Doesn't the Trinitarian reading of Genesis 1:26 violate hermeneutical principles?

TL;DR

Doesn't the Trinitarian reading of Genesis 1:26 violate hermeneutical principles?

No, but answering "no" requires understanding how Bible exegetes and Christian theologians do their work. So the next section below describe (very briefly) some of the hermeneutical principles as well as the theological principles that Trinitarians use. I disagree that they "rarely mention"; you just need to know where to look: the Prolegomena section of any modern Systematic Theology books or the Introduction chapter of scholarly books on the Trinity where they disclose the methods they use to interpret the OT and NT.

Having said that, there is a debate whether we can legitimately read Gen 1:26 in a Trinitarian way, which I addressed in the 2nd section below, by examining a blog article by Dr. Scott Swain.

About Trinitarian use of the Bible

Your question is best answered by this 2020 article Is the Trinity in Genesis 1 by Dr. Scott Swain, a Reformed Systematic Theology professor. While he wouldn't have the same level of exegetical expertise as Old Testament specialists like Dr. John Walton (who popularized the "Cultural River" theory as the proper lens to interpret various Old Testament books) or Dr. Michael Heiser (who studied the "Divine Council" in the Ancient Near East context as the background of enigmatic verses like Ps 82:1 and Job 1:6), Dr. Swain (as a systematic theologian) still provides a responsible reading of Genesis as a Christian text rather than as only a Jewish text.

Please note that Dr. Swain, like other modern conservative 20th-21st century Christian theologians (i.e., those who affirm that the Biblical canon is divinely inspired and infallible), use a three level process:

1. historical exegesis to uncover how the original author and the original audience would have understood the text
2. NT theological interpretation done by NT authors in using OT texts in a new way
3. post-NT theological interpretation done by systematic theologians to further see the hidden and fuller Christian truths beyond what NT authors themselves explicitly asserted in the NT texts, but which they believe are useful for Christians to understand our faith more fully (part of the project of faith seeking understanding).

Therefore, what Dr. Swain is doing is level 3 reading on top of the exegetical work done by OT scholars for the level 1 but also consistent with the implicit hermeneutical principles that NT authors themselves used (level 2), which are various Christian-specific typologies. In so doing, we do full justice that OT is an ancient text that God (in his wisdom) chooses to reveal more to a later audience, in light of Jesus, his teaching, and his own interpretation of OT texts, which came down to us partially through the NT texts.

Please note that level 3 reading is NOT infallible because it is derivative from level 2 which IS infallible and inspired. Since NT authors did not explicitly interpret "us" in Gen 1:26 as referring to the Trinity, we cannot use that interpretation in support of Trinity the way NT texts (such as John 1:1-18) do. Instead, Trinitarian Christian scholars today follow how Paul, John, and other NT authors would have understood more fully the nature of God as Trinitarian by respectfully studying the NT authors' prophetic understanding through a careful exegesis of NT texts by taking into account their thought world, textual convention, word meanings, and the purpose of their gospels and letters. The result is a theological work such as this 2022 book The Trinity: On the Nature and Mystery of the One God (a level 3 work) which includes a story of how the early church fathers carefully restated the level 2 work in proposition forms to counter various heresies simply to preserve monotheism as well as the full nature of Christ (i.e. the early church fathers did NOT add anything to NT texts, just restating). So the Trinitarian statement about God in the Nicene creed and the Christological definition in the Chalcedonian are ALSO level 3 works, BUT considered dogmatic to preserve the right reading of NT. This is because in reality there are so many "wrong" way to read NT, even today in modern times (JW, LDS, Unitarian, etc.).

How to resolve the dispute on competing readings? The first principle is always to go back to NT for the authoritative information about the nature of God and Jesus. The above mentioned book's focus is to counter modern theology's way of understanding Trinity in historical terms (influenced by Karl Rahner) by arguing how Aquinas's theology as Immanent Communion of Persons is more faithful to the New Testament. NOTE: I did a full search on the book and I cannot find any reference to Gen 1:26 to support the Trinity, only a single passing mention of the "image of God" in us (emphasis mine) in page 56 in Chapter 3 (The Revelation of the One God in Israel), settle "Kinds of Names: Poetic Metaphors, Proper Analogies, and Personal Names". This is to support my earlier assertion in the comments that Trinitarian theologians (at least modern ones) do not use Gen 1:26 as support for building the doctrine of the Trinity. Quote from pages 55-56 below:

...

Meanwhile, there are other terms ascribed to God that clearly are meant to evoke the truth about who God is in himself, as distinct from his creation. Here we are speaking of names given to God that signify literally what he is in himself, without metaphor. For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 affirms that God is one. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” This is said not poetically but “properly,” by analogy. The unity that pertains to the God of Israel is distinct from that of any other created thing, and indeed any other “god,” for he is unique in nature in a wholly higher and numinous way, proper to him in his transcendence. Likewise, the bible speaks of God as unique in being. God alone gives being to all things as Creator and receives being from no one (Ex 3:14–15; Is 45:5–13; Ps 102:24–25). His existence is unlike ours then, since everything depends upon him and is his gift. Again, God is somehow simpler than the created realities we experience, since he is not a composite physical body and cannot be depicted by images (Ex 20:4; Dt 4:15–16, 5:8). ... He is personal, and can freely disclose his hidden identity. However, we must attribute personal identity to him analogically, since he is not a created person. Rather, we are made in his image (Ezek 1:26; Gn 1:26–28; Wis 2:23). God’s actions reveal him as one who is just and merciful, wise and loving (Ex 34:6–7). He is all-powerful or omnipotent ( Jer 32:17; Ru 1:20; Jb 24:1). ...

...

Example of a theological reading of Gen 1:26: not as support, but as presence

This lecture notes show 4 Key Trinitarian Possibilities in the Opening Chapters of Genesis (a level 3 reading), which include the Pros (thread of Trinity) and Cons (tangled theorem) of Gen 1:1, Gen 1:2, Gen 1:26 & 3:22 & 11:7, and Gen 3:15.

Dr. Swain proposes a (level 3) reading of seeing Trinity in Gen 1:26, in opposition to Dr. John Walton's (level 3) reading based on his own ANE-informed level 1 historical exegesis. Below is a sample Pros level 3 reading by Dr. Swain to illustrate how a systematic theologian can (still) responsibly argue for a Trinitarian (level 3) reading. Notice how he does NOT use this reading to argue for the Trinity, but merely to show precursors of the definitive revelation of the Trinity in the NT.

He started with a systematic theology principle (level 3), which is NOT competing with a hermeneutical principle (level 1 and 2) but COMPLEMENTARY to it:

Is the Trinity in Genesis 1? The answer is a straightforward “yes.” Because God is Father, Son, and Spirit yesterday, today, and forever, the holy Trinity is present on every page of holy Scripture, including Genesis 1.

Though affirming the presence of the Trinity on every page of Scripture is easy, discerning the mode of the Trinity’s presence in various passages of Scripture is more complicated. If older readers of Genesis 1 were more likely to fall prey to overinterpretation (seeing more of the Trinity than a particular passage attests), contemporary readers are more likely to fall prey to underinterpretation (seeing less of the Trinity than a particular passage attests).

Then he talks about his theological principle to use the relationship between level 1 and level 2 process the way he sees it (emphasis mine):

Hidden Presence in the Old Testament

We begin with the larger question of how the Trinity is present in the Old Testament. According to Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard, the Trinity is present in Genesis 1 “in a manner of revelation appropriate to that time.”

The self-revelation of the Trinity in Scripture unfolds according to a twofold economy. There is that which comes before Jesus’s appearance in the flesh (the self-revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament) and that which comes after Jesus’s appearance in the flesh (the self-revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament). The contrast between these two forms of revelation is not absolute. It’s not that the Trinity is absent in the Old Testament and present in the New Testament. The contrast is relative. Both testaments are modes of the Trinity’s presence, but they are different modes of the Trinity’s presence. The Trinity is “hidden” in the Old Testament and “manifest” in the New.

The presence of the Trinity in the Old Testament, like a treasure hidden in a field (Matt. 13:44; Col. 2:2–3), is a “hidden presence,” one we can only fully appreciate in light of the Trinity’s “manifest presence” in the New.

Then he goes into more detail on how he appropriates some level 1 exegesis in support of his (level 3) systematic theology principle where the Trinity is present in Genesis 1 in a hidden way, concluding that the reading is only justified by the fuller NT revelation (level 2):

Hidden Presence in Genesis 1

With this clarification in place, we’re better prepared to address our question: how is the Trinity present in Genesis 1 “in a manner of revelation appropriate to that time”? Genesis 1 exhibits at least three traces of the Trinity’s hidden presence. These traces provide essential building blocks for the full edifice of Trinitarian revelation manifest in the New Testament.

1. Genesis 1 exhibits several instances of subject-verb disagreement.

...

2. Genesis 1 includes God’s Word and Spirit within God’s singular agency.

...

3. What about those plurals?

As noted above, Genesis 1 repeatedly identifies God by the plural noun “Elohim.” Some biblical commentators have taken this plural noun as an indication of God’s tripersonal fullness. Still others have taken God’s plural self-address in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”) as an indication that the work of creation is the work of one God in three persons. Are these plural forms also signs of the Trinity’s hidden presence? Let’s focus on Genesis 1:26.

God’s plural self-address in Genesis 1:26 is sometimes explained as an example of the so-called “royal we,” an idiomatic expression whereby a king addresses himself in plural form. Others see it as an example of God addressing the heavenly assembly of angels (Job 1:6; 2:1). Both explanations are unlikely. The first lacks evidence of being an idiomatic expression in the Ancient Near East. The second contradicts the overarching message of Genesis 1 and Scripture as a whole. When it comes to God’s work of creating, God does not enlist the help of angels, which at best serve as an accompanying chorus (Job 38:7). God alone acts by means of his singular, sovereign agency: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself” (Isa. 44:24).

What, then, should we make of the riddle of God’s plural self-address in Genesis 1:26? As Robert Jenson somewhere observes, God’s Word and Spirit are the only candidates Genesis 1 actually presents as potential objects of God’s plural self-address in Genesis 1:26. This observation notwithstanding, a conclusive judgment remains difficult to reach.

The difficulty of arriving at conclusive judgments when interpreting Old Testament revelation of the Trinity should not surprise us—and need not bother us—if we are sensitive to the twofold economy of scriptural revelation of the Trinity. The riddles of Old Testament revelation of the Trinity are only resolved by New Testament revelation of the Trinity.

...

The question somewhat conflates the purposes of hermeneutics with goal of interpretation.

"Try to find the original writer's intentions when he wrote the biblical text"

In his paper "Knowing the Biblical Author's Intention: The problem of Distanciation" (Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology 19.2 2000) Yoilah K. Yilpet asserts that determining the intent of a Biblical author is the proper goal of interpretation and not a rule of hermeneutics:

First of all, we must acknowledge the existence of an author when reading a text. Somebody has to create a text. We must also acknowledge that most texts reflect an author's desire to communicate. A text represents an author's will to communicate. We have an obligation to honour a human being's desire to communicate. By denying the importance of the authoc we betray the lack of concern to hearing the author's viewpoint. I would dare to say that denying the importance of the author is verging on intellectual arrogance. not wanting to know anything about that person's cultural milieu. As Hirsch maintains that literary theories and emphases in interpretation reflect 'ethical choices' We must decide what should be the 'goals of interpretation' and in making the decision 'we have to enter the realm of ethics'. Interpretation is never innocent of ethical motives and goals. For Hirsch the issue is clear:

those who choose to ignore authorial intention are guilty of a vicious type of intellectual domination. To treat an author's words merely as grist for one's mill is ethically analogous to using another man merely for one's own purposes.

When we engage a text 'solipsistically', we in effect manipulate and abuse the intentions of another person. Thus, the first issue to be considered is the question of the goal of interpretation. The task of hermeneutics should be to delineate the proper goal of interpretation. Following Hirsch's ethical argument above. I believe the goal of interpretation must be the author's intended meaning in the text. We must seek to understand what the biblical text meant to a person living in that historical and cultural context. The priority should be for determining the original author's intended meaning which is the true core of biblical interpretation.

Hermeneutic principles are brought to bear in establishing and approaching that interpretive goal but the goal itself (determining the original author's intent) is not an hermeneutic rule.

• Yoilah K. Yilpet is presently a lecturer in the Department of Religious Studies in the University of Jos, Nigeria, and also serves as a priest in the Anglican Church, Jos Diocese, N1geria. He eamed a B.Sc. (Hons) in chemistry from Ahmadu Bello University, Za ria, Nigeria in 1982; the M.Div. and Ph.D. from Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois, in 1990 and 1997 respectively.

Why do trinitarians rarely mention the hermeneutical principles which have led them to this belief?

Stack Exchange Biblical Hermeneutics has extensive archives regarding the hermeneutical analysis of many scriptures which have a bearing on this subject.

What are the hermeneutical principles that support the trinitarian view?

Again, SE-BH will demonstrate a wide variety of hermeneutical techniques applied to that analysis.

The common trinitarian interpretation of this verse is that it proves the Old testament taught the trinity doctrine.

I do not know of anyone who asserts exactly that wording, in relation to Genesis 1:26, but analysis of the Hebrew word אֱלֹהִ֔ים (Elohim, God) indicates a collective noun and analysis of the Hebrew word נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (naaseh, let us make) indicates a first person common plural. This has doctrinal implications.

Yet it breaks a basic rule of Bible interpretation: "Try to find the original writer's intentions when he wrote the biblical text".

It is well nigh impossible to find out the intentions of an author. The correct procedure is to examine, hermeneutically, the words the author used. Many people will claim to have some insight into the intentions of writers. This is sheer supposition. All we have are the words they uttered.

From what I have researched, trinitarians break this rule and several other basic rules of biblical Interpretation.

We need to see that research, point by point. Here, a question may be asked and may be supported by specific research. This will have to be repeated, question by question, point by point. And then we will be able to see your entire argument from the research you have done, after we are able to examine its various points supporting your various questions covering the whole subject in a systematic way.

Alternatively, you could study our archives and see how the various arguments have been analysed on both SE-Christianity and SE- Biblical Hermeneutics over the past twelve years.

Simply asking questions which have already been dealt with is unprofitable, as duplicate questions will be closed as they appear.

The Tour and the Help (see below, bottom left) fully explain how the sites work and how best to bring subjects to the attention of other users.