Exegesis, Theology, and Ethics of the Imago Dei: A Comprehensive Analysis of Genesis 1:26-27
Introduction: The Anthropological Pivot of the Hexaemeron
The textual unit of Genesis 1:26-27 represents the theological epicenter of the biblical creation narrative, acting as the definitive pivot upon which Judeo-Christian anthropology turns. Having traversed the initial five days of the hexaemeron, wherein the creative fiat ("Let there be") ordered the cosmos through the separation of domains and the filling of environments, the Creator pauses. The narrative rhythm, previously marked by the impersonal command of elements, is suddenly interrupted by a moment of divine self-deliberation. The introduction of the human species—homo sapiens in biological taxonomy, Adam in theological nomenclature—is not merely an additive event in the sequence of biodiversity but constitutes a rupture in the ontological fabric of the created order.1
This passage asserts that humanity possesses a unique status, designated by the Latin term Imago Dei (Image of God). This concept has served as the metaphysical anchor for Western civilization’s understanding of human dignity, the foundation of universal human rights, and the source of profound ethical contention regarding gender, ecology, and technology. The text posits that the human being is a theo-morphic creature, designed to function as a visible representative of the invisible God within the cosmic temple of creation. Yet, despite its centrality, the text is laden with philological ambiguities and historical controversies. The shift from singular to plural syntax in the divine speech ("Let us make"), the precise semantic distinction (or lack thereof) between "image" and "likeness," and the immediate coupling of this status with sexual differentiation ("male and female") and coercive power ("subdue" and "rule") have generated a library of interpretation that spans three millennia.
This report provides an exhaustive analysis of these verses, traversing the linguistic terrain of Biblical Hebrew, the comparative mythology of the Ancient Near East (ANE), the reception history of Jewish and Christian thought, and the contemporary ethical challenges posed by the ecological crisis, disability studies, and the rise of artificial intelligence. It integrates philological rigor with systematic theological reflection, arguing that the Imago Dei is not a static property but a dynamic vocation that democratizes royal dignity while imposing a heavy burden of stewardship.
Part I: The Divine Deliberation and the Plurality of God
1.1 The Grammatical Anomaly: Na'aseh (Let Us Make)
The immediate shock of Genesis 1:26 lies in its grammar. Throughout the preceding verses, the subject of creation, Elohim, governs singular verbs (e.g., vayomer - "and He said"). However, at the precipice of creating humanity, the text shifts to the cohortative first-person plural: Na'aseh (נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה).2 This grammatical shift is unprecedented in the chapter and has demanded explanation from every generation of interpreters. The question "To whom is God speaking?" is not merely a grammatical curiosity but a theological crisis for strict monotheism.
1.1.1 The "Royal We" (Pluralis Majestatis)
A historically popular explanation, particularly in medieval Jewish scholarship, is the "Plural of Majesty." Proponents such as Saadia Gaon and Abraham Ibn Ezra argued that the plural form is a stylistic device used by monarchs to refer to themselves, emphasizing the totality of their power and the breadth of their dominion.3 In this reading, God speaks in the plural to reflect the fullness of His attributes and the gravity of the creative act He is about to undertake.4
However, modern philology has largely dismantled this view as anachronistic. Linguistic analysis of Biblical Hebrew reveals that the pluralis majestatis is a feature of later Hebrew and Aramaic dialects, and is not attested in the earliest strata of the Hebrew Bible or in contemporary Canaanite dialects.5 There are no examples in the Pentateuch of an earthly king using the "royal we".3 Consequently, while the concept of "majesty" is theologically consistent with the transcendence of Elohim, it is linguistically foreign to the author of Genesis 1.6 The "Royal We" appears to be a retrojection of later European and Byzantine court etiquette onto the Ancient Near Eastern text.5
1.1.2 The Divine Council (Sôd)
The consensus among critical scholars aligns with the "Divine Council" interpretation. This view situates the Genesis narrative within its native Ancient Near Eastern milieu, where the high god (such as El in Ugaritic texts or Marduk in Babylonian myths) presided over an assembly of lesser deities or celestial beings.7 Within the Hebrew Bible, this assembly is demythologized but retained as the "host of heaven" or the "sons of God" (bene elohim), who stand in attendance upon Yahweh (cf. Job 1:6, Psalm 82:1, 1 Kings 22:19, Isaiah 6:8).
In this framework, the "us" of "Let us make" is God addressing His heavenly court.8 He invites the angelic host to witness the creation of the terrestrial vice-regent. This interpretation is supported by Jewish Midrashic traditions, where rabbis argued that God consulted with the angels to demonstrate humility—teaching that the greater should consult with the lesser.9 Rashi, the preeminent medieval commentator, explicitly endorses this view, suggesting that God took counsel with His tribunal to avoid the jealousy of the angels toward the new creature.10
However, a critical theological nuance must be observed: while the deliberation is plural, the act is singular. Genesis 1:27 reverts immediately to the third-person singular: "So God created (vayivra) man in His own image".10 The text carefully avoids implying that angels were co-creators. They are the audience, not the architects. Humanity is made in the image of God, not in the image of angels.8 This careful grammatical choreography maintains the sovereignty of Yahweh while acknowledging the celestial community context of the ancient worldview.
1.1.3 The Trinitarian Possibility
From the Patristic era onward, Christian theology has predominantly interpreted the plural Na'aseh as an intra-divine dialogue between the Persons of the Trinity—the Father speaking to the Son (Logos) and the Spirit.1 The justification for this reading is canonical rather than strictly grammatical. Early theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian argued that since the New Testament identifies Christ as the agent of creation (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16) and the Spirit is seen hovering over the waters in Genesis 1:2, the "Us" is the most primitive revelation of God's tri-personal nature.11
While historical-critical scholars dismiss this as anachronistic—arguing that the human author of Genesis 1 (the "Priestly" writer) could not have held a Trinitarian dogma—systematic theologians argue for a sensus plenior (fuller sense). They posit that the text contains a surplus of meaning that divine authorship intends, even if the human author did not fully grasp it.11 Karl Barth famously reinterpreted this plurality not as a "committee" of three, but as evidence that God is essentially relational. God is not a lonely monad but has "otherness" within Himself; therefore, He creates a being (humanity) who is also structured for relationship ("male and female").12
1.2 The Polemic Against Polytheism
It is crucial to read Genesis 1:26 not only for what it affirms but for what it denies. In the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation epic, humanity is created from the blood of a slain rebel god (Kingu) to serve the pantheon as slaves, relieving the lesser gods of manual labor.13 The Babylonian "us" is a fractious, violent assembly of warring deities.
In stark contrast, the "us" of Genesis is peaceful and unified. There is no cosmic war, no slain deity, and no "blood of demons" in human veins. Humanity is not created to perform menial labor for a tired God (who "rests" only when the work is done), but to rule as God's representative.13 The plurality of Genesis 1:26 is thus a demythologized plurality—it retains the form of the heavenly court but strips it of polytheistic conflict, presenting a God who is sovereign and self-sufficient, inviting celestial witnesses to the coronation of His earthly regent.
Part II: The Metaphysics of Representation: Tselem and Demuth
The central assertion of the text—that humanity is made "in our image" (b'tsalmenu) and "according to our likeness" (kid'mutenu)—relies on two Hebrew nouns that are loaded with cultic and political significance.
2.1 Tselem: The Living Idol
The Hebrew word tselem (צֶלֶם) is derived from a root meaning "to cut," "to carve," or "to shade".14 In the overwhelming majority of its occurrences in the Old Testament, tselem refers to a physical object: a concrete, three-dimensional idol or statue representing a deity or a king (e.g., 2 Kings 11:18, Numbers 33:52).15
In the Ancient Near East, the cult statue was not merely a symbol; it was the site of the deity's presence. Through the mis pi (washing of the mouth) and pit pi (opening of the mouth) rituals, the statue was consecrated so that the spirit of the god would inhabit the wood or stone.14 The statue became the visible manifestation of the invisible god, mediating his rule and presence to the worshippers.
By applying this specific "idol-word" to humanity, the Genesis text performs a radical inversion of idolatry. It asserts that living human beings are the true cult statues of the Creator.16 God does not inhabit images of wood, stone, or gold; He images Himself through flesh and blood. This explains the logic of the Second Commandment (prohibiting graven images): one cannot make an image of God because God has already made His own image.14 To bow down to a statue is to denigrate the dignity of the human, who is the authentic bearer of the divine presence. The tselem is not a "soul" hidden inside a body; the whole human person is the image.18
2.2 Demuth: The Abstract Similitude
The second term, demuth (דְּמוּת), comes from the root damah, meaning "to be like" or "to resemble".14 While tselem is concrete and substantive, demuth is abstract and qualitative. It suggests a similarity in pattern or model.
Historically, theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian argued for a sharp distinction between the two terms. They posited that tselem referred to the indelible "structural" aspects of humanity (reason, freedom) that were retained after the Fall, while demuth referred to the "functional" or "moral" likeness (holiness, righteousness) that was lost through sin and must be restored by the Holy Spirit.19
However, modern exegetes largely reject this sharp distinction, viewing the phrase "in our image, according to our likeness" as a hendiadys—a figure of speech using two words to express one complex idea.20 This is confirmed by the interchangeability of the terms in later texts. In Genesis 5:1, only demuth is used; in Genesis 9:6, only tselem is used.21 If the demuth were lost at the Fall, Genesis 9:6 (post-Fall) could not base the prohibition of murder on the fact that man is made in the tselem of God.22
Nevertheless, the use of demuth serves a vital theological guardrail. It qualifies the meaning of tselem. If tselem implies "representation," demuth implies "similarity but not identity." Humans are like God, but they are not God. The likeness prevents the image from becoming an identity; it maintains the Creator-creature distinction.23
2.3 Prepositional Nuance: Be vs. Ke
The prepositions attached to these nouns are also significant. The text says be-tsalmenu ("in" our image) and ki-dmutenu ("according to" our likeness).
Beth essentiae: Some scholars argue the be in b'tsalmenu is a beth essentiae, meaning "as" rather than "in." Thus, the translation would be "Let us make man as our image." This strengthens the functional view: humans are the image, they do not merely contain it.24
According to: The kaf in kid'mutenu suggests a standard or pattern. We are modeled after the divine archetype. This anticipates the New Testament Christology where Christ is the eikon (Image) of the invisible God (Col 1:15), and humanity is created according to that pattern.
Part III: The Dominion Mandate: Philology of Power and Ecology
The immediate consequence of being created in the divine image is the conferral of power. The "Image of God" is not a static portrait to be admired but a royal commission to be enacted. Genesis 1:26 connects the being of the image directly to the doing of dominion: "and let them have dominion..."
3.1 The Vocabulary of Rule: Radah and Kabash
The Hebrew verbs used to describe this relationship with the non-human creation are undeniably forceful, leading to significant ethical debate.
3.1.1 Radah (To Rule)
The verb radah (רָדָה) appears in contexts of royal rule (Psalm 72:8, 110:2) and the authority of a master over a servant.25 It implies the exercise of sovereignty. However, in the biblical ideal of kingship, radah is not tyranny. Psalm 72 describes the king who "rules" (radah) as one who delivers the needy, saves the children of the poor, and crushes the oppressor. Thus, if human rule is to image God's rule, it must be characterized by justice and benevolence, not exploitation.25
3.1.2 Kabash (To Subdue)
The verb kabash (כָּבַשׁ) is even stronger. It is a military term often used for conquering territory (Joshua 18:1), enslaving captives (Jeremiah 34:11), or even sexual violation (Esther 7:8, though contexts differ).25 This word suggests that the earth, though "good," is not yet fully "ordered" or "tamed." It implies that the creation requires active human engagement to reach its potential.
This harsh terminology has led to the "Ecological Complaint" against Genesis. Yet, in the context of Genesis 1, where God acts to bring order out of tohu va-bohu (chaos/formlessness), kabash likely refers to the extension of the garden's order into the rest of the wild earth.27 It is a mandate for agriculture, civilization, and culture-making—harnessing the raw potential of nature for flourishing.28
3.2 The "Lynn White Thesis" and Ecological Crisis
In 1967, historian Lynn White Jr. published a seminal critique titled "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis," which placed the blame for environmental degradation squarely on Genesis 1:26-28.29 White argued that:
Dualism: Genesis separates humanity from nature, placing humans "over" creation rather than "in" it.
Desacralization: By destroying animism (the belief that spirits inhabit trees and rivers), biblical monotheism removed the "spiritual inhibitions" against exploiting nature.
Instrumentalism: The command to "subdue" authorized the view that nature exists solely to serve human needs.29
White’s thesis ignited the field of eco-theology. While acknowledging the historical complicity of Western Christendom in environmental destruction, theologians like Leonardo Boff and Francis Schaeffer have responded by recovering the concept of Stewardship.30 They argue that White conflated biblical theology with Enlightenment industrialism.
The Interpretation of Brotherhood: Boff argues for a "Franciscan" reading where dominion is reinterpreted through the lens of fraternity. Humans are the "older brothers" of creation, tasked with the "Cry of the Earth".30
The Agricultural Context: When Genesis 1:28 (radah/kabash) is read alongside Genesis 2:15 (where the human is put in the garden to abad [serve] and shamar [protect] it), the nature of dominion is clarified. It is a "serving-keeping" dominion, analogous to a shepherd or a gardener, not a strip-miner.31
3.3 Indigenous and Post-Colonial Critiques
Beyond ecology, the "Dominion Mandate" has a dark political history. Indigenous theologians and post-colonial scholars point out that European colonizers used the command to "subdue the earth" as theological justification for the Doctrine of Discovery.32 The logic was that since indigenous peoples were not "subduing" the land (i.e., not practicing European-style agriculture or privatization), they had forfeited their title to it, and it was the divine right of Europeans to seize and "tame" it.33
This critique demands a decolonized reading of Genesis 1. Indigenous theologians like George Tinker and Steven Newcomb argue for a shift from an "anthropocentric" view (humans at the top of the pyramid) to a "kinship" view (humans as part of the circle of life), which they find more resonant with the biblical wisdom literature (e.g., Job, Psalms) than with the imperial interpretation of Genesis 1.34
Table 1: Comparative Models of Dominion
Model
Biblical Key
Action
Relationship to Nature
Ethical Outcome
Despotic / Imperial
Kabash (Subdue)
Exploit, Conquer, Extract
Nature as object/slave
Ecological Crisis, Resource Depletion
Stewardship
Shamar (Keep)
Manage, Conserve, Utilize
Nature as property held in trust
Conservation, Sustainable Development
Kinship / Franciscan
Adamah (Earth-born)
Co-exist, Brother/Sister
Nature as sibling/family
Deep Ecology, Animal Rights, Integral Ecology
Part IV: The Sexual Bifurcation: Gender and the Relational Image
Genesis 1:27 introduces a poetic parallelism that is crucial for theological anthropology:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
4.1 The Plurality of Humanity
The text moves from the collective singular (adam / "him") to the differentiated plural ("them").35 This grammatical shift underscores that humanity is a unity-in-diversity. There is one human species (adam), but it exists concretely in two modalities: male and female.36 This formulation serves as a bulwark against androcentrism. Unlike the Genesis 2 narrative, which describes the woman being formed from the man (leading to historical arguments for subordination), Genesis 1 presents the simultaneous creation of both sexes. Both are equally the direct creation of God; both are equally recipients of the Imago Dei; both are equally commanded to exercise dominion.36 The dominion mandate is given to "them," not "him."
4.2 Karl Barth and the Analogia Relationis
The Swiss theologian Karl Barth revolutionized the understanding of this verse by linking the "image of God" directly to the "male and female" distinction. Barth argued against the traditional view that the image was a static "rational soul" hidden inside a genderless body. Instead, relying on the concept of Analogia Relationis (Analogy of Relation), he posited that God is inherently relational (Trinitarian).12
For Barth, the phrase "male and female he created them" is the exposition of "in our image." Just as God is "I and Thou" in His internal life, humanity is created to be "I and Thou" in the encounter between man and woman.12 The human cannot exist in isolation; to be human is to be in relationship with the "other," mirroring God's relationship with Himself and with creation.38 This view elevates gender from a mere biological necessity for reproduction to a theological sign of the covenant.
4.3 Feminist Hermeneutics and Phyllis Trible
Phyllis Trible, in her seminal rhetorical criticism, provides a corrective to centuries of patriarchal interpretation. Trible analyzes the word 'adam in Genesis 2, arguing it should be translated as "earth creature" (from adamah, earth) rather than "man" in the male sense. She contends that 'adam is undifferentiated/androgynous until the separation of the woman, at which point 'ish (man) and 'ishah (woman) emerge simultaneously.39
While Trible focuses on Genesis 2, her insights inform the reading of Genesis 1:27. The specification "male and female" implies that the full image of God is not found in the male alone, nor the female alone, but in the holistic existence of humanity which encompasses both.40 This challenges the Aristotelian and Thomistic view of the female as a "misbegotten male" or a lesser version of the human form.41 Trible argues that Genesis 1 represents the "original equality" that was marred by the Fall (Gen 3:16) but remains the creational ideal.39
4.4 Jewish Mysticism: The Androgynous Soul and Divine Union
The Zohar (the foundational text of Kabbalah) takes the male/female binary into the divine life itself. It speaks of the sephirot as having masculine (active/imparting) and feminine (passive/receiving) aspects. Specifically, the union of Tiferet (The Holy One, Blessed be He) and Malkhut (The Shekhinah) is the goal of cosmic restoration.42
In this mystical system, Genesis 1:27 is read as describing an originally androgynous Adam who was later separated. The verse "male and female he created them" refers to the dual-faced nature of the original soul. Consequently, human marriage is not just a social contract but a theurgic act. When a man and woman unite in holiness, they reconstitute the divine image and help unite the masculine and feminine aspects of God.42 This elevates the sexual relationship to a metaphysical sacrament, essential for the manifestation of the Imago Dei.
Part V: Historical Trajectories: The "Careers" of the Image
The history of theology has produced three primary models for understanding what constitutes the "image of God." These models are not necessarily mutually exclusive but represent shifting emphases across epochs.
5.1 The Substantive (Structural) View: The Intellectualist Tradition
For the first 1,500 years of Church history, the dominant view was Substantive. This model locates the imago Dei in specific ontological characteristics or capacities inherent to human nature—qualities that humans share with God but are absent in animals.43
Augustine's Psychological Analogy: Heavily influenced by Neoplatonism, Augustine sought the image of the Trinity within the human soul. He identified a tripartite structure—Memory, Intellect, and Will—that mirrors the Father, Son, and Spirit.44 For Augustine, the body was not part of the image; the image resided solely in the rational mind's ability to know and love God.45
Maimonides and the Intellect: The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides (Rambam) also championed a rigorous intellectualist view. In The Guide for the Perplexed, he argues that tselem refers strictly to the "divine intellect" bestowed upon man, distinguishing it from physical form.46 Since God has no body, the "image" cannot be physical. For Maimonides, the "likeness" is the intellectual apprehension of truth. The more one knows of metaphysics and God, the more one realizes the image.47
Aquinas and Superadded Grace: Thomas Aquinas synthesized Aristotle with Augustine, arguing that the image of God exists in three stages: (1) Creation (natural aptitude to know God), (2) Re-creation (knowing God through grace), and (3) Likeness (perfect knowledge in glory). For Aquinas, the image is primarily rational, but it requires the donum superadditum (superadded gift) of grace to function properly.48
Critique: The Substantive view risks dualism (elevating soul over body) and intellectualism (excluding infants or the cognitively impaired from full humanity). If the image is "reason," do those who lose their reason (dementia) lose the image?.49
5.2 The Functional (Royal) View: The Ancient Near Eastern Turn
In the 20th century, driven by ANE archaeological discoveries, biblical scholarship shifted toward a Functional view. This model argues that the imago Dei is not something humanity has (a soul), but something humanity does or is commissioned to be.43
Democratization of Kingship: In Egypt and Mesopotamia, the term "image of god" (tselem) was a royal title reserved for the Pharaoh or King. The king was the visible representative of the deity on earth, mediating divine rule.50 Genesis 1 effects a radical "democratization" of this royal ideology. Instead of a single monarch bearing the image, all of humanity (adam)—male and female, peasant and prince—is crowned with royal dignity.50
Vice-Regency: Being in the image means functioning as God's vice-regents. The presence of the "image" (humanity) in the cosmic temple (creation) signals who the true King is. Just as a conqueror sets up a statue to mark his territory, God places humans on earth to mark His dominion.50
5.3 The Relational View: The Personalist Turn
Associated with Neo-Orthodoxy and thinkers like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, the Relational view locates the image in the capacity for relationship.43
I-Thou: Rejection of the "solitary ego" of the Enlightenment. The image is found in the encounter. As God is a community of persons, the human person is defined by their orientation toward the other.
Brunner's Controversy: Emil Brunner argued that the "formal" image (capacity for language/responsibility) was retained after the Fall, but the "material" image (right relationship with God) was lost. Barth famously rejected this distinction with a resounding "Nein!", arguing that there is no "natural point of contact" for grace outside of revelation, though he later nuanced his view of the image as relational.51
Part VI: The Crisis of the Image: Bioethics, Disability, and AI
In the 21st century, the definition of the Imago Dei has moved from the lecture hall to the hospital and the laboratory. The boundaries of the human are being tested by biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
6.1 Disability Theology and the "Status" View
The traditional Substantive View (Image = Reason) faces a crisis when confronting profound cognitive disability. If being human means being rational, do those with severe dementia, microcephaly, or persistent vegetative states lose their humanity?
Hans Reinders and the "Alien Dignity": Theologian Hans Reinders, reflecting on friendship with the profoundly disabled, argues that the Imago Dei cannot be dependent on IQ or cognitive capacity. This pushes theology toward a Status or Heuristic view: The severely disabled bear the image not because of what they can do (function) or think (substance), but because of who God is toward them.52
The Relational Corrective: If the image is relational, does a person who cannot communicate (non-verbal autism) bear it? John Swinton argues that the relationship is initiated by God. The image is sustained by God's memory of the person, even when the person loses their memory of God or self.53 The church functions as the "prosthetic memory" for those who cannot remember, upholding their dignity as image-bearers.49
6.2 The Sanctity of Life: Abortion and Euthanasia
The Imago Dei is the primary theological argument against abortion and euthanasia in Christian ethics. If every human being, from conception to natural death, bears the stamp of the Divine, then human life is inviolable.54
The Unborn: The argument posits that the "image" is inherent to the biological species Homo sapiens from the beginning of its existence. It is not a developmental milestone achieved later (like self-awareness). Psalm 139 ("knit together in my mother's womb") is often read in conjunction with Genesis 1:27 to argue that the fetus is already an image-bearer.55
End of Life: In the debate over euthanasia, the Imago Dei implies that dignity is intrinsic, not extrinsic. Dignity is not lost through suffering, dependency, or loss of autonomy. The Judeo-Christian ethic argues that "dying with dignity" means being cared for as a person of value until the natural end, rather than accelerating death to avoid dependency.56 This stands in contrast to secular bioethics which often tie "personhood" to "sentience" or "autonomy".57
6.3 Artificial Intelligence: The Imitation Game
As AI demonstrates traits traditionally associated with the Imago Dei (reason, language, creativity), theology faces a new boundary question. Can a machine be an "imager"?
Simulated Personhood: AI can simulate the functional aspects of the image (calculating, governing, creating art). If the Functional view is the only standard, AI is encroaching on the image. However, theologians argue that AI lacks the Pneumatological dimension—the "breath of life" (nishmat chayim, Gen 2:7).58
The Ontological Boundary: AI is a product of human techne (making), not divine bara (creating). It is an "image of an image." The Imago Dei involves a vocation of covenantal response to God. AI can process data about God, but it cannot "know" God or "love" God in the covenantal sense.59
Transhumanism: The movement to merge humans with machines aims to "upgrade" humanity. Theological critiques suggest this is a reprise of the Genesis 3 temptation ("You shall be as gods"). It seeks to transcend creaturely limits (finitude, death) through technology rather than through union with God, rejecting the givenness of the human form as created "good".60
Table 2: The Imago Dei Across Ethical Frontiers
Ethical Issue
Substantive View (Reason) Challenge
Functional View (Role) Challenge
Relational/Status View Resolution
Abortion
Fetus lacks reason; might not be "person."
Fetus cannot yet "rule"; potential only.
Origin: Image is given at conception by God's call; intrinsic worth.
Dementia / PVS
Loss of reason implies loss of dignity?
Loss of function implies loss of worth?
Covenant: God remains faithful to the person; dignity is sustained by God.
AI / Robots
AI has high "reason"; might be "person"?
AI can "rule" systems; functional superior?
Nature: AI lacks biological/spiritual capacity for covenant/love.
Animal Rights
Some animals have high reason (apes/dolphins).
Animals do not have "dominion" mandate.
Hierarchy: Animals are "kin" (nephesh) but not "image"; distinct vocation.
Conclusion: The Democratization of Dignity
The exegesis of Genesis 1:26-27 reveals a text of revolutionary power that has shaped the moral imagination of the world. In a Late Bronze Age context dominated by the worship of statuary idols and the tyranny of god-kings, this Hebrew narrative dared to assert a radical counter-theology: The divine reflex is not found in gold statues or royal bloodlines, but in the face of every human being.
The text establishes a triangular reality: God, Humanity, and Nature.
Toward God, the human is a Child and Representative—bearing a resemblance that calls for intimacy and a responsibility that calls for obedience. The plural "Let us make" invites humanity into a cosmic complexity—a reality that is social, relational, and dynamic.
Toward the Self, the human is a Unity of Male and Female—an equality of dignity that defies patriarchal hierarchy and finds wholeness in community.
Toward Nature, the human is a Priest-King—commissioned not to exploit, but to order, till, and keep the garden of the world, exercising a dominion that mirrors the benevolence of the Creator.
Whether interpreted substantively as the capacity for reason, functionally as the commission to rule, or relationally as the call to communion, the Imago Dei remains the bedrock of Judeo-Christian ethics. It provides the only sufficient ground for the sanctity of life in an age of biotechnical utility, the only sufficient critique of ecological rapacity in an age of industrial exploitation, and the only sufficient affirmation of human uniqueness in an age of artificial intelligence. To be human is to stand as a representative of the Transcendent within the immanent world, bearing a likeness that calls for infinite respect and responsible action.
Works cited
What does it mean when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image” (Genesis 1:26)?, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/let-Us-make-man-in-Our-image.html
Excursus on Genesis 1:26 - Tetze Torah Ministries, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.tetzetorah.com/excursus-on-genesis-1-26
A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective - Jews for Jesus, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://jewsforjesus.org/learn/a-look-at-the-trinity-from-a-messianic-jewish-perspective
What is the majestic plural, and how is it used in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/majestic-plural.html
Trinity: "Plural of Majesty", "pluralis majestaticus", "singular of intensity", the "Royal we". - Bible.ca, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm
Interpretive Challenges in the OT #1: Genesis 1:26 | Josh Philpot, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://joshphilpot.com/2009/04/13/interpretive-problems-in-the-ot-1-genesis-126/
Is there a “Divine Council” in Genesis 1? - Reading the Old Testament, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://readingtheoldtestament.com/2023/12/11/is-there-a-divine-council-in-genesis-1/
Confused on genesis 1:26 : r/theology - Reddit, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/theology/comments/1ito8c3/confused_on_genesis_126/
Who was G‑d addressing when He said, "Let US create man in our image"? - Chabad.org, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/558595/jewish/Who-was-Gd-addressing-when-saying-Let-US-create-man.htm
What do Jews say about the Genesis 1:26 “Let US make mankind in OUR image”. Doesn't that make the case for the Trinity? : r/religion - Reddit, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/religion/comments/110t7ko/what_do_jews_say_about_the_genesis_126_let_us/
When Exegesis Forgets About Reality - The Gospel Coalition | Canada, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/detrinitate/when-exegesis-forgets-about-reality/
ORDINATION OF WOMEN IN THE THEOLOGY OF KARL BARTH by Jack J. Blanco - Adventist Archives, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.adventistarchives.org/ordination-of-women-in-the-theology-of-karl-barth.pdf
Three Ancient Near Eastern Creation Myths - Bible Archaeology Report, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/22/three-ancient-near-eastern-creation-myths/
What Does It Mean That We Are Created in God's Image? - Eternal Perspective Ministries, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/4/what-does-it-mean-we-are-created-gods-image/
Foundations: Studies in Bible Theology, accessed on November 23, 2025, http://biblefragrances.com/studies/WSimage.html
Image of God - Wikipedia, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God
Hebrew Words for Image & Likeness: Biblical Meaning Explained | AHRC, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-words/hebrew-words-for-image.htm
accessed on November 23, 2025, https://firstthoughtsofgod.com/2016/08/04/image-and-likeness-of-god-in-genesis-126/#:~:text=tselem%20indicates%20a%20%E2%80%9Cphysical%E2%80%9D%20image,idea%20of%20%E2%80%9Cacts%20like.%E2%80%9D
Image - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/I/image.html
Image and Likeness of God in Genesis 1:26 | First Thoughts, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://firstthoughtsofgod.com/2016/08/04/image-and-likeness-of-god-in-genesis-126/
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it." - Bible Hub, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://biblehub.com/genesis/1-26.htm
The Image of God in Gen 1:26-27 | Biblical Research Institute, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/articles/the-image-of-god-in-gen-1-26-27
The "Image" and "Likeness" of God (James 3) - Reese Commentaries, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://reesecommentaries.com/blogs/special-studies/the-image-and-likeness-of-god
AI, Human Uniqueness, and Public Policy: Why “Image of God” Still Matters in a Secular Age, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://providencemag.com/2025/11/ai-human-uniqueness-and-public-policy-why-image-of-god-still-matters-in-a-secular-age/
On the Interpretation of Four Hebrew Words: Radah, Kabash, Abad, Shamar, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://kgsvr.net/xn/discussion/radah2.html
accessed on November 23, 2025, https://jurnal.sttmarturiapalu.ac.id/index.php/jk/article/view/4#:~:text=This%20study%20examines%20the%20theological,for%20environmental%20stewardship%20and%20preservation.
Genesis 1:28, To “Subdue” and “Have Dominion Over” Creation | Poiesis Theou, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://christopherbrown.wordpress.com/2009/01/03/genesis-128-to-subdue-and-have-dominion-over-creation/
Rethinking Dominion in Genesis 1:27-28 - Christian Ethics Today, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://christianethicstoday.com/wp/rethinking-dominion-in-genesis-127-28/
Is Christianity to blame? | Beyond Stewardship - University of Exeter, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/projects/theology/beyondstewardship/topics/blame/
10. Cry of the Earth, cry of the poor - Augustinian Recollects, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://agustinosrecoletos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/10-cry-of-the-earth-cry-of-the-poor.pdf
A Biblical Perspective on Environmental Stewardship | Acton Institute, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.acton.org/public-policy/environmental-stewardship/theology-e/biblical-perspective-environmental-stewardship
Documenting Domination: From the Doctrine of Christian Discovery to Dominion Theology, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/12/1493
'Even the Stones Will Cry Out': Native American Cosmology, Theological Anthropology and the Mission of Creation | Studies in World Christianity, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/swc.2024.0457
An Indigenous Bible translation reframes Christianity's connection to nature | Fix - Grist, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://grist.org/fix/arts-culture/indigenous-bible-translation-reframes-christian-connection-to-nature/
Male and Female: Equality and Order in Genesis 1:27 - The Gospel Coalition | Australia, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/male-female-equality-order-genesis-127/
Are women made in the image of God? ⋆ Bnonn Tennant (the B is silent), accessed on November 23, 2025, https://bnonn.com/are-women-made-in-the-image-of-god/
The Quick Start Guide to Equality in Genesis | The Junia Project, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://juniaproject.com/quick-start-guide-to-equality-genesis/
Directed, ordered and related: The male and female interpersonal relation in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics | Scottish Journal of Theology | Cambridge Core, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/directed-ordered-and-related-the-male-and-female-interpersonal-relation-in-karl-barths-church-dogmatics/9C1588471BD853652A3B925166E06DBF
A Feminist Reader in Religion - Summer Study at Yale Divinity School, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://summerstudy.yale.edu/sites/default/files/02trible_genesis.pdf
Man as the Image of God - The Gospel Coalition, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/man-as-the-image-of-god/
The Human Person as Imago Dei: Christian and Jewish Perspectives - DORAS | DCU Research Repository, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://doras.dcu.ie/22482/1/Brigid%20Curtin.pdf
Zohar Commentary Notes: Bereshit, Chapter 14, Let us make man | by NJ Solomon, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://eyeofheaven.medium.com/zohar-commentary-notes-bereshit-chapter-14-let-us-make-man-6533f7923665
The Intelligent Design of Humans: The Meaning of the Imago Dei for Theological Anthropology, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.nobts.edu/about/institutional-effectiveness1/LemkeSW-files/PersonhoodETSpaper.pdf
The Imago Dei (Gen 1:26-27): a history of interpretation from Philo to the present, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1017-04992016000100014
The image of God and its implications for theology and the church, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://isaiasdoleo.com/blog/humanity/2021/08/03/the-image-of-god-and-its-implications-for-theology-and-the-church/
the guide of the perplexed, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://ia801505.us.archive.org/27/items/MAIMONIDESGUIDE_201901/MAIMONIDESGUIDE.pdf
More on the Image and Likeness in Moses Maimonides - Positive Infinity, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://vulcanhammer.org/2010/12/18/more-on-the-image-and-likeness-in-moses-maimonides/
Calvin's Teaching on the Image of God - Christian Study Library, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/calvin%E2%80%99s-teaching-image-god
The Limits of Human Flourishing: Reconstructing Theological Anthropology in Light of Cognitive Disability - Digital Commons @ DU, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=etd
How do you define the image of God? Is it Substantive, Functional, or Relational? Or is there a deeper definition that arises from the language of "image" and "likeness" in the scriptures? - Christ Over All, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/humans-the-image-and-likeness-of-god/
Barth–Brunner Revisited 4 | - Jason Goroncy, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://jasongoroncy.com/2006/06/05/barth%E2%80%93brunner-revisited-4/
Image and Likeness and Profound Cognitive Disability - Public Orthodoxy, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://publicorthodoxy.org/2019/07/02/image-likeness-cognitive-disabilities/
Disability, Anthropology, and Flourishing with God: A Kierkegaardian Account - MDPI, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/11/4/189
The Doctrine of Imago Dei and the Challenge of Euthanasia - Noyam Journals, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://noyam.org/?sdm_process_download=1&download_id=3185
The Imago Dei and the Fight for Life - Lifeway Voices, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://voices.lifeway.com/culture-current-events/the-imago-dei-and-the-fight-for-life/
The Doctrine of Imago Dei and the Challenge of Euthanasia - Noyam Journals, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://noyam.org/erats606202/
The sanctity of life: The role of purity in attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia - NIH, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10086843/
accessed on November 23, 2025, https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/10877#:~:text=Employing%20a%20systematic%20theological%20approach,cognitive%20functions%20or%20digital%20simulations.
(PDF) Imago Dei and artificial intelligence: A theological inquiry into personhood and human ontological boundaries - ResearchGate, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397759586_Imago_Dei_and_artificial_intelligence_A_theological_inquiry_into_personhood_and_human_ontological_boundaries
Imago DEI: Human Nature, Technology, and the Progress Dilemma, accessed on November 23, 2025, https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/imago-dei-human-nature-technology-and-the-progress-dilemma
