).
(30) The Reformation Study Bible-ESV (Ligonier Ministries)
The use of the plural here is variously interpreted. Some view this as an indication of plurality within the divine unity, hinting at the later New Testament revelation of the one God as Father, Son and Spirit. Others explain this usage grammatically --- either as a plural of majesty or as a deliberative plural ( in which God directs the statement to Himself). Finally, some argue that God and his heavenly angelic court are in view.
• 同(29)
(31) The Lutheran Study Bible-ESV (Concordia Publishing House)
While affirming the singularity of God, it is not unusual for the OT to use the plural when speaking of God and his activities. This anticipates the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (though some interpreters understand it to be grammatical device , a plural of majesty of an honorific plural, with no specific theological significance). Irenaeus of Lyons : “with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, The Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks.” Tertullian : If the number of the Trinity also offends you, …with whom did He make man? And to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and on the other, who was one day to put on human nature; and the other, who was to santify man. With these did He then speak, in the unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. Martin Luther: “Here both appear：’Let Us make’ and ‘He made, in the plural and in singular; thereby Moses clearly and forcibly show us that within and in the very Godhead and the Creating Essence there is one inseparable and eternal plurality.”
• 此觀點認同三一論, 但未引用聖經章節以支持之. 參(5), (6)和(7) 關於三為一體的討論.
(32) The Ryrie NASB Study Bible-NASB (Moody Publishers)
Plurals of majesty.
• 神說 “我們”, 指出有講者及聽者, 不像創1:3 的 “神說”. 此處神只說: “要有光”. 就有了光. 此處並沒用代名詞如 “我”, “我們”, “你”, “你們”, “他”, “他們”, “她” 和 “她們”.
(33) The Transformation Study Bible-NLT (David C. Cook)
The creation of the first man is seen as a very special occasion, for there’s a
“consultation” prior to the event. “Let us make human being in our image”
sounds like that conclusion of a divine deliberation among the persons of the Godhead. God couldn’t have been talking with the angels about his plans because angels weren’t made in God’s image (‘our image”), and angels had nothing to do with the creation of Adam.
• 關於三位一體 參(5), (6)和(7). 關於神的行像, 參(1).
(34) Discover God Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publishers)
God refers to Himself in the plural, saying, “Let Us”. Through history, God has revealed Himself as God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. God has always existed as these three persons. The New Testament writer Paul the apostle confirmed this truth： “For though (Christ) God created in the heavenly realms and on earth……. Everything was created through Him and for Him”（Colossians 1:16） In describing Jesus, John created everything through Him and nothing was created excerpt through Him” (John 1:2-3).
• 關於西1:15-16, 參(7). 約1:2-3曰:
約1:2 這道太初與神同在.
1:3 萬物是藉著他造的, 沒有一樣不是藉著他造的.
這裡是針對有血有肉的子說的, 並非指神另外有一個位格.

(35) NLT Study Bible-NLT (Tyndale House Publisher)
The plural us has inspired several explanations: (1) the Trinity; (2) the plural denote majesty; (3) a plural to show deliberation with the self; and (4) God speaking with his heavenly court of angels. The concept of the Trinity – one true God who exist eternally in three distinct persons --- was revealed at a latter stage in redemptive history, making it unlikely that the human author intended that here. Hebrew scholars generally dismiss the plural of majesty vies because the grammar does not clearly support it (the plural of majesty has not been demonstrated to be communicated purely through a plural verb). The plural of self-deliberation also lacks evidence; the only clear examples unity (e.g., 2 Sam 24:14). God’s speaking to the heavenly court, however, is well-attested in the OT (see 3:2; 11:7; 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1: 6-12; 2:1-6; 38:7; Ps 89:5-6; Isa 6:1-8; Dan 10:12-13).
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的威嚴, 參(3), (5)和(32). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22).
(36) Life Application Study Bible-NLT (Tydale House Publishers)
Why does God use the plural form, “Let us make people in our image” ? One vies says this is a reference to the Trinity --- God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Spirit --- all of whom are God. Another view is that the plural wording is used to denote majesty. Kings traditionally use the plural form in speaking to themselves From Job 33-4 and Psalm 104:30, we do know that God’s Spirit was present in the creation. From Colossians 1:16 we know that Christ, God’s Son, was at work in the creation.
• 三一神論 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 神的天庭, 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(37) The Open Bible-NKJV (Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
Unity of the Trinity --- Historically other monotheistic religions have accused Christian of worshiping three Gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Early and medieval Judaism, for instance, just could not conceive of any theological explanation that vindicated Christianity of the change of polytheism.
Christians always have affirmed the great monotheistic statements of the OT (Deut 4:35; 6:4; Is 44:6-20; Zech 14:9). Christian theologians also have wrestled through the centuries with how to express the unity of God’s Being while recognizing distinctions among the tree Persons interacting and fellowshipping within Him. The early church fathers spoke of one divine essence or substance that could not be divided . Within that one essence are three personal distinctions: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. No one has improved on that description.
The NT, which teaches the deity of Father (John 6:27), Son (John 1:1; 20:28), and Holy Spirit（Acts 5:3, 4）, also stresses the unity of God (Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5). The mystery of the Trinity should remind us that when we contemplate the nature of God we reach the limit of finite human understanding. At the same time, the complexity of human personality, which somehow reflects the divine personality, should cause us not to be surprised by how multifaceted He is.
• 三一論, 參(5), (6), (7)和(34). 茲將支持三一論章節下列:
約6:27 不要為那必壞的食物勞力, 要為那存到永生的食物勞力, 就是人子要賜給你們的, 因為人子是神所印證的.
此處只指出子和神, 並非說子是神的其中一個位格.
約 1:1 太初有道, 道與神同在, 道就是神.
約翰的意思是指道成肉身之子, 其實在太初就已經存在了. 神永遠的存在, 這個有血有肉的子原本也是這樣. 使徒們所摸到看到的子, 其實就是神本身. 總之, 1:1是針對子或道本身而言, 而非指神或神的位格.
約20:28 多馬說 我的主 我的神
這裡只說主是神, 根本談不上誰是誰的位格.
徒 5:3 彼得說: “亞拿尼亞, 為甚麼撒但充滿了你的心? 叫你欺哄聖靈, 把田地的價銀私自留下幾份呢?
徒 5:4 田地還沒有賣, 不是你自己的嗎? 既賣了, 價銀不是你作主嗎? 你怎麼心裡起這意念呢? 你不是欺哄人, 是欺哄神了!
徒5:4 的 “神”是否可以解作徒5:3之 “聖靈＂? 到底亞拿尼亞欺哄的, 是聖靈這一位格, 還是擁有三個位格的神? 當聖經用 “神＂ 這個字時, 是指全部三個位格, 還是只指 “父神＂ 或 “聖靈神＂ 或 “子神＂? 或可以指任何一個位格, 或任何兩個位格？ 三一論者必須給 “神＂ 和 “位格＂下定義及解釋兩者之間的關係..
可12:29 耶穌回答說: “第一要緊的就是說, 以色列啊! 你要聽 主--- 我們神是獨一的主.
可12:30: 你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 --- 你的神.
可12:31 : 其次就是說: ‘要愛人如己’, 再沒有比這兩條誡命更大了.”
可12:32 : 那文士對耶穌說: “夫子說, 神是一位, 實在不錯. 除了他以外, 再沒有別的神.
約20:28 多馬說: “我的主! 我的神!” 可12:31之 “你要盡心, 盡性, 盡意, 盡力愛主 ---你的神”, 前者的 “神” 告訴我們 “主” 只是子這一位格的神. 後者的 “神”, 告訴我們 “主” 是三個位格的 “神”. 現在問題來了, “主” 是指神的三個位格, 還是其中一或兩個位格的神? 有沒有指著聖靈為 “主” 的呢? 三一論必須給 “主” 下個定義.
林前8:4 論到吃祭偶像之物, 我們知道偶像在世上算不得甚麼, 也知道神只有一位, 再沒有別的神.
林前8:5 雖有稱為神的, 或在天, 或在地, 就如那許多的神, 許多的主.
林前8:6 然而我們只有一位神, 就是父 --- 萬物都本於他, 我們也歸於他 --- 並有一位主, 就是耶穌基督 --- 萬物都是藉著他有的. 我們也是藉著他有的.
約17:3 認識你 --- 獨一的真神, 並且認識你所差來的耶穌基督, 這就是永生.
提前2:8 因位只有一位神, 在神和人中間, 只有一位中保, 乃是降世為人的基督耶穌.
按照三一論, 三個位格平等, 只是次序不同而已. 但上述經文只有父和子, 缺少了聖靈, 這又該作何解呢? 顯然的, 三一論者東湊西湊, 把幾處經文湊在一起, 以証明三一論. 像(5)所說的, 最接近三一論的經文只有一處: 即太28:19. 但此處只說三位一名, 而非三位一軆.
約3:13曰: 除了從天降下仍舊在天的人子, 沒有人升過天. 這說明父子是原為一的. 因救恩工作, 才有道成肉身, 才有父子聖靈之分. 無論是在天上的父, 降世為人的人子, 或住在人裡面的聖靈, 我們只能說 “他們” 原是一位神, 不能說 “他們” 是三個位格.
(38) The Scofield Study Bible-KJV (Oxford University Press Inc.)
The revealed fact is: that man was made in the “image and likeness” of God. This “image” is found chiefly in man’s tri-unity, and in his moral nature. Man is “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thes. 5:23). “spirit” is that part of man which “knows” (1 Cor. 2:11), and which allies him to the spiritual creation and give him God-consciousness. “soul” in itself implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In that sense animals also have “soul”. But the “soul” of man has a vaster content than “soul” as applied to beast life. It is the seat of his emotions, desires, affections (Psa. 42:1-6). The “heart” is, in scripture usage, nearly synonymous with “soul”. Because the natural man is, in characteristically, the or psychical man, “soul” is often used as synonymous with the individual. The body , separable from spirit and soul and susceptible to death, is nevertheless an integral part of man, as the resurrection shows (John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:47-50; Rev. 20:11-13). It is the seat of the senses (the means by which the spirit and soul have world-consciousness) and or the fallen Adamic nature (Rom 7:23-24).
• 此注釋認同三一論, 並以人之靈, 魂和體的 “形像”來証明神的 “形像” 所引用的經文如下:
帖前 5:23 願賜平安的神親自使你們全然成聖, 又願你們的靈 魂與身子得蒙保守, 在我主耶穌基督降臨的時候, 完全無可指摘.
林前 2:11 除了在人裡頭的靈, 誰知道人的事? 像這樣, 除了神的靈, 也沒有人知道神的事.
創2:17 耶和華神用地上的塵土造人, 將生氣吹在他鼻孔裡, 他就成了有靈的活人, 名叫亞當.
詩 42:1 神啊! 我的心切慕你, 如鹿切慕溪水.
詩 42:2 我的心渴想神, 就是永生神, 我幾時得朝見神呢?
詩 42:3 我晝夜以眼淚當飲食, 人不住地對我說: “你的神在哪裡呢?”
詩 42:4 我從前與眾人同住, 用歡呼稱讚的聲音領他們到神的殿裡, 大家守節. 我追想這事我的心極其悲傷.
詩 42:5 我的心哪! 你為何憂悶? 為何在我裡面煩躁? 應當仰望神, 因他笑臉幫助我.. 我還要稱讚他.
詩 42:6 我的神啊! 我的心在我裡面憂悶. 所以我從約但地, 從黑門嶺, 從米薩山記念你.
林前15:50 弟兄們, 我告訴你們說, 血肉之體不能承受神的國. 必朽壞的不能承受不朽壞的.
啟20:11 我又看見一個白色的大寶座在上面的; 從他面前天地都逃避, 再無可見之處了.
啟20:12 我又看見死了的人, 無論大小, 都站在寶座前. 案卷展開了, 並且另有一卷展開, 就是生命冊. 死了的人都憑著這些案卷所記載的, 照他們所行的受審判.
啟20:13 於是海交出其中的死人, 死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人, 他們都照各人所行的受審判.
羅7:23 但我覺得肢體中另有個律和我心中的律交戰, 把我擄去, 叫我從那肢體中犯罪的律.
羅7:24 我真是苦啊! 誰能就我脫離這取死的身體?
從上述經文, 可知此註釋者証明人有靈, 魂, 體. 但他們是會分開的, 這已違反了三一論所說的永恆性. 下列經文可證之:
創3:19 你必汗滿面才得糊口, 直到你歸了土. 因為你是從土而出的, 你本是塵土, 仍要歸於塵土.
伯34:14 他若專心為己, 將靈和氣收歸自己.
路24:37 他們卻驚慌害怕, 以為所看見的是魂.
路34:39 你們看我的手, 我的腳, 就知道實在是我了. 摸我看看, 魂無骨無肉. 你們看, 我是有的.
太10:28 那殺身體, 不能殺靈魂的, 不要怕他們. 惟有能把身體和靈魂都滅在地狱裡的, 正要怕他.
路16:23 他在陰間受痛苦, 舉目遠遠地望見亞伯拉罕, 又見拉撒路在他懷裡.
路23:43 耶穌對他說: “我實在告訴你, 今日你要同我在樂園裡了.”
彼前1:9 並且得著你們信心的果效, 就是靈魂的救恩.
由此可知, 人死後靈歸神, 體歸塵土, 魂則下陰間或樂園等候審判.
(39) The King James Study Bible –KJV (Thomas Nelson Publisher)
The plural pronoun us it most likely a majestic plural from the standpoint of Hebrew grammar and syntax.
• 神以他的威嚴說話, 自然符合聖經(參謀(3)). 但問題是神講話的對象是誰呢? (參((3)和32))
(40) New Bible Commentary (Inter-Varsity Press)
Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning).
• 參(1), (2), (9), (12)和(22)
(41) Key Word Study Bible-KJV (AMG Publishers)
When plural pronouns are used, “Let us make man in our image after our likeness”, does it denote a plural number or the concept of excellence or majesty which may be indicated in such a way in Hebrew? Could God be speaking to the angels; the earth, or nature thus denoting Himself in relation to one of these? Or is this a germinal hint of a distinction the divine personality? One cannot be certain. Until Jesus came, the essential (internal) unity of the Godhead was not understood to a great extent, though it was intimated (is. 48:16).
• 此註釋認同三位一體, 其支持乃賽48:16: 你們要就近來我聽這
話, 我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 耶和華差我和他的靈來. 此節不能支持三一論. 因為被差遣的 “我” 是指以賽亞, 也就是說, 這邊只提到 “耶和華” 和 “他的靈”, 沒有跡象顯示子也在那裡.
(42) The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible-NIV (AMG Publishers)
The Hebrews word translated “God” is elohiym [466], a plural noun. In verse 26, it is used with a plural verb (“let us make”) and a plural suffix (“in our image, in our likeness”). In verse 27, however, it is used three times with a singular verb (bara [1343], “created”, the same singular verb which appears in verse 1. The essential internal unity of the Trinity was not understood to a great extent until Jesus came to earth (Jn 1:14, 18; 10:30; 14:9), though it was intimated in the Old Testament (Isa 48:16).
• 此書作者任同三一論, 其引用經文如下:
約1:14 道成了肉身, 住在我們中間, 充充滿滿地有恩典有真理, 我們也見過他的榮光.
此處的重點是 “道成肉身”. 綜觀約1:1-3, 約翰的意思是說這個有血有肉的子或道, 其實就是神. 也就是說, 神降世為子, 神成為有所限制的子, 並非表示天上已沒有神了. 這話是針對道或子而說的, 絕對不是說除了神之外, 還有另一個子的位格.
約1:18 從來沒有人看見神, 只有在父懷裡的獨生子將他表明出來 .
神是靈(約4:24), 故人看不到他. 現在無所不知, 無所不在及無所不能的神, 謙卑降為被時空限制的子, 讓人可以看見. 所以來1:3曰: 他是神榮耀所發的光輝, 是神本體的真像. 這個神的本體, 並非是指神的第二個位格. 約一3:2曰: 親愛的弟兄啊 我們現在是神的兒女. 將來如何, 還未顯明. 但我們知道, 主若顯現, 我們必要像他, 因為必得見他的真體. 這再次証明 “主” 是能看見的神的真體. 這裡沒談到聖靈.
約10:30 我與父原為一.
由於無限的神變為地上有限的 “神人”, 並非表示在天上沒有了神. 在天上的為父, 降在地上的為子. 就這角度來看, 我 (主) 的確與父為一. 這裡也沒談到聖靈..
約14:9 耶穌對他說: “腓力, 我與你們同在這麼久, 你還不認識我嗎 ? 人看見了我, 就是看見了父. 你怎麼說: “將父顯給我們看呢?”
神道成肉身, 我們才能看見神的面貌. 子就是人看得見的神(父). 當時門徒們還不清楚, 以為另外還有個父. 三一論就是陷入此圈套, 把父與子分開, 說是神的兩個位格.
賽48:16 你們要就近我來聽這話: “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話. 自從有這事, 我就在那裡.” 現在, 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來.
從 “我從起頭並未曾在隱密處說話 自從有這事 我就在那裡”這一句話是第14章的 “耶和華”說的, 而 “現在 主耶和華差遣我和他的靈來”這一句話是以賽亞說的. 也就是說 “我” 是指以賽亞本身.根據三一論, 耶和華的靈是指聖靈, 再加上耶和華本身, 只有兩位而已 ,缺少了子.
(43) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary-Genesis-Leviticus (Zondervan)
There have been many attempts to explain the plural forms: “Let us make [nacaseh] in our image [besalmenu], in our likeness [kidmutenu] . “Westermann, 1:144-45, summarizes the explanations given for the use of plurals under four headings : (1) the plural is a reference to the Trinity; (2) the plural is a reference to God and the heavenly court of angels; (3) the plural is an attempt to avoid the idea of an immediate resemblance on God’s part while setting out to create humankind; (4) the plural is an explanation of deliberation on God’s part while setting out to create humankind.
The singulars in v.27 (besalmo, “in his own image”) and （beselem elohim, “in the image of God”; cf. 5:1） rule out the second explanation (i.e., that the plural refers to a heavenly court of angels), since in the immediate context human are said to be created “in his image”, with no mention made of humans being made in the image of the angels. To this the author adds a further qualification that God humankind “in the image of God”. This seems to be an intentional refutation of the notion that the plurals in v.26 refer to the angels.
The third and fourth explanations are both possible within the context, but neither explanation is specifically supported by the context. It is not convincing to point to 11:7 in support of the notion of deliberation, since the use of the plural in that passage is motivated by the chiastic wordplay between the words nabelah (“let us confuse,” 11:7) and nilbena (“let us make, “ 11:3; see J.P. Fokkemann, Narrative Art in Genesis [Assen: Van Gorcum, 1975]). Where we do not find unequivocal deliberation (as in 18:17). It is not the plural that is used but the singular : “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?” As Wetermann has stated, the first explanation is “a dogmatic judgment,” though we could add that it is not a judgment that runs confer to the passage itself. However, if we seek an answer from the immediate context, we should turn to the following verse(s) for additional clues.
In v.27 it is stated twice that humankind was created [bara] “male and female”. The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2: “when God created [bara] man …. He created [bara] them male and female”. The singular “man [adam] is create as a plurality, “male and female” [zakar uneqeba]. In a similar way the one God [waggomen elohim, “And God said] create humanity through an expression of plurality [naaseh adam besalemu, “Let us make man in our image”]. Following this clue, the device plurality of persons expressed in v.26 can be seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of persons reflected in man and woman, thus casting human personal relationship in the role of reflecting God’s own personhood.
Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence on conjunction of man and man which is that of male and female, and then to go on to ask against this background in what the original and prototype of the device existence of the Creator consist? (K/ Barth, Church Dogmatics3/1 [New York: Scriber, 1956], 195).
• 此註釋者提出四個可能性 (i)三位一體 ,參(5), (6), (7), (34), (37),
(38 ), (41)和(42). (ii) 天庭中的使者 參(1), (2), (9), (11), (12), (15), (22)和(32). (iii) 神的威嚴和慎重的宣佈, 參(3). (iv)神與人隔離, 參(8). 其支持章節如下:
創5:1 亞當的後代記下面 (當神造人[單數]的日子, 是照著自己的樣式造的,
創5:2 並且造男造女. 在他們(復數)被造的日子, 神賜福給他們, 稱他們為 “人”)
單數的人(亞當), 被造成復數的男女. 所謂的造男造女, 是男先女後. 換句話說, 單數的神造單數的男人, 單數的神造單數的女人. 這也就是說, 單數的神, 創造復數的男女. 所以 1:26可視為神預知要造男造女. 所以摩西以復數的 “我們” 來表示將要創造 復數的男女. 但問題是, “我們要造著我們的形像, 按著我們的樣式造人……”是跟誰說呢? 此解釋只說 “我們”的 來源而已.
(44) Genesis A Commentary (Zondervan)
See also 3:22; 11:7. Various references have been suggested for the “us”. The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16: Heb. 1:2). God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrence of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. ; Job 38:7; 1 Tim 3:16), and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.
• 筆者完全同意此觀點.
(45) The NIV Genesis Application Commentary (Zondervan)
The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) on verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology of as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:
(i) Theological : The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (elohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.
(ii) Grammatical : The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical on rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatically agreement with the plural elohim.
(iii) Cultural : The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.
We do not have space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The race instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.
The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that God’s intentions. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.
Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my belief?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category. One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presupposition, we will simply set that option aside.
The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text (The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include God, usually members of the council assemble before God.) Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear); one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.
Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angles about such matter (Isa 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (i) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (ii) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angles must than have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (iii) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angles also share the dive image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.
If them, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacle.
• 同(44).
最後 筆者再引用幾節經文來指出
(i) 天庭的存在
但 7:10 從他面前有火, 像河發出. 事奉他的有千千, 在他面前侍
立的有萬萬. 他坐著要行審判, 案卷都展開了.
詩89:6 在天空誰能比耶和華呢? 神的眾子中, 誰能像耶和華呢?
詩 89:7 他在聖者的會中, 是大有威嚴的神, 比一切在他四圍的
更可畏懼.
歷下 18:18 米該亞說: “你們要聽耶和華的話, 我看見耶和華坐
在寶座上 天上的萬軍侍立在他左右
啟 5:11 我又看見且聽見, 寶座與活物並長老的周圍有許多天使
的聲音, 他們的數目有千千萬萬.
但 4:35 世上所有的居民都算為虛無, 在天上的萬軍和世上的居
民中, 他都憑自己的意旨行事, 無人能攔住他手, 或問他
說, 你做甚麼呢?
(ii) 神使天使或人知其所欲行之事
摩 3:7 主耶和華若不將奧秘指示他的僕人 --- 眾先知, 就一無所
行.
詩 103:7 他使摩西知道他的法則, 叫以色列人曉得他的作為.
創 18:33 耶和華與亞伯拉罕說完了話就走了, 亞伯拉罕也回到
自己的地方去了.
(iii) 天使和人在天庭中讚美神
啟 7:11眾天使都站在寶座和眾長老並四活物的周圍, 在寶座前
面伏於地, 敬拜神.
詩 103:19 耶和華在天上立定寶座, 他的權柄統管萬有.
詩 103:20 聽從他命令, 成全他旨意, 有大能的天使, 都要稱頌耶
和華!
啟 5:13 我又聽見在天上, 地上, 地底下, 滄海裡, 和天地間一切
所有被造之物, 都說 : “但願頌讚, 尊貴, 榮耀, 權柄, 都
歸給坐寶 座的和羔羊, 直到永永遠遠.