If the first creation story (Genesis 1) is preserved in its theological purity, separated from the mythological insertions of Genesis 2–3, then the entire vision of humanity, history, and the relationship with God changes fundamentally. We are no longer dealing with a fallen being who must be “redeemed” from original guilt, but with a being created for a precise mission: to exercise moral dominion over creation, in the image of God. This vision – radically different from the theology of original sin – runs through the entire Old Testament as the backbone of the authentic revelation.
“The image of God” as a mandate of responsibility
In Genesis 1:26–28, man is created “in the image and likeness of God” and entrusted with a clear mission: to rule over all creation. This dominion is not animal-like domination, but a moral one – an extension of divine sovereignty, entrusted to a conscious being, capable of discernment and balanced action.
The image of God is not a decorative element. It is the guarantee that man can carry out this mission. It is not about ontological perfection, but about a real capacity for moral choice and action, within a framework in which everything is “very good.”
What is immediately evident is that man does not receive dominion over other humans. Dominion is over living creatures, the earth, the created ecosystem. No hierarchy is introduced between humans; rather, cooperation between equals is assumed – all bearers of the same image and beneficiaries of the same dignity.
Without a “fall”: responsibility is not suspended
If we accept this vision, then the entire theology of the “fall” becomes not only unnecessary, but harmful. There is no mention in Genesis 1 of a test, a temptation, or a condition. There are no prohibitions, no serpent, and no curses. There is only mission.
Therefore, man does not fall from a state of perfection, but lives directly within a moral mandate, the fulfillment of which is truly evaluated. There is no longer a need for a “plan of salvation,” but for discernment and responsibility. Evil is not an ontological consequence, but an ethical choice.
This paradigm fundamentally transforms the way we interpret human history: we are no longer “fallen,” but examined. We are no longer behind a closed gate, but in front of an open mandate.
The theme of “dominion” throughout the Old Testament
This idea – that man is called to exercise moral dominion in God’s name – develops thematically through the entire biblical narrative.
Abraham
He is called to leave his country and become a blessing to all nations. He is not given a religion, but a mission: to walk before God and be upright. God blesses him with “land” – that is, He entrusts him with a dominion that implies justice, hospitality, righteous judgment (Genesis 18:19).
Joseph
He comes to rule over Egypt, but does so as a moral servant. He does not act in the name of a visible deity, but in the name of an unseen yet living God – who gives wisdom, integrity, and vision. Once he reaches a position of power, he does not take revenge on the brothers who sold him. He tells them: “You are forgiven… God intended it for good” (Genesis 50:20). Joseph refuses to dominate, though he could have. He chooses reconciliation instead.
Moses
He is called to confront a Pharaoh who exercises his dominion abusively. Moses is the bearer of a higher moral authority – and precisely for this reason he can speak with dignity before the greatest power in the world. The Law he receives is not an abstract religion, but a code of responsibility that must be applied within a community.
Ruth and Boaz
Boaz treats Ruth, a foreign and vulnerable woman, with equal respect, not superiority. He offers her food, the right of redemption, and status, without coercion. Their relationship is built on mutual dignity, not on domination.
David before Saul
Although he has the opportunity to kill Saul, he does not. He says: “I will not stretch out my hand against the Lord’s anointed.” He does not take advantage of moral or military superiority to “seize control.”
The prophets
They do not call for a return to innocence, but for the restoration of justice. They do not say: “You have fallen, you are sinful by nature,” but: “You have broken the mandate given to you – do justice, stop oppression, defend the weak.”
Here lies the key: no prophet invokes a “fallen nature” as justification. None of them says that the people cannot change without a mystical intervention. All assume that man has the moral capacity to act. That is, he remains a bearer of the image of God.
The confrontation between two theologies
Against this background, the theology of the fall in Genesis 2–3 becomes clearly foreign. It introduces a rupture that does not exist in the rest of the Old Testament. If it were authentic, we would expect all prophetic appeals to invoke this original rupture. But they do not.
The original theology – that of Genesis 1 – remains dominant: man is called to act morally because he has the capacity to do so. This means that the “image” has not been lost or damaged. It is active in every act of justice, courage, integrity, or mercy.
Therefore, the two theologies cannot be reconciled. One says that man is condemned and powerless without divine intervention. The other says that man is responsible and judged for what he does with his freedom.
A new reading of sacred history
This paradigm allows us to reread the entire biblical history without the mythological filter introduced by Greek philosophy through the LXX.
There is no “fall,” but an abandonment of responsibility.
There is no “mystical redemption,” but restoration through truth and justice.
There is no “salvation” as a passage from a corrupted state to a holy one, but real moral judgment based on what man does with his mandate.
God gives dominion and takes it away. He gives “land” and removes it. He raises some up and brings others down. Not because some have a different “nature,” but because some rule with justice and others with cruelty.
This is the message: the image of God is not a theological ornament, but a moral function. It does not disappear, but it can be betrayed. It is not replaced by ritual, but proven by deeds.
Jesus and the restoration of moral dominion
In this vision, Jesus does not come to “heal” human nature, but to embody perfect moral dominion. He is the human being in whom the image of God is manifested without corruption. For this reason, He is not a mystical being, but an example of what it means to rule with truth and mercy.
Jesus does not ask for unconditional submission, but for conscious following: “Follow Me.” He does not ask for rituals, but for moral conversion: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” He does not preach helplessness, but courage. He does not say “you cannot without grace,” but “be perfect, as your Father is perfect.”
Here the circle begun in Genesis 1 closes. Jesus does not come to repair what Adam ruined, but to remind humanity of what it received from the beginning: dignity, freedom, and the calling to do good in God’s name.
Conclusion
The red thread of the Old Testament is not sin, but moral responsibility. It is not the fall that defines biblical history, but the way man manages his mission as ruler. The “image of God” is not a mystical symbol, but a practical mandate.
To understand the Bible without Genesis 2–3 means to understand it without the mythological ballast brought by philosophy. It means rediscovering man in his true light: a being created with responsibility, called to act morally, and evaluated not according to dogmas, but according to what he does with the dominion entrusted to him.
This is the authentic inheritance of revelation – and any restoration of truth must begin here.