Almost all Jewish people know the Shema, the cardinal prayer of Judaism: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” Since God is one, the Christian idea that God is three-in-one, a “Trinity,” is un-Jewish. It’s counter to the essence of the Jewish faith—and in fact, belief in a Trinity runs the danger of making a mockery of Jewish martyrs who died with the Shema on their lips. Jews are monotheists, not tri-theists. Judaism teaches that God is not three.

In his seminal book, The Bodies of God, Jewish Theological Seminary professor Benjamin Sommer wrote:

This study forces a reevaluation of a common Jewish attitude toward Christianity. Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. What I have attempted to point out here is that biblical Israel knew very similar doctrines, and these doctrines did not disappear from Judaism after the biblical period….

The only significant theological difference between Judaism and Christianity lies not in the trinity or in the incarnation but in Christianity’s revival of the notion of a dying and rising God, a category ancient Israel clearly rejects [emphasis added]. ¹

The “dying and rising God” is a topic for another day. Our point is that Jewish scholarship increasingly understands that Judaism in the Second Temple Period—the time of Jesus—allowed for a kind of multiplicity within the one God of Israel.

The unity that dares not speak its name?

Judaism generally continues to argue vigorously against the idea that the God of Israel could come to us in human flesh. This, as we are told, is contrary to what Judaism teaches. The views of Sommer and others may be more and more commonplace in academia, but they have yet to filter down to JCC classes and rabbinic pulpits.

What Judaism teaches is neither static nor monolithic.

But what does it mean to say that “Judaism teaches?” For Judaism does not speak with one voice. The fact is that what Judaism teaches is neither static nor monolithic. We need only look at the diversity in today’s Jewish community, where Reform vies with Modern Orthodox, Haredi, JUBUs and other kinds of “being Jewish.” This means that phrases such as “Judaism teaches” or “our tradition says” are relative. Which Judaism? Whose tradition? Such phrases do not mean “this was, is, and always will be the one and only Jewish viewpoint.” They are used to shore up boundary lines between communities. “Judaism teaches” becomes a way not to express truth but to explain why Jews need to remain on the “Jewish team.”

The Judaism of the Tanakh and the Judaism of the medieval period differ greatly. As a case in point, the Shema has not always been a proclamation of God’s numerically indivisible unity. In the days of the Bible, it was more understood to mean that God was unique, that there was no other god like him. Not until much later, in the time of Maimonides, did it become understood as a numerically indivisible oneness—and that happened under the influence of Aristotle on medieval Jewish philosophy.

When it comes to God’s oneness as articulated in the Shema, ancient sages found that they needed to wrestle with how certain portions of the Tanakh squared with the idea of God as one. The Shema (which begins with Deuteronomy 6:4) is only one such passage. Isaiah 6:8, for instance, also raises questions: “Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?’” (emphasis added).

However, the very first biblical passage that raises questions about the nature of God’s unity appears near the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures: “And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26; emphasis added).²

God is seemingly referring to himself in the plural. How can that be, when we know there is only one God? That is why this verse has generated much discussion in rabbinic circles.

Option 1: Genesis 1:26 should be translated differently

Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on this verse, mentioned those who translated “let us make” differently. Here is what he says:

LET US MAKE MAN. Some are of the opinion that na’aseh (let us make) is a nifal participle and is to be compared to the same word in Now that which was prepared (na’aseh) for one day (Neh. 5:18). They further say that in our image, after our likeness are the words of Moses.³

A nifal is a passive tense verb. The verb in Genesis 1:26 could be read either way without altering the text. So, the verse could be read as, “Let a man be made.” What about the words “our image” and “our likeness?” This—say the commentors with whom Ibn Ezra disagrees—is Moses talking, not God. In our image means “in the image of human beings.” Ibn Ezra goes on to refute this interpretation for several reasons, and his opponents’ explanation has not gained advocacy.

Option 2: Gen. 1:26 describes God speaking to creation

This was the view of medieval commentators David Kimchi and Moses Maimonides. They accepted the Talmudic interpretation of a certain Rabbi Yehoshua who explained that God was speaking to creation.

“And God said: Let us make Man”—with whom did He consult? Rabbi Yehoshua said in the name of Rabbi Levi: He consulted with the works of the heavens and the earth. This is analogous to a king who had two members of his council and he would not do anything without their knowledge.⁴

R. Yehoshua, reasoning from the plural pronouns, concluded that God was seeking advice and approval from his own creation.

Similarly, according to Ramban (Nachmanides), the plural reference denotes God speaking to the earth:

But in the case of man He said, Let us make, that is, I and the aforementioned earth, let us make man, the earth to bring forth the body from its elements as it did with cattle and beasts, as it is written, And the Eternal G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and He, blessed be He, to give the spirit from His mouth, the Supreme One, as it is written, And He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. He said, In our image, and after our likeness, as man will then be similar to both. In the capacity of his body, he will be similar to the earth from which he was taken, and in spirit he will be similar to the higher beings …⁵

Option 3: Gen. 1:26 describes God speaking to the angels around his throne

Commentator Gordon Wenham notes that, “From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels.”⁶

As an example, Rashi explains that God chose to demonstrate humility by consulting his inferiors:

WE WILL MAKE MAN—The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they (the Rabbis) learned from here: because the man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore He took counsel with them…. Although they did not assist Him in forming him (the man) and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel (i. e. to argue in favour of their own views), yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, “I shall make man”, we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself.⁷

Option 4: Gen. 1:26 describes God speaking to the souls of the righteous unborn

Another Jewish tradition states that the souls of the righteous existed before God created the world and were present at Mount Sinai for the receiving of the Torah. This tradition comes from linking Genesis 1:26 with 1 Chronicles 4:23, which says, “they dwelt there in the king’s service”—or more literally, “with the king in his work they lived there.” The “work” would be the work of creation.

“They dwelled there with the king for his works” (I Chronicles 4:23)—“with the king,” the King of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, “they dwelled,” [referring to] the souls of the righteous, [“for his works”], as the Holy One blessed be He consulted them when creating the world.⁸

Option 5: Gen. 1:26 describes God keeping his own counsel

Others rebutted the suggestion that God had any partners in creation, as shown by the fact that Adam was not created till the end of the creation period. In this quote, regular typeface indicates words added by the translator to clarify the bolded original.

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:7): Adam the first man was created on Shabbat eve at the close of the six days of Creation. And for what reason was this so? So that the heretics will not be able to say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, had a partner, i.e., Adam, in the acts of Creation.⁹

Though the logic may not seem watertight to us, the idea is that God timed the creation of Adam to eliminate any partners whatsoever from participating in creation.

If God was not speaking to anyone else, then it seemed to some that the plural pronoun of Genesis 1:26 was a “plural of deliberation,” expressing God’s pondering within himself, concentrating his thoughts and meditating over his decision, much as we might say, “I debated with myself” whether to do such-and-such.

Rabbi Ami said: He consulted with His heart. This is analogous to a king who built a palace through the services of an architect, but it was not pleasing for him. At whom should he be angry? Is it not the architect? This is a rhetorical question. That is, “He was saddened in His heart” (Genesis 6:6).¹⁰

After all, several passages in Scripture describe a person deliberating by “consulting” some part of himself. In Psalm 42:6 (v. 5 in English), the psalmist addresses his soul: “Why so downcast, my soul, why disquieted within me?” Why not here as well?

Option 6: Gen. 1:26 describes God using the “royal we,” or the “plural of majesty”

Queen Victoria was supposed to have referred to herself in the plural in the phrase, “We are not amused.” Some think that God, as a majestic being, also referred to himself the same way.

The first-person plural is used for a single person in the book of Ezra, the sole example of a “plural of majesty” in Scripture, if we can even call it that, because Ezra was not a king.¹¹ “Now the letter that you wrote me [literally, us] has been read to me [singular] in translation” (Ezra 4:18). Even in this verse, we go immediately back to the singular.

Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Genesis 1:26, writes:

The Gaon [i.e. the early medieval philosopher Saadia Gaon] also says that the word na’aseh (let us make) has the meaning of the singular even though it is in the plural because it is the plural of majesty.¹²

Ibn Ezra mentions several verses that Saadia cites to prove that this is the case but rejects them as not proving the point.

Option 7: Gen. 1:26 refers to different aspects within God’s being

Jewish tradition has sometimes acknowledged different aspects within God’s nature. For example, the Zohar (the “Bible” of medieval Kabbalah or Jewish mysticism) describes God as existing in ten sefirot or emanations.

Where do we go from here?

Some rabbis agreed that the Genesis 1:26 passage could give weight to the argument for God’s plurality made by “heretics.”

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: When Moses was writing the Torah, and was writing what was made on each day, when he reached this verse: “And God said: Let us make Man in our image, in our likeness”—he said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, why do you provide the heretics with basis for a claim? This is bewildering.’ He said to him: ‘Just write, and if someone wants to err, let him err.’¹³

Given the history of Jewish-Christian relations, most of the traditional explanations of Genesis 1:26 were likely intended to refute belief in a plurality within God, or at least they could function that way. But sometimes, these explanations seemed less than adequate.

Rabbi Samlai said [moreover]: Everywhere you find a basis for a claim of the heretics, you find a refutation alongside it. They asked him further, saying to him: ‘What is this that is written: “Let us make Man in our image, in our likeness”?’¹⁴ He said to them: ‘Read what is written thereafter: God created [vayivre’u]¹⁵ man in their image is not stated, but rather, “God created [vayivra]¹⁶ man in His image,”’ (Genesis 1:27). After they left, his students said to him: ‘Rabbi, those men you pushed off with a reed. What would you respond to us?’¹⁷

In other words, Rabbi Simlai’s explanation came across to his students as more ad hominem than a satisfying way of handling the text.

God’s plurality even in unity was part of the belief system of the day.

As noted earlier, recent Jewish scholarship has demonstrated that some kind of plurality within God is found in ancient Jewish texts. God’s plurality even in unity was not just acceptable but was part of the belief system of the day.

Can Genesis 1:26 prove that God is a plurality in unity? No—it would take other, later texts in the Tanakh, as well as the New Testament, to offer more robust evidence. This verse certainly corresponds with such a view, though, and the great variety of interpretations by Jewish tradition tells us that the verse indeed posed a problem. Genesis 1:26 invites us to consider whether there is more than meets the eye to God’s unity.

Endnotes

1 Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2009), 135–136.

2 All quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures are from JPS Tanakh: A New Translation of The Holy Scriptures according to the Traditional Hebrew Text (Jewish Publication Society, 1985), unless otherwise stated.

3 “Genesis 1:26 with Ibn Ezra,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

4 “Bereshit Rabbah 8:3,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

5 Charles B. Chavel (Shilo Pub. House, 1971–1976), quoted in “Ramban on Genesis 1:26,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

6 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15: Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 27, Kindle edition.

7 M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann (London, 1929–1934), quoted in “Rashi on Genesis 1:26,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

8 “Bereshit Rabbah 8:7,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

9 The William Davidson Talmud, quoted in “Sanhedrin 38a,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

10 “Bereshit Rabbah 8:3,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

11 J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, (Oxford University Press, 1940), 11.

12 H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver (Menorah Pub., 1988–2004), quoted in “Ibn Ezra on Genesis 1:26,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

13 “Bereshit Rabbah 8:8,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.

14 In other words, why does it say “our,” implying plurality?

15 The plural form.

16 The singular form.

17 “Bereshit Rabbah 8:9,” Sefaria, accessed October 4, 2025.