Imago Deī: A Study on Genesis 1:26-27

Introduction:

"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," (Genesis 1:26-27). Within the Bible, there exists no greater admonition of God's institution of humanity over all creation and the Fall that comes subsequently than this integral pair of verses. God has bestowed unto every living being prior a likeness, a purpose, and a domain, culminating with humanity as the priestly "heirs" above it all; however, what does this passage mean within the greater context of its chapter, book, and the overall biblical narrative? How should the modern believer live in light of this instrumental truth? In the corpus of the biblical text, Genesis 1:26-27 explores not only the intriguing polemical implications and iterative functions of humans throughout the Old and New Testaments but also how humanity ought to reflect the "image of God" through the Bible.

Historical-Cultural Context:

To begin an intensive study of Genesis, one should recognize the creation account's presence within the Ancient Near East and the accompanying stories that attempt to explain humanity's origins. In fact, the English term itself derives from the Greek translation of the Pentateuch and means "origin," an incredibly fitting title (Alexander, 2008, p. 38). In Hebrew, the term "bereshit" or "בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית", translating to "in the beginning," adopts the title of the book. Traditional authorship of this book has been ascribed to Moses; yet, 17th-century scholarly criticism has raised concerns about a "Deuteronomistic source" that altered certain aspects of the biblical text (Scullion, 1992, p. 943). For instance, the place names of "Dan" and "Ur of the Chaldeans" are post-Mosaic elements likely amended to the original text by an outside editor or “priestly” source (Baden, 2012, p. 11). The book, from this contemporary view, would have been composed over a long period of time and finalized by the fifth century B.C. While it is true that certain Hebrew elements have been somewhat modernized, this is to be anticipated in a sacred text preserved for the instruction of later generations (Alexander, 2008, p. 38). Just as historical texts notably feature new additions or updates in light of the changing times, so does the core of the biblical message remain, but the archaic language and now-defunct locations require revisions. In assuming Moses as the author of the rest of the Pentateuch, expressly noted in Numbers 33:2 and Deuteronomy 31:24, the whole compository breadth of Genesis must fall on him as well (Hendel, 1992, p. 935).  

As they were written to the Jewish people, these great stories of faith resonating through Genesis would have been passed down through word-of-mouth, since the gap between Moses and the patriarchs is significant. Traditional scholarship places the dating between 1450 and 1410 B.C, while other dates in the 12th, 10th, 9th, 6th, 5th, and even 3rd centuries abound from present textual criticism (Jones & Barbeau, 2016, p. 3). For instance, many scholars affirm the presence of the Yahwistic source in writing Genesis, "The traditionally defined Documentary Hypothesis, J is responsible for laying the basic narrative framework for the Pentateuch and, therefore, the book of Genesis," (Anderson, 2016). Regardless, these stories were told to a culture of Jewish people who reminisced and celebrated the victories and promises of Yahweh, and the parallels present in Genesis, such as the flood with the Atrahasis and Gilgamesh epics c. 1600 B.C. and the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 with the Sumerian King List c. 1900 B.C. confirm their historicity (Hendel, 1992, p. 937).

Literary Context:

The author's flow of thought within the book of Genesis traces meaning through an unfaithful people which God uses for His own will and purpose, resounding throughout the Pentateuch. Genesis 1:26-27 is located squarely between God's five preceding days of creation, forming and filling, and the seventh day, along with humanity's placement within the Garden of Eden (Schnittjer, 2006, p. 55). Not only does this passage encompass the climax of creation, a covenant people designated to "fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen 1:28), but also finalizes with the recognition that "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). Throughout Genesis 2, we will see man's creation, borne from the clay of the earth, and his betrayal of God in Genesis 3. However, it is on Genesis 1:26-27 that the rest of the Bible hinges as humanity was made in the image of God, the institutes for holiness and becoming more godly are that much more consumed and intertwined within their formation (Alexander, 2008, p. 39). In addition, we see the whole of Genesis 1 functioning as a literary polemic against other Ancient Near Eastern creation stories, as if to say this one is true above all others. For instance, while the Enuma Elish tale features a creation account riddled with violence, destruction, war, and death, the undertones of the biblical creation are love, grace, and unmerited power (Anderson, 2016). Mankind is not just "good," it is "very good," and that is precisely why God attempts to persistently work through their sin, imbibed with sloth; betrayal; and trickery, to achieve His will. The rest of the Old Testament and the New Testament operate through this framework of the “image of God,” further extrapolated as humanity’s deeds stretch out and reach their inevitable conclusions (Anderson, 2016).

Man: “In our image”

“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26a). Man, translated "adam" or "אָדָ֛ם" in Hebrew, bears striking resemblance to the first man mentioned in Genesis 3:17 as well as the material from which he was formed (Fox, 1995, p. 27). The Hebrew word for man is the generic term for the whole of humanity and later becomes the proper term Adam (Hastings, 1976, p. 45). This instructional command on its face seems to make no sense; for how can an intangible being make something tangibly known in its likeness? Yet, one must preface the reading with an acknowledgment of subtle contrasts with God’s earlier acts. For instance, while the verse opens with the typological “Then God said,” what follows is a personal, first-person action rather than a third-person passive (Heiser, 2016). While every other creative aspect opens with the adverbial “Let there be” or “Let the waters/earth,” the account of man’s creation sees the use of “Let us make” (Zondervan, 2009, p. 31).

Further, instead of the previous narrative structure of living beings made “according to their kinds” in Genesis 1:21, male and female are not made with these same qualities in mind (Walton et al., 2000, p. 27). Rather, they are made in “God’s image,” sharing a physical, spiritual, or relational aspect with God. They are not just like themselves; they are also like God (Heiser, 2016). Man was created in the "image" (selem) and "likeness" (demut) of God (Miller, 1972, p. 291). There exists significant dispute over the precise expression “image of God” (Hamilton, 1990, p. 30). Scholars point out the concept, commonly used in the ancient Near East, of a king representative of the deity, ruling on behalf of the god (Zondervan, 2009, p. 31). For both man and woman in the creation account, Genesis 1:28 is additionally filled with this imagery as both are to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

However, the specific note of “our” similarly raises several questions. Humans are special creatures, made in the image of God. This word is similarly seen in Genesis 3:22. Yet, the use of our to denote God implies a plurality. Pluralis majestatis refers to the use of a plural word, referring honorifically to a single person or entity. It is also called the "plural of respect," the "honorific plural," the "plural of excellence," or the "plural of intensity" (Beckman, 2013). In the Hebrew Bible, such plural forms are most commonly used when referring to the God of Israel, such as " אֲדוֹנִ֣ים אָנִי֩," or “I am a master” (Mal 1:6), although it can also be used when referring to a human (Beckman, 2013). Other scholars, such as Levenson (2004), suggest God's enthronement in the presence of "lesser" spiritual beings (p. 14). While some would infer members of God’s holy court, whom the Old Testament calls “sons of God” (Job 1:6) and the New Testament calls angels, there is no indication that man is made in the image of these angelic beings (Alexander, 2008, p. 51). 

In addition, angels had no participation in the creation of human beings (Walton et al., 2000, p. 29). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (2009) suggests a framework of the Trinity under modern scholarship. The singulars “in his own image” and “the image of God” make it evident that the Bible is not referring to a literal multitude of people. Rather, this would make an admonition of God’s “kingly” status, just as a great ruler in the Ancient Near East might have referred to himself in the plural. The qualification of this fact means that the notion of multiple creatures referenced in verse 26 is not the angels, an intentional refutation. Hastings (1976) describes that “The Hebrew, when he wanted to speak of anything majestic, spoke in the plural, not in the singular. . . He spoke of “heavens,” not of heaven. . . In the same way he spoke of Gods, yet meaning only one” (p. 47). In addition, it would be greatly presumptive to assume Moses had a Trinitarian conceptualization of God in his Jewish, monotheistic mindset (Hamilton, 1990, p. 47). Thus, it is best to assume this recognition of “our” as a purely relational or polemic literary term.

To a greater extent, the writing behind the “image of God” also poses several interpretive questions. Jones and Barbeau (2016) describe how “Not only does Genesis 1:26-27 hold pride of place, with the rest of Genesis 1, as the introduction to the Bible, but it also describes the creation of the first humans in relation to God himself using the unexpected terms image (ṣelem) and likeness (dəmût) (p. 1). According to Hamilton (1990), “The basic phrase “the image of God” is found only four times in the OT: Gen. 1:26, 27 (twice); 9:6” (p. 46). Occurring about 34 times throughout the Bible, this term "image" likely refers to a specific resemblance or even an “idol” of God (Zondervan, 2009, p. 32). Humanity’s very conception is imbued with this “image,” which translates the Hebrew word "צלם" or "tselem" in the OT and the Greek word "εικων" or "ikon" in the NT (Middleton, 2005, p. 105). In the OT, "צלם", is used of idols (Num 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1 Sam 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan 3:1-3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18), and two-dimensional painted or carved images upon a wall (Ezek 23:14) (Beckman, 2013). In the NT, "εικων" is used for the engraving of a human face upon a coin (Matt 22:20), idols (Rom 1:23), or a visible representation of the beast (Rev 13:14, 15; 14:9, 19; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) (Zondervan, 2009, p. 31). 

Biblical usage denotes the form and function of humanity in stark contrast to the associated ANE (or Ancient Near Eastern) tales, “In the ancient Near East, the gods created for themselves—the world was their environment for their enjoyment and existence. People were created only as an afterthought, when the gods needed slave labor to help provide the conveniences of life” (Walton et al., 2000, p. 30). The Ancient Near Eastern understanding of man as a referent to their gods meant that they were "images" or "idols," a "selem" as the Old Testament regards with a manifest likeness (Miller, 1972, p. 290). "Demut", as employed by Ezekiel is a more abstract term with a broader range of usage, but it too is normally used in connection with visual similarities (Miller, 1972, p. 291). In many ways, this likeness also includes an underlying peace, “This creation comes about as the result of conflict among the gods, and the god organizing the cosmos had to overcome the forces of chaos to bring order to his created world” (Walton, 2000, p. 30). In contrast, the Genesis account portrays His creation not as part of a conflict with opposing forces, but instead as a serene and controlled process (Hamilton, 1990, p. 48).

Man: “Dominion over all the earth”

“And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Gen 1:26b). The interpretation of “subdue” in verse 28 is a special case since the rest of the passage “now progresses to spelling out man’s relationship to the rest of the created order,” (Hamilton, 1990, p. 46). Such language is peculiarly brutal, especially considering the moral character of the first humans seen within Genesis 2 and 3; thus, a word study is in order. "Dominion," or "radah", is used 22 times in the Bible and features a recurring meaning of ruling, having dominion, dominating, and treading down (Levenson, 2004, p. 25). This verse also bears an intriguing resemblance to Psalm 8:6-8, "You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas." The translation “have dominion” is synonymous with “rule.” This can be inferred from other uses resonating across the Old Testament, such as a master ruling over a slave (Lev 25:43, 25:46, 25:53) and a king ruling over nations (1 Kings 4:24; Ps 72:8). (Zondervan, 2009, p. 32). While the elocution of slaves might imply an underlying brutality, the interpretation of the provided passages proves otherwise and displays a congenial relationship between the ruler and the ruled (Middleton, 2015, p. 26). 

According to Gesenius (1860), "God made man in their image and according to their likeness so that man would rule over and subjugate, not only the creatures upon the earth and in proximity to it, but the very earth itself" (p. 24). There is no evidence to suggest this ruling provision exists out of any place other than pure love. Man was created with the express purpose of ruling; it is not a curse, but a blessing (Fox, 1995, p. 13). When God gave humanity dominion over the animals, it was in order to care for, tend to, and use those animals to their fullest potential in a just manner. Human rule over animals does not mean we have the right to mistreat or misuse those animals (Walton et al., 2000, p. 31). The authority imbued in Matthew 8 shows that the Lord Jesus Christ, who calmed the waves of the sea, demonstrated rule over the earth, the authority which Adam and his descendants were deprived of as a consequence of his transgression in the Fall (Hastings, 1976, p. 51).

Furthermore, the concept that man is meant to rule over "all the earth" is a powerful one. This implies not only that there is not a parcel of earth undisclosed to man, but he also holds command over "all" of it. While man may not control the cosmos or what lies beyond the horizon of space, they are responsible for everything God has instituted for them to control (Hastings, 1976, p. 50). More specifically, what is meant by "all?" In addition, does "earth" specifically pertain to that which is materially understood by humanity, or is it merely a human conceptualization of the universe in ancient Israelite culture? A literal reading of Genesis 1:26 communicates to the reader that "man is meant to be like God in a sense because God has dominion over creation," (Heiser, 2016). Earth provides an interesting study as "speaking of the lower nature of man. The earth represents not only the physical vessel, but all that which is considered below heaven," (Middleton, 2015, p. 106). "All," or "kol", translates literally to the whole or totality of everything (Fox, 1995, p. 15). 

Therefore, there is nothing that man does not have dominion over, and if this timely occurrence persisted, the command would have likely expanded to include the natural progression of certain species (Hendel, 1992, p. 934). Yet, if we take "earth" literally to mean physical matter, "birds of the heavens" carry a significant connotation. However, such a conflict dissipates when one considers the ANE perspective of cosmology, interpreting the heavens as the firmament upon which the stars are dotted (Schnittjer, 2006, p. 59). They did not consider heaven as the spiritual abode as mentioned in the New Testament, but instead a "dome" that separates the above and below waters of Genesis 1:7. This dome is aptly named the sky, "affixed by the pillars of the sky (mountains)" (Schnittjer, 2006, p. 59). Therefore, this confusing statement is clarified by the surrounding historical-cultural context of ancient cosmologies. 

Man and Woman: "He created them."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," (Gen 1:27). From the earlier exegetical work, one can denote man does not literally interpret to a singular person but encompasses a holistic understanding of humanity. First, we see a repetition of the "imago Dei", the image of God, which colors human-animal hierarchies and the subsequent covenant (Heiser, 2016). Because normative differences between man and animal are incredibly difficult to draw, the clearest answer provided within the text is that humans are imbued with the "image of God" while animals are not (Fox, 1995, p. 14). How does this influence a reading of Genesis 1:27? One possibility is that the author intends to separate man as a special species, marked off by God specifically to express their dominion over all creation. But, the author may be hinting at a greater theological principle embedded within Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch: Humans are like God. As much as they are not like other creatures, they are to this crucial extent also like God. Leviticus concerns the primary issue of holiness, describing how humanity seeks to become less like itself and more in likeness with God, "turning towards him" (Zondervan, 2009, p. 32). 

The larger purposes of the Pentateuch hinge on the creational aspect of humanity. In addition, the same aspect of male-female designation resonates in Genesis 5:1-2, "When God created man. . . he created them male and female." In this case, the singular pronoun of man extrapolated into the plural stresses the relational aspect of humanity; they are called both to be close to their Creator and to each other (Fox, 1995, p. 15). While this consideration is highly unlikely, select scholars parallel the divine plurality of persons in the Godhead with the human plurality of persons, casting human interpersonal relationships in light of God and His immutable attributes (Hamilton, 1990, p. 48). The reason this is unlikely plays off Messianic passages such as Psalm 110:1, a reminder of Jesus's promise which shares little similarity with the creational account. Many passages make explicit mention of the figures of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and the idea behind the Trinity does not see fruition until Jesus's ministry and Paul's writings in the New Testament (Baden, 2012, p. 12). Also, the aforementioned limited knowledge of Moses in regard to the Trinity, especially in a time where the Holy Spirit was barely understood, let alone effortfully working within the narrative, means that this verbal-plenary inspiration presumptively hinted at something not like the three-in-one (Levenson, 2004, p. 16).

Here, the author and God mention and employ a means of "bara", "to create, shape, or form," with Himself as the preliminary subject in an emphatic Semitic triplet (Speiser, 1974, p. 6). This means that within Jewish and other ancient literature, particular numerical patterns abound meaning based on poetic elements. Words are reinterpreted or reused for distinctive reasons extending beyond a simple sonical quality (Anderson, 2016). Reportedly, this method of poetic alignment appears 467 times in the Bible, less than the number of seven but more than others that carry special connotations (Walton et al., 2000, p. 31). This number notes the intensity of a certain aspect or word while also implying an underlying holiness. For instance, Isaiah 6:3 and Revelation 4:8 use this intentional repetition to hone in on the intensity of the reference; Yahweh is not simply holy, but He is "holy, holy, holy" (Middleton, 2015, p. 107). Clearly, this is far more than a human or even worldly concept of holiness if it is described in such a manner one word after another; however, not all numbers signify something good. Six, for instance, tends to symbolize incompleteness, weakness, or even destruction (Ex 19:18; Rev 13:18). This act of creation, intentionally repeated threefold, amounts to more than mere circumstance. Three, "shelosh" [f] or "sheloshah" [m], means harmony, new life, and completeness (Speiser, 1974, p. 7). Humanity is not only complete in its conception, but it has been indwelt with a "new life," not only in its physicality but additionally its image (Imes, 2023, p. 56).

In this verse, the reader also sees the preeminent delineation between male, "zakhar", and female, "neqevah", instead of the collective whole presented before. These are distinctive qualifiers that maintain the separation of genders; male is not the same neuter, holistic pronoun as man in this case (Horowitz, 1976, p. 176). Imes (2023) describes the integral importance of the male and female distinction in full, "This responsibility is shared by both men and women, who are equally God's image" (p. 58). The connecting conjunction "and" explicitly intertwines an equality between man and woman from the outset; until Genesis 3:15, there is no domination or subordination across the genders (Zondervan, 2009, p. 30). The increasingly literal reader would view "man" as a generic and normative prescription regarding only that gender in Genesis 1:26; nonetheless, Genesis 1:27 serves as an essential proof text for those seeking to defend the status of womankind in the creational account (Horowitz, 1976, p. 176). To assume the image of God only pertains to men would disregard the imbibed analogies within the text; just as God is king over all the earth (Psa 47:7), so too does He gather His children like a mother hen does her chicks (Lk 13:34). While both of these analogies are locked to different historical sections of the biblical timeline, the theological principles along with their primary source of God transcend their respective historical-cultural bounds (Levenson, 2004, p. 15). 

What Does it Mean to Be in the "Image of God" Today?

At the core of Genesis 1:26-27 lies a simple message to the people of God today: All are made in the image of God. From this statement arises considerable applications for how humans not only interact with God but also how they ought to treat each other in light of the creational covenant. All creation displays God’s design, power, and goodness, but only human beings are said to be made in God’s image. This institution has not ceased in the Old or New Testaments. After the fall, Genesis 9:6 says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” In other words, the image of God continuously functions ethically and morally in Genesis 9 as a warrant for capital punishment even though all human beings have now become sinners. Even the new life of redemption and restoration inscribes this image as defaced but not necessarily dissipated, for "we have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator," (Col 3:10). In all appearance and disposition, a human is not precisely like God in that they can form order out of chaos or work miracles without His directive. However, just as an image, such as a statue, is created to bear the resemblance of a specific person or event, so too does being in the "image of God" indicate an accurate reflection of who God precisely is (Miller, 1972, p. 295). Images are created to image by an imager. If one creates an image or makes a sculpture of someone, it is done to display something about that someone. In particular, it is placed squarely in the middle of town for people to look at, notice, and think about. 

As Christ has endowed all with His image, the Christian is compelled to act like it, treating others as equals. The "oikonomias" or different dispensations within Scripture, integrate this command as central to the Christian faith along the biblical corpus. While the New Testament places the likeness within a new context of the widening body of Christ, involving both Jews and Gentiles, the passage concerns the whole of humanity and not just God's chosen elect. The theological principle embedded within the text is a prominently horizontal one, eschewed throughout both testaments (Walton et al., 2000, p. 31). This is once again designated in 1 Corinthians 11:7, "For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God." A student may have specific trouble engaging with the reality that their friend, another Christian, holds a doctrinal belief with which they fail to agree - one that muddies the relationship. Perhaps they hold foundationally that members of the LGBTQ+ community are included in God's body since there exists a contemporary argument that identity is distinct from blatant sin. If Christ has died for them, will this interaction fundamentally change? If this person circumscribes their identity in Christ and His sacrifice and is otherwise a genuine believer, should the Christian treat them any differently? One must recall that these individuals, just like themselves, are created in the image of God. Whether a terrorist or a saint, people are inherently spiritual beings, imbued with intellect, a desire to be relational, and a moral conscience. With this, humanity contains the right and responsibility, along with the free will seen in Genesis 3 and beyond, to respond to or ignore God's will. All are accountable to God, and all are beholden to the duty of acting like God, becoming more holy in His presence. The faithful Christian is called to live like an image bearer to the world so that when people look at them, they will think of and reflect upon the heavenly Father.

Conclusion

Genesis 1:26-27 stands as a profound declaration of God's divine intention for humanity's place in creation. The passage articulates the unique status conferred upon humans as bearers of God's image and stewards over the entirety of the Earth. This foundational concept reverberates throughout the biblical narrative, inviting believers to consider the responsibilities and privileges bestowed upon them by their divine Creator. In navigating the complexities of contemporary life, believers are challenged to discern the relevance of this foundational truth. The admonition to have dominion over creation is a call to responsible stewardship, urging individuals to reflect the divine image through compassion, justice, and care for the world around them. This integral passage, therefore, serves as a guiding light for the modern believer, encouraging a life that aligns with the overarching narrative of the Bible and embraces the inbound characteristics of bearing the image of God.

References:

Alexander, D. T. (2008). "Genesis." pp. 49-137 in ESV Study Bible. Wheaton. Crossway.

Anderson, J. E. (2016) “Genesis, Book of.” In John D. Barry et al. (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Baden, J. S. (2012). The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. Anchor Yale Reference Library. Yale University Press.

Beckman, J. C. (2013). "Pluralis Majestatis: Biblical Hebrew." in Geoffrey Khan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-hebrew-language-and-linguistics/pluralis-majestatis-biblical-hebrew.

Fox, E. (1995). The Five Books of Moses: A New Translation with Introductions, Commentary, and Notes. Schocken Books.

Gesenius, H. F. (1860). Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. London: Bagster.

Hamilton, V. P. (1990). The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. Eerdmans 

Hastings, J. (1976). The Great Texts of the Bible: Genesis-Numbers (Vol. 1). Baker Book House.

Heiser, M. S. (2016). “Image of God,” In John D. Barry et al. (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Hendel, R.S., (1992). Genesis, Book of. In D.N. Freedman (Eds.). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: D–G (pp. 933-40). Doubleday: Yale University Press.

Horowitz, M. C. (1979). The Image of God in Man: Is Woman Included? The Harvard Theological Review, 72(3/4), 175–206.

Imes, C. J. (2023). Being God's Image: Why Creation Still Matters. IVP.

Jones, B. F., & Barbeau, J. W. (2016). The Image of God in an Image Driven Age: Explorations in Theology Anthropology. IVP Academic.

Levenson, J. D. (2004). "Genesis: Introduction and Annotations." In Berlin et al. (Eds.), The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford University Press.

Middleton, R. (2005). pp. 104-08 in The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Brazos Press.

Miller, J. M. (1972). In the “Image” and “Likeness” of God. Journal of Biblical Literature, 91(3), 289–304.

Schnittjer, G. E. (2006). The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch. Zondervan Academic.

Scullion, J. J. (1992). Genesis, The Narrative of. In D.N. Freedman (Eds.). The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: D–G (pp. 941-52). Doubleday: Yale University Press.

Speiser, E. (1974). Opening Account of Creation (1:1–2:4a: P). In Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (pp. 2–13). New Haven & London: The Anchor Yale Bible.

Walton, J. H. et al. (2000). The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. IVP Academic.

Zondervan. (2009). Genesis-Leviticus: Volume 1 (Rev. edition). The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Zondervan Academic.

Thank you Garrett Fish for writing this article!