The danger is imagined. I am saying nothing beyond the consensus of classical reformed thought on the passage. To respond to a few points in turn:
1. I have never said that the "image of God" in which man was created does not include man's role as "vice-regent" (clearly there is such a role, which is stated separately in the dominion mandate of Genesis 1.28); but it does not do justice to the passage to limit the meaning to this. As Calvin said in his commentary on this passage: "The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God's vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God."
2. In any event, the main topic was whether the words "our image" can be understood in a Trinitarian fashion, and I do not think that the interpretation of vice-regent vs. a wider interpretation of "image" really has much of a bearing on this question anyway. Regardless of how you understand the "image" in this verse, it is still "Let
us make man in
our image", so one is left with the question of why the plural is used.
3. In speaking about the attributes, I was obviously referring to man's capacity in relation to those things as distinct from animals, which is hardly novel. I was just responding directly to the assertion that reading Genesis 1.26 as a reference to the Trinity created the problem of requiring us to identify how we were made in the image of each separate person of the Trinity (e.g. the Holy Spirit). There is no such problem. While for these purposes I make no comment on whether there may be aspects of the divine imprint on man that relate to specific members of the Trinity, if you read all of the classical reformed commentators in expounding this verse, they focus on aspects of God that are common to all three persons of the Trinity. I have given a few examples below (with emphasis added) to illustrate the classical reformed consensus on this point. Some of these also directly refute the interpretation referred to in the opening post that God was speaking with the angels. With so many clear expositions out there, it is hardly needful for me to multiply words about it.
Clearly the doctrine of the Trinity does not rise or fall with Genesis 1.26. Nevertheless, as an early witness to this truth within the very first chapter of the Old Testament, it is helpful and worthy of being defended.
Matthew Henry:
"And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make him, but is pleased so to express himself as if he called a council to consider of the making of him:
Let us make man. 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. . . .
image and
likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the
express image of God's person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God's honour that is put upon man, who is God's image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king's impress upon the coin. God's image upon man consists in these three things:-1. In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his. . . . But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God's image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world.
The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority:
Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God's representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of God's image than his government of the creatures. 3.
In his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10. He was upright, Eccl. 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam. 3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen. 9:6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to God's service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!"
Matthew Poole:
"
The plurals us and our afford an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It is plain from many other texts, as well as from the nature and reason of the thing, that God alone is man’s Creator: the angels rejoiced at the work of creation, but only God wrought it, Job 38:4-7. And it is no less plain from this text, and from divers other places, that man had more Creators than one person: see
Job 35:10 John 1:2-3, &c.;
Hebrews 1:3. And as other texts assure us that there is but one God, so this shows that there are more persons in the Godhead; nor can that seeming contradiction of one and more being in the Godhead be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a plurality of persons in the unity of essence.
It is pretended that God here speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say: We will and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number,
2 Samuel 3:28,
1 Chronicles 21:17,
1 Chronicles 29:14,
2 Chronicles 2:6. And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea, even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as
Ezra 6:8, I (Darius) make a decree;
Ezra 7:21, I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary. It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery. Moreover, this device is utterly overthrown by comparing this text with
Genesis 3:22 . . .
Quest. Wherein doth the image of God in man consist?
Answ. 1.
It is in the whole man, both in the blessedness of his estate, and in his dominion over the rest of the creatures.
2. It shines forth even in the body, in the majesty of man’s countenance, and height of his stature, which is set towards heaven, when other creatures by their down-looks show the lowness and meanness of their nature, as even heathens have observed.
3.
It principally consists and most eminently appears in man’s soul.
1. I
n its nature and substance, as it is, like God, spiritual, invisible, immortal, &c.
2.
In its powers and faculties, reason or understanding, and freedom in its choice and actions.
3. I
n the singular endowments wherewith God hath adorned it, as knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, in which St. Paul chiefly placeth this image,
Ephesians 4:24 Colossians 3:10."
John Calvin:
"But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself.
The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser!
And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God?
Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him. . . .
The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God’s vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God. Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (
Colossians 3:10, and
Ephesians 4:23.)
That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee ; for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices.
In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order. But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin."
