{
"$type": "site.standard.document",
"bskyPostRef": {
"cid": "bafyreie2kew7o3cou7etgdeagaawjvvzzx42nhs6uauxh6ngvd4grqc7ba",
"uri": "at://did:plc:gl3kczkbg2rbkbyxzofc7k32/app.bsky.feed.post/3mkhhmrzuq2d2"
},
"description": "In this post I will cite the works of three intellectual and spiritual giants of the Faith to show how they interpreted Genesis 1:26-27, particularly verse, where God uses plural pronouns when speaking of making man in the image and likeness of God. The readers will see that these magnificent men of the Church took the plural as proof that the Trinity created mankind in their image and likeness. They flat out rejected that God was either speaking to the angels or to himself as a singular Person.",
"path": "/ambrose-augustine-peter-of-lombard-on-gen-1-26/",
"publishedAt": "2026-04-27T06:40:03.000Z",
"site": "https://answeringislam.blog",
"tags": [
"Hexameron, Paradise, And Cain And Abel St Ambrose Catholic Theology Fathers",
"On the Christian Faith (De fide)",
"Book I",
"prophets",
"witness",
"holy",
"Son",
"Egypt",
"Ethiopians",
"God",
"knew",
"Israel",
"prophet",
"Arians'",
"believe",
"John 14:10",
"Father",
"Arians",
"one God",
"Matthew 6:24",
"Deuteronomy 6:4",
"Genesis 19:24",
"Genesis 1:6-7",
"Genesis 1:26-27",
"gladness",
"Son of God",
"nature",
"mankind",
"error",
"heathen",
"Jesus Christ",
"true",
"Holy Spirit",
"philosopher",
"Jews",
"known",
"know",
"make",
"man",
"Genesis 1:26",
"On the Holy Trinity",
"Book 1",
"divine Scriptures",
"errors",
"heretics",
"faith",
"incarnation",
"Word of God",
"salvation",
"Scriptures",
"eternal",
"truth",
"cause",
"Scripture",
"Apostle Paul",
"robbery",
"woman",
"Book 7",
"persons",
"essence",
"men",
"Abraham",
"souls",
"human",
"mind",
"statues",
"statue",
"omnipotent",
"truly",
"Gospel",
"relatives",
"glory",
"knowledge",
"Book 12",
"fear",
"divine Scripture",
"believed",
"Catholic",
"proofs",
"pious",
"Psalms",
"temptation",
"our Lord Jesus Christ",
"New Testament",
"David",
"holiness",
"Book 14",
"immortality",
"Early Church on the Use of Plurals for God",
"Anti-Trinitarians on the Use of Plurals"
],
"textContent": "In this post I will cite the works of three intellectual and spiritual giants of the Faith to show how they interpreted Genesis 1:26-27, particularly verse, where God uses plural pronouns when speaking of making man in the image and likeness of God. The readers will see that these magnificent men of the Church took the plural as proof that the Trinity created mankind in their image and likeness. They flat out rejected that God was either speaking to the angels or to himself as a singular Person. Besides Genesis 1:26-27, other verses are cited to affirm that both the Old and New Testaments proclaim there are is more than one Divine Person, since God eternally subsists as Father, Son and Holy Spirit: Gen. 19:24; Psalm 45:6-7; Isa. 45:14; John 14:9-11; 1 Cor. 8:4-6. All emphasis will be mine.\n\n**St. Ambrose**\n\nHexameron, Paradise, And Cain And Abel St Ambrose Catholic Theology Fathers.\n\nChapter 7\n\n(40) But let us consider the precise order of our creation: ‘Let us make mankind,’ He said, ‘in our image and likeness.’ 1\n\nWho says this? Was it not God who made you? What is God: flesh or spirit? Surely not flesh, but spirit, which has no similarity to flesh. This is material, whereas the spirit is incorporeal and invisible.\n\nTo whom does He speak? **_Surely not to Himself, because He does not say: ‘I shall make,’ but ‘let us make.’ He does not speak to the angels, because they are servers, and servants cannot have a part in a work along with their Master and Creator. He speaks, rather, to the Son, although the Jews are unwilling to accept this and the Arians object to it_**. But let the Jews preserve silence and let the Arians with their progenitors be mute, who, while they exclude One from sharing in the divine work, introduce more participants and grant to underlings a privilege which they deny to the Son.\n\n1 Gen. 1.26.\n\nOn the Christian Faith (De fide), Book I.\n\nChapter 3.\n\n**By evidence gathered from Scripture the unity of Father and Son is proved, and firstly, a passage, taken from the Book of Isaiah, is compared with others and expounded in such sort as to show that in the Son there is no diversity from the Father's nature, save only as regards the flesh; whence it follows that the Godhead of both Persons is One. This conclusion is confirmed by the authority of Baruch.**\n\n20. Now the oracles of the prophets bear witness what close unity holy Scripture declares to subsist between the Father and the Son as regards their Godhead. _For thus says the Lord of Sabaoth:_ Egypt_has laboured, and the commerce of the_ Ethiopians_and Sabeans: mighty men shall come over to you, and shall be your servants, and in your train shall they follow, bound in fetters, and they shall fall down before you, and to you shall they make supplication: for God is in you, and there is no God beside you. For you are_ God_, and we_ knew_it not, O God of_ Israel.\n\n21. Hear the voice of the prophet: _In You_ , he says, _is_ God_, and there is no God beside You_. **How agrees this with the** Arians'**teaching?** They must deny either the Father's or the Son's Divinity, unless they believe, once for all, unity of the same Divinity.\n\n22. _In You_ , says he, _is God_ — **forasmuch as the Father is in the Son**. For it is written, _The Father, Who abides in Me, Himself speaks, and The works that I do, He Himself also does._ John 14:10 And yet again we read that the Son is in the Father, saying, _I am in the_ Father_, and the Father in Me._ John 14:10 Let the Arians, if they can, make away with this kinship in nature and unity in work.\n\n23. There is, therefore, **God in** God**, but not two Gods** ; for it is written that there is one God, and there is **Lord in Lord, but not two Lords** , forasmuch as it is likewise written: _Serve not two lords._ Matthew 6:24 And the Law says: _Hear, O_ Israel_! The Lord your God is_ one God; Deuteronomy 6:4 moreover, in the same Testament it is written: ** _The Lord rained from the Lord._** Genesis 19:24**_The Lord_ , it is said, sent rain _from the Lord_**. So also you may read in Genesis: _And God said_ — _and God made,_ Genesis 1:6-7 and, lower down, _And God made man in the image of_ God_;_ Genesis 1:26-27 yet it was not two gods, but one God, that made [man]. In the one place, then, as in the other, **the unity of operation and of name is maintained**. For surely, when we read God of God, we do not speak of two Gods.\n\n24. **Again, you may read in the forty-fourth psalm how the** prophet**not only calls the Father** God**but also proclaims the Son as** God, saying: _Your throne, O_ God_, is for ever and ever. And further on:_ God_, even your_ God_, has anointed you with the oil of_ gladness_above your fellows_. This God Who anoints, and God Who in the flesh is anointed, is the Son of God. For what fellows in His anointing has Christ, except such as are in the flesh? You see, then, that God is by God anointed, but being anointed in taking upon Him the nature of mankind, He is proclaimed the Son of God; yet is the principle of the Law not broken.\n\n25. **So again, when you read** , _The Lord rained from the Lord, acknowledge the unity of Godhead_ , **for unity in operation does not allow of more than one individual** God**, even as the Lord Himself has shown, saying** : _Believe Me, that I am in the_ Father_, and the Father in Me: or_ believe_Me for the very works' sake_. **Here, too, we see that unity of Godhead is signified _by unity in operation_**.\n\n26. The Apostle, **careful to prove that there is one Godhead of both Father and Son, and one Lordship** , lest we should run into any error, whether of heathen or of Jewish ungodliness, showed us the rule we ought to follow, saying _: One_ God_, the_ Father_, from Whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord,_ Jesus Christ_, by Whom are all things, and we by Him_** _. For just as, in calling_** Jesus Christ**__Lord,_ he did not deny that the Father was Lord, even so, in saying, _One__** God**__, the__** Father**__,_ he did not deny _**true**_Godhead to the_** Son**_, and thus he taught, not that there was more than one_** God**_, but that the source of power was one, forasmuch as Godhead consists in Lordship, and Lordship in Godhead_** , as it is written: _Be sure that the Lord, He is_ God. It is He that has made us, and not we ourselves.\n\n27. _In you_ , therefore, _is_ God, **by unity of nature** , _and there is no God beside You_ , **by reason of personal possession of the Substance** , without any reserve or difference.\n\n28. Again, Scripture speaks, in the Book of Jeremiah, of One God, **and yet acknowledges both Father and Son**. Thus we read: _He is our_ God_, and in comparison with Him none other shall be accounted of. He has discovered all the way of teaching, and given it to Jacob, His servant, and to_ Israel_, His beloved. After these things He appeared upon earth, and conversed with men_.\n\n29. **The** prophet**speaks of the** Son**, for it was the Son Himself Who conversed with men, and this is what he says** : _He is our_ God_, and in comparison with Him none other shall be accounted of_. Why do we call Him in question, of Whom so great a prophet says that no other can be compared with Him? What comparison of another _can_ be made, **when the Godhead is One?** This was the confession of a people set in the midst of dangers; reverencing religion, and therefore unskilled in strife of argument.\n\n30. Come, Holy Spirit, and help Your prophets, in whom You are wont to dwell, in whom we believe. Shall we believe the wise of this world, if we believe not the prophets? _But where is the wise man, where is the scribe?_ When our peasant planted figs, he found that whereof the philosopher knew nothing, _for God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the strong._ Are we to believe the Jews? For God was once known in Jewry. Nay, but they deny that very thing, which is the foundation of our belief, seeing that they know not the Father, who have denied the Son...\n\n51. More might I set down from the Son's testimony; howbeit, lest He perchance appear to have asserted Himself overmuch, let us enquire of the Father. For the Father said, _Let us_ make__ man_in Our image and likeness._ Genesis 1:26 ** _The Father says to the Son_ _in Our image and likeness,_ and you say that the **Son of God**is unlike the Father**.\n\n**St. Augustine**\n\nOn the Holy Trinity\n\nBook 1\n\nChapter 7.— In What Manner the Son is Less Than the Father, and Than Himself.\n\n14. In these and like testimonies **of the** divine Scriptures, by free use of which, as I have said, our predecessors exploded such sophistries or errors of the heretics, **the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated to our** faith. But because, **on account of the** incarnation**of the** Word of God**for the working out of our** salvation, that the man Christ Jesus might be the Mediator between God and men, many things are so said in the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare, **the Father to be greater than the Son** ; men have erred through a want of careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of the Scriptures, **and have endeavored to transfer those things which are said of** Jesus Christ**according to the flesh, to that substance of His which was** eternal**before the** incarnation**, and is** eternal. They say, for instance, that the Son is less than the Father, because it is written that the Lord Himself said, _My Father is greater than I_. **But the** truth**shows that after the same sense the Son is less also than Himself; for how was He not made less also than Himself, who _emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant?_ **For He did not so take the form of a servant **as that He should lose the form of** God**, in which He was equal to the Father**. If, then, the form of a servant was so taken t**hat the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begotten** Son of God**the** Father**, in the form of God equal to the** Father, in the form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive **that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself?** And not, therefore, without cause the Scripture says both the one and the other, **both that the Son is equal to the** Father**, and that the Father is greater than the Son**. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as on account of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the form of a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the question through all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of an epistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended to us plainly enough. For he says, _Who, being in the form of_ God_, thought it not_ robbery_to be equal with_ God_; but emptied Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and was found in fashion as a_ man. The Son of God, then, is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in _fashion._ For _in the form of a servant_ which He took He is less than the Father; but _in the form of_ God, **in which also He was before He took the form of a servant, He is equal to the Father**. _In the form of God_ He is the Word, _by whom all things are made;_ but _in the form of a servant_ He was _made of a_ woman_, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law._ **In like manner,_in the form of God_ He made man**; _in the form of a servant_ He was made man. **_For if the Father alone had made man without the_** Son**_, it would not have been written,_Let us__** make**____** man**__in our image, after our likeness__**. Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, **both is God and both is man** ; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.\n\nBook 7\n\nChapter 6.— Why We Do Not in the Trinity Speak of One Person, and Three Essences. What He Ought to Believe Concerning the Trinity Who Does Not Receive What is Said Above. Man is Both After the Image, and is the Image of God\n\n11. But lest I should seem to favor ourselves [the Latins], let us make this further inquiry. Although they [the Greeks] also, if they pleased, as they call three substances three hypostases, so might call three persons three _prosopa_ , yet they preferred that word which, perhaps, was more in accordance with the usage of their language. For the case is the same with the word persons also; for to God it is not one thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutely the same thing. For if to be is said in respect to Himself, but person relatively; **in this way we should say three** persons**, the** Father**, Son, and** Holy Spirit**; just as we speak of three friends, or three relations, or three neighbors, in that they are so mutually, not that each one of them is so in respect to himself**. Wherefore any one of these is the friend of the other two, or the relation, or the neighbor, because these names have a relative signification. What then? Are we to call the Father the person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the Son the person of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the person of the Father and of the Son? But neither is the word person commonly so used in any case; nor in this Trinity, when we speak of the person of the Father, do we mean anything else than the substance of the Father. Wherefore, as the substance of the Father is the Father Himself, not as He is the Father, but as He is, so also the person of the Father is not anything else than the Father Himself; for He is called a person in respect to Himself, not in respect to the Son, or the Holy Spirit: just as He is called in respect to Himself both God and great, and good, and just, and anything else of the kind; and just as to Him to be is the same as to be God, or as to be great, or as to be good, so it is the same thing to Him to be, as to be a person. **Why, therefore, do we not call these three together one person, as one** essence**and one** God**, but say three** persons**, while we do not say three Gods or three essences; unless it be because we wish some one word to serve for that meaning whereby the Trinity is understood, that we might not be altogether silent, when asked, what three, while we confessed that they are three?** For if essence is the genus, and substance or person the species, as some think, then I must omit what I just now said, that they ought to be called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons; as three horses are called three horses, and the same are called three animals, **since horse is the species, animal the genus**. For in this case the species is not spoken of in the plural, and the genus in the singular, as if we were to say that three horses were one animal; **but as they are three horses by the special name, so they are three animals by the generic one**. But if they say that the name of substance or person does not signify species, but something singular and individual; so that any one is not so called a substance or person **as he is called a** man**, for man is common to all** men**, but in the same manner as he is called this or that man** , as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone else who, if present, could be pointed out with the finger: so will the same reason reach these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are called three individuals, so are they called three men, and three souls. Why then are both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, if we are to reason about them also according to genus and species and individual, not so called three essences, as they are called three substances or persons? But this, as I said, I pass over: but I do affirm, that if essence is a genus, then a single essence has no species; just as, because animal is a genus, a single animal has no species. **Therefore the** Father**, Son, and** Holy Spirit**are not three species of one** essence. But if essence is a species, as man is a species, but those are three which we call substances or persons, then they have the same species in common, in such way as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species which is called man; not as man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so can one man also be subdivided into several single men; for this is altogether impossible, since one man is already a single man. Why then is one essence subdivided into three substances or persons?\n\nFor if essence is a species, as man is, then one essence is as one man is: or do we, as we say that any three human beings of the same sex, of the same constitution of body, of the same mind, are one nature, — for they are three human beings, but one nature, — so also say in the Trinity three substances one essence, or three persons one substance or essence? But this is somehow a parallel case, since the ancients also who spoke Latin, before they had these terms, which have not long come into use, that is, essence or substance, used for them to say nature. We do not therefore use these terms according to genus or species, but as if according to a matter that is common and the same. Just as if three statues were made of the same gold, we should say three statues one gold, yet should neither call the gold genus, and the statues species; nor the gold species, and the statues individuals. For no species goes beyond its own individuals, so as to comprehend anything external to them. For when I define what man is, which is a specific name, every several man that exists is contained in the same individual definition, neither does anything belong to it which is not a man. But when I define gold, not statues alone, if they be gold, but rings also, and anything else that is made of gold, will belong to gold; and even if nothing were made of it, it would still be called gold; since, even if there were no gold statues, there will not therefore be no statues at all. Likewise no species goes beyond the definition of its genus. For when I define animal, since horse is a species of this genus, every horse is an animal; but every statue is not gold. So, although in the case of three golden statues we should rightly say three statues, one gold; yet we do not so say it, as to understand gold to be the genus, and the statues to be species. Therefore neither do we so call the Trinity three persons or substances, one essence and one God, as though three somethings subsisted out of one matter [leaving a remainder, _i. e._]; although whatever that is, it is unfolded in these three. **For there is nothing else of that** essence**besides the Trinity**. Yet we say three persons of the same essence, or three persons one essence; **_but we do not say three_** persons**__out of_ the same _**essence**, as though therein** essence**were one thing, and person another** , as we can say three statues out of the same gold; for there it is one thing to be gold, another to be statues. And when we say three men one nature, or three men of the same nature, **they also can be called three men _out of_ the same nature, since _out of_ the same nature there can be also three other such men. _But in that_** essence**_of the Trinity, in no way can any other person whatever exist _out of_ the same _**essence. Further, in these things, **one man is not as much as three men together; and two men are something more than one man: and in equal** statues**, three together amount to more of gold than each singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two**. **_But in God it is not so; for the_** Father**_, the_** Son**_, and the_** Holy Spirit**_together is not a greater_** essence**_than the Father alone or the Son alone; but these three substances or_** persons**_, if they must be so called, together are equal to each singly:_which the natural man does not comprehend__**. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulk and space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it were images of bodies flit about in his mind.\n\n12. **_And until he be purged from this uncleanness, let him_** believe**_in the_** Father**_, Son, and_** Holy Spirit**_, one_** God**_, alone, great,_** omnipotent**_, good, just, merciful, Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be worthily and_** truly**_said of Him in proportion to_** human**_capacity. And when he is told that the Father only is_** God**_, let him not separate from Him the Son or the_** Holy Spirit**_; for together with Him He is the only_** God**_, together with whom also He is_** one God**_; because, when we are told that the Son also is the only_** God**_, we must needs take it without any separation of the Father or the_** Holy Spirit. And let him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or better than, or in any respect differing from, another. **Yet not that the Father Himself is both Son and** Holy Spirit**, or whatever else each is singly called in relation to either of the others; as Word, which is not said except of the** Son**, or Gift, which is not said except of the** Holy Spirit. And on this account also they admit the plural number, as it is written in the Gospel, _I and my Father are one_. ** _He has both said _one,_ and _we are one,_ according to _**essence**_, because they are the same_** God**_;_we are_ , according to relation, because the one is Father, the other is Son_**. Sometimes also the unity of the essence is left unexpressed, and the relatives alone are mentioned in the plural number: _My Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him._ _We will come_ , and _we will make our abode_ , is the plural number, since it was said before, _I and my Father_ , that is, the Son and the Father, which terms are used relatively to one another. **_Sometimes the meaning is altogether latent, as in Genesis:_Let us make man after our image and likeness_. Both _let us make_ and _our_ is said in the plural, and ought not to be received except as of _**relatives. For it was not that gods might make, or make after the image and likeness of gods; **_but that the_** Father**_, and Son, and_** Holy Spirit**_might make after the image of the_** Father**_, and Son, and_** Holy Spirit**_, that man might subsist as the image of_** God**_. And God is the Trinity_**.\n\nBut because that image of God was not made altogether equal to Him, as being not born of Him, but created by Him; in order to signify this, he is in such way the image as that he is _after the image,_ that is, he is not made equal by parity, **but approaches to Him by a sort of likeness**. For approach to God is not by intervals of place, but by likeness, and withdrawal from Him is by unlikeness. For there are some who draw this distinction, **that they will have the Son to be the image, but man not to be the image, but _after the image_**. But the apostle refutes them, saying, _For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and_ glory_of_ God. **He did not say _after the image_ , but _the image_. And this image, since it is elsewhere spoken of as after the image, is not as if it were said relatively to the **Son**, who is the image equal to the Father;_otherwise he would not say _after our image_. For how _our_ , when the Son is the image of the Father alone? But man is said to be _after the image,_ on account, as we have said, of the inequality of the likeness; and therefore after _our_ image, that man might be THE IMAGE OF THE TRINITY; not equal to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the _**Father, but approaching to it, as has been said, by a certain likeness; just as nearness may in a sense be signified in things distant from each other, not in respect of place, but of a sort of imitation. For it is also said, _Be transformed by the renewing of your_ mind; to whom he likewise says, _Be therefore imitators of God as dear children_. For it is said to _the new man, which is renewed to the_ knowledge_of_ God_, after the image of Him that created him_. Or if we choose to admit the plural number, in order to meet the needs of argument, even putting aside relative terms, that so we may answer in one term when it is asked what three, and say three substances or three persons; then let no one think of any bulk or interval, or of any distance of howsoever little unlikeness, so that in the Trinity any should be understood to be even a little less than another, in whatsoever way one thing can be less than another: in order that there may be neither a confusion of persons, nor such a distinction as that there should be any inequality. **_And if this cannot be grasped by the understanding, let it be held by_** faith**_, until He shall dawn in the heart who says by the_** prophet**_,_If you will not__** believe**__, surely you shall not understand__**.\n\nBook 12\n\nChapter 6. — Why This Opinion is to Be Rejected.\n\n6. We do not therefore reject this opinion, because we fear to think of that holy and inviolable and unchangeable Love, as the spouse of God the Father, existing as it does from Him, but not as an offspring in order to beget the Word by which all things are made; but because divine Scripture evidently shows it to be false. For _God said, Let us_ make__ man_in our image, after our likeness_ ; and a little after it is said, _So God created man in the image of_ God. ** _Certainly, in that it is of the plural number, the word _our_ would not be rightly used if man were made in the image of one person, whether of the _**Father**_, or of the_** Son**_, or of the_** Holy Spirit**_; but because he was made IN THE IMAGE OF THE TRINITY, on that account it is said,_After our image__**. But again, lest we should think that three Gods were to be believed in the Trinity, **_whereas the same Trinity is_** one God**_, it is said_** , _So God created man in the image of_ God, instead of saying, _In His own image_.\n\n7. For such expressions are customary in the Scriptures; and yet some persons, **while maintaining the** Catholic**** faith**, do not carefully attend to them, in such wise that they think the words** , God_made man in the image of_ God, to mean that the Father made man after the image of the Son; **and they thus desire to assert that the Son also is called God in the** divine Scriptures**, as if there were not other most** true**and clear** proofs**wherein the Son is called not only** God**, but also the** true**God**. For while they aim at explaining another difficulty in this text, they become so entangled that they cannot extricate themselves. **For if the Father made man after the image of the** Son**, so that he is not the image of the** Father**, but of the** Son**, then the Son is unlike the Father. But if a** pious**** faith**teaches us, as it does, that the Son is like the Father after an equality of** essence**, then that which is made in the likeness of the Son must needs also be made in the likeness of the Father**. Further, if the Father made man not in His own image, but in the image of His Son, **_why does He not say,_Let us make man after Your image and likeness_ , whereas He does say, _our_ ; unless it be because the image of the Trinity was made in man, that in this way man should be the image of the one _**true**__** God**_, because the Trinity itself is the one_** true**_God?_** Such expressions are innumerable in the Scriptures, but it will suffice to have produced these. It is so said in the Psalms, _Salvation belongs unto the Lord; Your blessing is upon Your people_ ; as if the words were spoken to some one else, not to Him of whom it had been said, _Salvation belongs unto the Lord_. And again, _For by You_ , he says, _I shall be delivered from_ temptation_, and by hoping in my God I shall leap over the wall_ ; as if he said to some one else, _By You I shall be delivered from_ temptation. And again, _In the heart of the king's enemies; whereby the people fall under You_ ; as if he were to say, _in the heart of Your enemies_. For he had said to that King, **that is, to** our Lord Jesus Christ, _The people fall under You_ , whom he intended by the word King, when he said, _In the heart of the king's enemies_. Things of this kind are found more rarely in the New Testament. But yet the apostle says to the Romans, _Concerning His Son who was made to Him of the seed of_ David_according to the flesh, and declared to be the_ Son of God_with power, according to the spirit of_ holiness_, by the resurrection of the dead of_ Jesus Christ_our Lord_ ; as though he were speaking above of some one else. For what is meant by _the_ Son of God_declared by the resurrection of the dead of_ Jesus Christ, except of the same Jesus Christ who was declared to be Son of God with power? And as then in this passage, when we are told, _the_ Son of God_with power of_ Jesus Christ_,_ or _the_ Son of God_according to the spirit of_ holiness of Jesus Christ, or _the_ Son of God_by the resurrection of the dead_ of Jesus Christ, whereas it might have been expressed in the ordinary way, _In His own power, or according to the spirit of His own_ holiness, or _by the resurrection of His dead_ , or _of their dead_ : as, I say, we are not compelled to understand another person, but one and the same, that is, the person of the Son of God our Lord Jesus Christ; so, when we are told that God made man _in the image of_ God, although it might have been more usual to say, after _His own image_ , **_yet we are not compelled to understand any other person in the Trinity, but the one and selfsame Trinity itself, who is_** one God**_, and after whose image man is made_**.\n\nBook 14\n\nChapter 19.— John is Rather to Be Understood of Our Perfect Likeness with the Trinity in Life Eternal. Wisdom is Perfected in Happiness.\n\n25. But in respect to that image indeed, of which it is said, _Let us make man after our image and likeness_ , ** _we_** believe**_— and, after the utmost search we have been able to make, understand — that man was made after the image of the Trinity, because it is not said,_After my_ , or _After your image__**. And therefore that place too of the Apostle John must be understood rather according to this image, when he says, _We shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is_ ; because he spoke too of Him of whom he had said, _We are the sons of_ God. And the immortality of the flesh will be perfected in that moment of the resurrection, of which the Apostle Paul says, _In the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed_. For in that very twinkling of an eye, before the judgment, the spiritual body shall rise again in power, in incorruption, in glory, which is now sown a natural body in weakness, in corruption, in dishonor. But the image which is renewed in the spirit of the mind in the knowledge of God, not outwardly, but inwardly, from day to day, shall be perfected by that sight itself; which then after the judgment shall be face to face, but now makes progress as through a glass in an enigma. And we must understand it to be said on account of this perfection, that _we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is._ For this gift will be given to us at that time, when it shall have been said, _Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you_. For then will the ungodly be taken away, so that he shall not see the glory of the Lord, when those on the left hand shall go into eternal punishment, while those on the right go into life eternal. But _this is_ eternal_life,_ as the Truth tells us; _to_ know_You_ , He says, _the one_ true__ God_, and_ Jesus Christ_whom You have sent_.\n\n**Peter of Lombard**\n\n3. HE PLAINLY SHOWS THAT IN THE TRINITY THERE IS NEITHER SOLITUDE, NOR DIVERSITY, NOR SINGULARITY, BUT LIKENESS. Hilary too, in book 3, On the Trinity, says that by these words it is signified that in the Trinity there is neither diversity, nor singularity, nor solitude, but likeness and plurality or distinction, for he says: \"He who said _Let us make man in our image and likeness_ \" **shows that there are others similar to himself** , when he says _our image and likeness_. For an image does not exist in isolation and a likeness is not relative to self alone; **nor does the likeness of one to another allow any admixture of diversity in the two**.\"10\n\nAlso, the same [Hilary], in Book 4: \"He wished this expression to be understood more absolutely not to be referred to himself alone, by saying _Let us make man in our image and likeness_.11 The profession of partnership took away the notion of his singularity, for there cannot be a partnership in the case of a solitary; again, neither does the solitude of a solitary bear _Let us make_ , nor does one say _our_ of that which is extraneous to oneself. Each of these expressions, namely _Let us make_ and _our_ , does not allow that He be solitary and one and the same, nor does it signify another who is different from himself. _Let me make_ and _my_ suit a solitary; but it is suitable for one who is not a solitary to _say Let us make_ and _our_. **Each of these expressions indicates not only that he is not solitary, but also that he is neither different, nor diverse**. We must confess, then, that he is neither solitary, nor diverse. And so we find that God made man in an image and likeness common to himself and to God. It follows that the identification of a maker does not admit the notion of solitude, and the work of making that same image and likeness does not allow a diversity of the Godhead.\"12\n\n4. WHAT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THESE WORDS. In these words, Hilary wished the plurality of persons to be understood by the term 'partnership.' By this term of 'partnership' or plurality, he signified that something was being denied, not asserted. For when a plurality or partnership of persons is mentioned, solitude or singularity is negated. When we say that there are several persons, we mean that there is not only one. And so Hilary, in his desire to have these things understood subtly and soundly, says: \"The profession of partnership took away the notion of his singularity\"; he does not say: 'it posited something.' In the same way, when we speak of three persons, we take away the singularity and solitude. We then mean that the Father is not alone, nor is the Son alone, nor is the Holy Spirit alone, and that there not only the Father and the Son, nor only the Father and the Holy Spirit, nor only the Son and the Holy Spirit.–This will be treated more fully below,13 when it will also be shown how the three persons are said to be alike, and whether there is in any way a diversity or difference among them.\n\n5. HE RETURNS TO HIS EARLIER TOPIC IN ORDER TO PRODUCE SOME OTHER AUTHORITIES. Let us now return to our topic and adduce other authorities of the Saints to show the plurality of persons and the unity of the divine essence.– Moses says: _In the beginning God created heaven and earth_ ;14 by _God_ , he signifies the Father, and by _the beginning_ the Son. And what we term _God_ , the Hebrew truth calls _Elohim_ , which is the plural form of the singular _El_. The fact that _El_ , which means God, is not used, and _Elohim_ , which can be translated as gods or judges, is used instead, **is related to the plurality of persons**.– It pertains to the same point that the devil said through the serpent: _You shall be like gods_ ,15 for which in Hebrew _Elohim_ is used, as if to say: **You shall be like the divine persons**. _(The Sentences Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity (Mediaeval Sources in Translation)_ , translated by Giulio Silano [PIMS, 2007] pp. 14-15)\n\n**Further Reading**\n\nEarly Church on the Use of Plurals for God\n\nAnti-Trinitarians on the Use of Plurals",
"title": "Ambrose, Augustine, Peter of Lombard on Gen. 1:26",
"updatedAt": "2026-04-27T06:40:05.437Z"
}