The most likely explanation for the plurality in Gen 1:26 is that God, the lone speaker, is announcing to the members of his heavenly host, his divine council (Psa 82; 89:5-8), his intention to create humankind. This perspective has strong ancient precedent since “From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court” (Wenham, 27).

As humans, we use this sort of language with regularity. A mother could announce to her family, “let’s make dinner”—and then proceed to do so herself, for their benefit, without their involvement in the event. This is more coherent than a mere rhetorical self-reference since it involves the audience, though without necessarily requiring their active participation. This is also the most coherent explanation for the other plurality language we have touched upon (Gen 11:7; Isa 6:8). God among his heavenly host is a familiar biblical description (Deut 33:1-2; Psa 68:17; 1 Kings 22:19-23).

This option raises the questions as to whether angels were also created in the image of God and whether angels took part in the work of man’s creation. These objections are not substantial. First, the text is clear, by virtue of the grammatically singular verbs of creation in Gen 1:26-27 that the angels did not participate in the creation of humankind. The singular suffix (“so God created humankind in his image”) makes that point as well. There is no contradiction if “let us create” is taken as an announcement of the single creator to a group. The answer to the second issue is that angelic beings are also divine imagers—representatives of their Creator (the actual meaning of the “image of God” by virtue of a point of Hebrew grammar, about which I won’t bore the readership).

In gen 11:7 the cohortative (“let us go down”) is the same context as Gen 1:26 – a singular entity speaking to a group. How do we know? Two ways: (1) In the preceding verse, 11:6, we read “Yahweh said” – the verb is singular, third masc. singular – and Yahweh is ONE being (there’s nothing about y-h-w-h that smacks of plurality). (2) In 11:8, the verse immediately following, we have “and Yahweh dispersed…” – again, Yahweh is one entity and the verb form is third masculine singular.

I really don’t know what else the writer could have done to make it any clearer (in terms of Hebrew grammar and syntax).

Regarding the Anunnaki note – are you alluding to Job 38?

Where in Gen 1:26 is there a denial of angels (this is nothing but an argument from silence – there is no denial in the text).

I don’t think his support is good at all. There is no “let us” in Gen 3:22, so that is no parallel to Gen 1:26. There is “one of us” in Gen 3:22 – a preposition + suffix. Same with Isaiah 6 – there is no cohortative, only preposition + suffix (“for us”). Both passages are quite in concert with the divine council view; you don’t need a Trinity for that language (and the real problem with affirming a Trinity here is that you’d get into serious doctrinal trouble in other passages – like Psalm 82 – where plurality language occurs).

Re: Annunaki I wonder if they shouted for joy:)

Side note – I was reading a book on the Trinity and the author was arguing that Gen. 1:26 supports the Trinity. One of his arguments was the denial of “angels” anywhere in the verses and the “fact” that angels were not created in the image of God an so man can’t have two images. I know! he has no concept of DC (one image shared). But what I found surprising is that in two of his “let us” references (Gen.3:22; and Is. 6:1-8) the other was Gen.11:1-7; there were Cherubim and Saraphim. Nice contexual proof/support.

Sorry for going on but I am a Info-Squirrel. Love to stuff my face with information.

“We will make” (indicative) doesn’t justify Smith’s notion for the simple fact that when the creating takes place, the verb is singular. Since it is singular, the context is set up more readily for a cohortative.

Regarding ‘shrth at Kuntillet Ajrud (and Khirbet el-Qom), the reading itself proves nothing (it’s still hotly debated among scholars). My view is that of Rick Hess: the word should be translated “Asheratah” not “Asherah” but it is still a reference to the goddess Asherah. So what does this prove? Only that there was some sort of offshoot Yahwistic religion who held Yahweh had a consort. This isn’t the Yahwism of the Bible, where the Hebrew doesn’t even have a word for goddess! (Elohim in masculine plural construct is used for “goddess of …” phrases). The Bible tells us explicitly that Yahweh was worshipped in incorrect (pagan) ways – read the material on Jereboam – it couldn’t be clearer. So … this is no surprise, and has nothing to do with Genesis 1:26. There are no theogonic texts in the Hebrew Bible (where everything is created via a god and goddess’ cohabitation). This absence reflects orthodox Yahwism, and proves as well that the Ajrud belief was off-center and aberrant (compared to the Bible).