Reflections Shaped by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks and Old Testament Scholarship
Introduction
I’ve recently been reading Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ work on the Hebrew understanding of remembering (zakhar) and history. His reflections on how Jewish identity has survived thousands of years—often without land, king, or nation—have deeply influenced how I approached Genesis 1:26 this week.
The phrase “Let us make humankind in our image…” becomes especially striking when we remember who Genesis was written for: a community of ex-slaves, refugees from Egypt, discovering a new identity under one God.
Who Was Genesis Written For?
Genesis addressed a particular people:
- Families linked through shared lineage
- Refugees liberated from Egyptian domination
- A monotheistic community in a polytheistic world
- A nation without land, king or political identity
To these people, the plural “us…our” would have carried profound implications.
Exploring the “Us…Our”: Insights from the Commentaries
Hamilton’s Six Possibilities
Hamilton outlines six potential explanations:
- A reference to surrounding polytheistic cultures
- A heavenly court
- God addressing creation itself
- The “royal we”
- God speaking to himself/themselves
- A proto-trinitarian conversation between God and the Spirit
Hamilton does not commit to any one view, but importantly he argues that the author is not “too primitive” to conceive of unity-within-plurality.
McKeown’s Contribution
McKeown narrows the options to:
- The royal “we”
- A heavenly court
- A proto-trinitarian reading
He rejects any notion of polytheism and leans toward the proto-trinitarian option, supported by Cline’s argument that the Spirit functions as “another person within the divine being.”
Walton’s Approach
Walton places his focus not on “us…our” but on “image” and “likeness.”
His deep engagement with Ancient Near Eastern culture is valuable, but on this particular question it sidesteps the nuances that Hamilton and McKeown explore.
Which Interpretation Makes the Most Sense?
As a 21st-century Christian, I naturally lean toward the proto-trinitarian interpretation. But beyond my bias, this interpretation speaks powerfully into Israel’s historical context.
These refugees had just escaped a god-king, slavery, and the polytheistic worldview of Egypt. They were being offered a completely new identity:
“You are not slaves.
You are my representatives.
You bear my image.
You share in my work.”
This gives them:
- Identity – bearing God’s image
- Authority – acting as God’s representatives
- Purpose – taking part in ordering creation
And without land of their own, they are given a vocation for the whole world.
Wrestling With “Subdue” and “Rule”
The terms subdue, dominion, and rule can feel uncomfortable. Today they often imply exploitation or excessive power—exactly what the Israelites had endured.
A covenantal lens offers a different approach: leadership defined by service.
Jesus’ words frame this beautifully:
“Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.”
—Matthew 20:26; Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26
Israel’s calling was not domination, but stewardship.
“In” the Image, Not “Of” the Image
A key insight this week has been the difference between:
Being created in the image
and
Being created of the image
- “Of” implies possession or servitude—echoes of Pharaoh.
- “In” implies relationship, participation, and shared purpose.
This resonates with Jesus’ prayer in John 17:
“May they be in us, just as I am in you…”
Israel’s calling was deeply countercultural.
Even Sabbath rest testified to this: in the ANE world only kings rested, yet Israel’s God gave rest to everyone—foreigners, servants, even animals.
This was a revolution of identity.
Memory, Identity, and “Zakhar”
Goldingay brought me back to the Hebrew verb zakhar — to remember.
Rabbi Sacks notes that Hebrew had no word for “history” until the 1800s; what Israel was commanded to do was remember—169 times in the Old Testament.
“History asks, ‘What happened?’
Memory asks, ‘Who am I?’” —Sacks
Genesis 1:26 is not distant information.
It is identity-forming memory.
It is something that, in some sense, “happened to us.”
No wonder the Psalmist marvels:
“What are mortals that you are mindful of them?”
This week’s study has been a genuine zakhar moment for me—
a purposeful act of remembering that would not have happened by chance.
Conclusion
The plural “us…our” in Genesis 1:26 is more than a linguistic puzzle.
It is part of a profound affirmation: humanity—every person—is created in God’s image, invited into God’s work, and given dignity not through land or power but through identity in God.
For Israel, and for us, this passage is a call to remember who we really are.
re:Connect 
Leave a comment