Gen 1:26 – ‘Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness”.’

Much has been made of the plural name for God here (‘Elohom‘) and of the expression ‘Let us make…’.  A number of interpretations have been proposed:-

Polytheism.  But modern commentators agree that Genesis 1 ‘is distinctly antimythological in its thrust, explicitly rejecting ancient Near Eastern views of creation. Thus modern commentators are quite agreed that Gen 1:26 could never have been taken by the author of this chapter in a polytheistic sense.’ (Wenham)

The plural of majesty or intensity (as with the royal ‘we’).  This was the view of Keil, Dillmann, and Driver.  But this is not well attested in Hebrew.  Barnes notes:

‘Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, “I have dreamed a dream” (Gen. 41:15). Nebuchadnezzar, “I have dreamed” (Dan. 2:3). Darius the Mede, “I make a decree” (Dan. 6:26). Cyrus, “The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth” (Ezra 1:2). Darius, “I make a decree” (Ezra 6:8). We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King.’

Goldingay (Student Questions on the Pentateuch, online) thinks that the ‘us’ is

‘perhaps God and his aides, but more likely this is the “royal plural”—the way someone important can talk.  We don’t know, but whatever the answer, the point is to emphasize the importance of this particular act of creation—it required special deliberation.  (It’s not the Trinity—at least, that’s not what God was wanting to communicate to the people for whom he inspired the story, because they didn’t know about the Trinity.  Indeed, does the Trinity ever speak as “us”?  Of course God was Trinity at creation, but the awareness of that had to await the coming of Jesus and the giving of the Spirit.)’

Among modern commentators, Matthews agrees that this approach is flawed,

‘since the point of the verse is the unique correspondence between God and man, not the majesty of God.’

The plural of superlative, suggesting that

‘the referent sums up all the conditions, qualities, and attributes inherent in the idea denoted by the stem. That is, ‘elohim is the fullness of all one expects of an ‘el. Other abstract plurals function in the same way: Abraham is Eleazar’s ‘adomim because he embodies all the best qualities of “master” or “lord” (Gen 24:9), and our eyes look to the Lord our God just as servants look to the hand of their “masters” (Psa 123:2).  Yahweh is ‘adonai, an archaic plural of ‘adon, “lord” or “master” (Gen 15:2, 8; Exod 4:10, 13; Josh 3:11, 13; 2 Sam 7:18-22; etc.): “Lords Yahweh.”’ (Peter Leithart)

The plural of self-deliberation, ‘depicting God anthropomorphically as someone in contemplation’ (Matthews).  Gregory of Nyssa regarded this as the language of deliberation, adding, ‘This same language was not used for (the creation) of other things. The command was simple when light was created; God said, “let there be light.”…For humans, there was deliberation…See how worthy you are! Your origins are not in an imperative. Instead, God deliberated about the best way to bring to life a creation worthy of honor.’.  This is the view of many recent commentators, including Westermann.  Matthews suggests that ‘this is supported by the change to the singular (“his own image”) in v. 27, which indicates that the figure of “deliberation” is completed. In ancient myths divine deliberation prefaces the creation of humans.  Self-deliberation is attested in the Old Testament (e.g., Pss 42:5, 11; 43:5), but there is no attestation that the plural form is used in this way.’  In Gen 18:17, God’s self-deliberation is singular (“Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?”).

Angels, constituting the ‘divine council’, as indicated in 1 King 22:19–22; Job 1:6–12; Isa 6:8, and in some of the psalms.  On the close association of angels with the wonderful works of God, see Job 38:4,7; Lk 2:13f.  This was the view of Philo and of Jewish commentators generally.  A number of modern commentators, including Wenham,  incline to this view.

Matthews notes that ‘a difficulty with this view is the inclusion of angels in the phrase “our image” in Gen 1:26. In what sense is the human being created in the image of angels?’  Matthews adds that ‘the overriding problem with this view is that there has been no mention of an angelic court in chap. 1, and the text is clear that mankind is made in God’s image (“his image,” v. 27).’  Furthermore, as Peter Leithart observes,

‘After using the plural “Let us make,” the narrator describes the execution of the plan with singular verbs: “God (‘elohim) created man in his own image (betzalmo), in the image of God he created (bara’) him; male and female he created (bara’) them” (1:27).’

Thus,

‘Genesis 1:26 reveals more explicitly what we suspect from 1:1: That the Creator is somehow plural, somehow capable of being speaker to himself as other, somehow capable of being an “us” or a “we,” while remaining a “he.”’

Relationship.  Hess, while agreeing that the plural of majesty may be intended here, nevertheless thinks that something more is implied.  He notes that there is no other plural reference to God in Gen 1-10.  ‘As God is somehow plural in relationship, so the created ʾadam is to enjoy the relationships that come from plurality. Although this is potentially true of all creatures, with ʾadam it becomes especially significant. In this way the reference anticipates the story of Genesis 2 and the harmony between the man and the woman.’

The Trinity.  This has been the traditional view of Christian commentators.  They note that the very fact that God addresses himself supposes an inner distinction in God which is explained elsewhere by mention of the Spirit (Gen 1:2). Accordingly, it is suggested that we see here the first glimmerings of a trinitarian revelation.  This view goes back at least as far as Peter Lombard.

The Italian Reformer Zanchius found in the Shema evidence of the Trinity, because it uses Elohim in the context of a firm confession of the oneness of Israel’s God.  Leithart summarises this view:

‘Israel confesses “that Jehovah is one, although we teach that there are plural and distinct Elohim.” The Shema provides the “sum of this doctrine, [that] there is only one true and eternal God – truly distinguished three Elohim or ‘persons,’ Father, Son and Holy Spirit: of which each is God, Jehovah, such that there are not many Jehovahs, but they are all simultaneously only one Jehovah.” Since, Zanchi thinks, “Jehovah” derives from the Hebrew verb “is,” it signifies the single being of God, while ‘elohim points to the plurality of hypostases.’

The credibility of this view is strengthened by a consideration of 1 Cor 8:1-6 (which may be regarded as a reflection on the Shema.  In a world where there are many gods and lords, for us there is only one God and one Lord.  Leithart notes that

‘The Septuagint of the Shema confesses the oneness of both theos (God) and kurios (Lord, Yahweh), but Paul splits the terms: The Father is the “one God” and Jesus is the “one Lord.” Paul places Jesus “at the heart” of the Jewish confession of the one God, confessing a “Christological monotheism.”’

So the Puritan Thomas Watson:

‘It is the manner of artificers to be more than ordinarily accurate when they are about their masterpieces. Man was to be the masterpiece of this visible world, therefore God consulted about making so rare a piece. A solemn council of the sacred persons in the Trinity was called. “Let us make man, and let us make him in our own image.” On the king’s coin his own image or effigy is stamped; so God stamped his image on man, and made him partaker of many divine qualities.’

Matthew Henry:

‘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.’  So also Barnes.

The Kostenbergers:

‘Most likely…the reference is to a plurality within the Godhead (“ Let us make man”) issuing in a plurality in humanity, male and female (“male and female he created them”).’ (God’s Design for Man and Woman)

The Orthodox Study Bible notes:

‘The pronouns “Us” and “Our” reveal a plurality of divine Persons. These Persons are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit operating in complete unity out of the one divine Nature.’

Wenham, however, says that ‘it is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author,’  adding that this interpretation loses much of its force if ‘רוח’ is translated ‘wind’ in Gen 1:2.  However, he accepts a reference to Christ as the sensus plenior of the passage, noting that ‘certainly the NT sees Christ as active in creation with the Father, and this provided the foundation for the early Church to develop a trinitarian interpretation. But such insights were certainly beyond the horizon of the editor of Genesis.’  Matthews adopts a similar interpretation.