Male and female
How Genesis 1:27 is read shapes Christian and Jewish teaching on sex, gender, marriage, and human dignity, and it remains a flashpoint in debates over gender roles and transgender inclusion.
The passage
Scripture · New Consensus Bible
Genesis 1:26-28
26And God said, "Let us make humanity in our image, according to our likeness, and let them rule 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." 27And God created humanity in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that creeps on the earth."Study Genesis 1 →
The question
What does "male and female he created them" say about sex and gender?
Background
Historical background
Genesis 1:26-28 is from the Priestly source, traditionally dated to the Babylonian exile or early post-exilic period (6th-5th century BCE). It is part of an orderly, repetitive creation account culminating in the Sabbath. The passage uses the Hebrew word 'adam (humanity, collective) not a male individual, and specifies that humanity was created "male and female" (zakar u-neqebah), terms for biological sex. The phrase "image of God" (tselem Elohim) is not gendered.
The verses are poetic, with parallel lines; the shift from singular "him" to plural "them" in verse 27 has drawn attention in both Jewish and Christian interpretation. In the ancient Near Eastern context, creation stories often describe the creation of humanity as servants of the gods; Genesis 1 instead presents humanity as God's image and vice-regent. The command to "be fruitful and multiply" links sexual differentiation to procreation.
How the traditions read it
Each tradition’s interpretation
Catholic
Male and female are equal, complementary images of God
The Catholic tradition reads Genesis 1:27 as foundational for the equal dignity of man and woman, both created in God's image. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that being man or woman is a reality that is good and willed by God, and that the two sexes are ordered toward communion and procreation. The text is read alongside Genesis 2 and Ephesians 5 to support a theology of the body in which sexual difference is essential to the person. The Church affirms equal dignity and rejects unjust discrimination, while teaching that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman. Persons experiencing gender dysphoria are to be treated with respect and compassion, but the tradition holds that a person's sex is a given of creation.
Catholic views on other disputed passages →Eastern Orthodox
Both sexes share the divine image; sexuality is original creation
The Orthodox tradition reads the creation of male and female as part of God's original good creation, with both sexes bearing the divine image equally. The distinction between male and female is understood as part of God's plan for human communion and the transmission of life, not a consequence of the Fall, though some Fathers speculated about the timing of sexual differentiation. The image of God is primarily rational and free will, common to both sexes; the likeness is the calling to theosis available to all. In church life, this grounds the equal dignity of women and men, while the tradition reserves the priesthood to men based on other scriptural and canonical reasons. Modern Orthodox discussions include voices questioning rigid gender roles, but the mainstream retains a binary anthropology.
Eastern Orthodox views on other disputed passages →Anglican / Episcopal
Diverse: from binary complementarity to affirming gender diversity
Anglicanism encompasses a wide spectrum. Traditional Anglo-Catholic and evangelical Anglicans read the verse as establishing a binary, complementary understanding of sex and gender, grounding marriage as between one man and one woman. More liberal Anglicans argue that the text affirms the goodness of embodied difference but does not prescribe fixed gender roles or address gender identity as distinct from biological sex. Some provinces, including the Episcopal Church, have authorized same-sex marriage and ordination of transgender persons, interpreting the image of God as inclusive of diverse gender identities; others reject this as contrary to Scripture. The tradition's appeal to reason and experience allows for ongoing debate.
Anglican views on other disputed passages →Lutheran
Sexual difference is good, but image is spiritual, not gendered
Lutheran theology distinguishes the image of God (original righteousness) from biological sex, so male and female are equally bearers of that image. Sexual difference is part of the created order, good and intended for companionship and procreation, but it does not confer different spiritual status or access to grace. Lutherans traditionally taught the priesthood of all believers, which opened roles for laity, but ordination of women was adopted in many Lutheran bodies in the 20th century; some confessional Lutheran synods still restrict the pastoral office to men. On transgender questions, Lutherans are divided: some argue the text establishes a binary that should be honored, while others emphasize the primacy of the gospel and pastoral care for all persons. The goodness of the body is affirmed, rejecting Gnostic devaluation.
Lutheran views on other disputed passages →Reformed / Presbyterian
Equal image bearers; gender roles debated but dignity shared
The Reformed tradition emphasizes that both male and female are created in God's image, which consists in true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, not physical form. Thus the two sexes share equal dignity and are jointly given the dominion mandate. Debates over gender roles in home and church are handled through other texts; some Reformed theologians argue for complementarianism based on creation order in Genesis 2 and passages like 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, while others argue for egalitarianism from the shared dominion of Genesis 1:27-28. All agree that the text forbids treating women as inferior. On transgender identity, most conservative Reformed bodies maintain a binary reading, while some progressive Reformed voices argue for inclusion.
Reformed views on other disputed passages →Baptist
Male and female equally bear God's image; binary creation affirmed
Baptists universally affirm that male and female are created equally in God's image, a truth that grounds the sanctity of human life and the equal worth of every person. The tradition has historically read the text as establishing two sexes, male and female, as God's original design; most Baptist confessions and statements uphold marriage as between one man and one woman. Within Baptist life there are complementarian and egalitarian streams regarding gender roles in ministry, but the creational binary is widely affirmed. Some progressive Baptist groups have issued statements affirming transgender and nonbinary persons, reading the image of God as not limited to a rigid binary. The text is often used in ethical arguments for protecting the vulnerable and opposing discrimination.
Baptist views on other disputed passages →Methodist / Wesleyan / Holiness
Equal in all aspects of God's image; inclusive trajectories vary
Wesleyan theology reads the imago Dei as having natural, political, and moral aspects; both male and female share this image fully, and the restoration of the moral image through entire sanctification is offered equally to all. John Wesley's movement was notable for encouraging women preachers and class leaders, reflecting a conviction that spiritual gifts are not limited by sex. Contemporary Methodist bodies are divided: the United Methodist Church has seen intense debate over sexuality and gender, with some annual conferences and congregations affirming LGBTQ+ and transgender persons, while others maintain a traditional binary ethic based on this text and others. The tradition's emphasis on social holiness and the goodness of creation leads many to advocate for gender equality and justice.
Methodist views on other disputed passages →Anabaptist / Mennonite
Equal dignity and mutual submission; no coercive hierarchy
Anabaptist reading of Genesis 1 stresses that both male and female are created in God's image and that the dominion mandate is not a license for domination but for servant stewardship. This undergirds a strong tradition of mutual submission and rejection of coercive hierarchy between the sexes. Many Anabaptist communities have historically practiced shared leadership and decision-making, though formal roles have varied. In recent decades, Mennonite Church USA, Mennonite Church Canada, and other Anabaptist bodies have moved toward affirming same-sex marriage and transgender identities, while more conservative Anabaptist groups retain a binary, complementarian understanding. The peaceable kingdom vision includes gender justice and nonviolence in all relationships.
Anabaptist views on other disputed passages →Classical Trinitarian Pentecostal
Both created in God's image; Spirit empowers all, roles vary
Classical Pentecostalism affirms that both male and female are created in God's image and that the Spirit is poured out on all flesh, empowering women and men for ministry. Early Pentecostal movements often licensed women evangelists and pastors, seeing this as a restoration of the original creation blessing. However, many Pentecostal denominations later restricted ordination to men based on other texts, while still affirming equal worth. On transgender identity, most classical Pentecostal bodies hold to a binary understanding rooted in Genesis 1:27, but some inclusive Pentecostal and Charismatic groups advocate for full affirmation. The tradition emphasizes the goodness of the physical body and rejects Gnostic devaluation.
Pentecostal views on other disputed passages →Seventh-day Adventist
Literal binary creation; male and female distinct and complementary
Seventh-day Adventists read Genesis 1 as literal history, so "male and female" indicates that God created two distinct sexes as part of his perfect original design. The tradition teaches that gender is binary and rooted in the created order, not a social construct or evolutionary accident. Ellen White's writings emphasize the holistic nature of the image of God, including physical, mental, and spiritual dimensions, and affirm the equal worth of women and men. There is internal debate over women's ordination: some unions have ordained women, while the General Conference has voted not to authorize it, but both sides affirm the equal value of the sexes. Transgender identity is generally not affirmed within official Adventist teaching.
Adventist views on other disputed passages →Restorationist / Churches of Christ
Literal male and female; complementarian and egalitarian streams
Churches of Christ and the Restoration Movement have historically read Genesis 1 literally, affirming that God created humanity as male and female, two complementary sexes. The tradition emphasizes the authority of Scripture and often uses this text to ground the sanctity of life and human dignity. On gender roles, conservative Churches of Christ typically hold a complementarian position, restricting public leadership roles to men, while more progressive congregations allow women to serve in all ministries. On transgender identity, most conservative congregations maintain a binary understanding, though there is growing diversity in some branches. The movement's restorationist impulse leads to ongoing debate about the original creation order and its application.
Restorationist views on other disputed passages →Latter-day Saint
Gender is eternal; male and female are essential identities
Latter-day Saints teach that gender is an eternal characteristic, established before mortal birth, and that Genesis 1:27 reveals the creation of male and female as two essential, complementary identities. "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" (1995) states that gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose, and that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Thus the text is used to affirm a binary understanding of sex and gender and to reject same-sex marriage and transgender identities. The tradition emphasizes that men and women have equal worth but different, complementary roles in the family and church. All are children of heavenly parents with divine potential.
Latter-day Saint views on other disputed passages →Jehovah's Witnesses
Two binary sexes created for marriage and procreation
Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Genesis 1:27 establishes God's original purpose for humans: two binary sexes created for marriage and procreation. They read the verse as affirming that gender is determined by biological sex and is part of God's design, not a matter of individual choice or social construction. The Watch Tower Society's publications state that attempts to change one's gender are contrary to creation and that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Both men and women have equal value before God, but the congregation has distinct roles based on other scriptures; women do not serve as elders or ministerial servants. The text is used to uphold a traditional family structure and to refute evolutionary views of sex.
Jehovah’s Witness views on other disputed passages →Jewish interpretation
Original androgyne or equal pair; modern movements vary
Classic Jewish midrashim read the singular/plural shift in Genesis 1:27 as indicating that the first human was created as an androgynous being (both male and female in one body) and then separated into two. Others, such as Rashi, see male and female created simultaneously as equal partners. This tradition emphasizes that both male and female bear the divine image equally and that human dignity is rooted in this creation. Modern Jewish movements diverge: Orthodox Judaism generally upholds a binary understanding of sex and heterosexual marriage; Conservative Judaism allows some flexibility; Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism affirm transgender and nonbinary identities, reading the text as celebrating human diversity in God's image. The Jewish tradition has long engaged with questions of sex, gender, and the image of God.
Jewish views on other disputed passages →Historical-critical scholarship
Ancient binary sex categories, not modern gender identity
Historical-critical scholarship notes that the Priestly author of Genesis 1 uses the binary terms "male" (zakar) and "female" (neqebah) to describe biological sex in the context of reproduction and the image of God. The text reflects ancient Israelite cosmology, which assumed a two-sex model; it does not address modern concepts of gender identity or socio-cultural gender roles. Some scholars observe that the singular "him" followed by plural "them" may indicate an original androgynous figure or simply the collective "humanity." The phrase "image of God" is not gendered; the emphasis is on the human species as God's representative. This reading is descriptive, not prescriptive, and helps explain why later traditions interpret the verse differently.
Scholarly views on other disputed passages →The text and its translation
Historical background
The Hebrew text of Genesis 1:27 uses the collective noun 'adam (humanity) and the biological terms zakar (male) and neqebah (female). The shift from singular 'him' to plural 'them' within the same verse has been noted since antiquity and underlies the Jewish midrashic reading of an original androgynous human. No significant manuscript variants affect the meaning.
Common ground
AI explanation
All traditions considered here agree that both male and female are created in God's image and share equal dignity and worth. They agree that the text presents sexual difference as part of the original good creation and links it to the blessing of procreation. Most traditions read "male and female" as indicating a binary, but some traditions and modern interpreters understand the text more expansively in light of evolving understandings of gender. The text is universally seen as grounding human value.
Why it matters
AI explanation
How this verse is read shapes teaching on marriage, family, gender roles, ordination, and the inclusion or exclusion of transgender and nonbinary persons. It influences ethical debates about human dignity, bioethics, and the treatment of sexual minorities. Within many traditions, the interpretation of Genesis 1:27 is a flashpoint in current controversies over sexuality and church unity. The text also grounds shared commitments to justice and the protection of the vulnerable.
Questions people ask
AI explanation
What does "male and female he created them" mean in Genesis 1:27?
Genesis 1:27 says humanity — Hebrew 'adam, a collective noun meaning humanity rather than a male individual — was created in God's image, "male and female" (zakar and neqebah, biological terms). The verse shifts from singular "him" to plural "them" within the same line, a detail Jewish and Christian readers have discussed since antiquity.
What is the "image of God" in Genesis 1:26-28?
Across the traditions surveyed, the image of God (tselem Elohim) is not itself gendered: both male and female bear it equally, and the passage presents humanity as God's representative rather than as servants of the gods, as in other ancient Near Eastern creation stories. How that shared image relates to sexual difference is where the interpretations part.
Why do traditions read Genesis 1:26-28 differently on sex, gender, and transgender inclusion?
The verse is read alongside other texts and within different frameworks, so it is applied differently to marriage, gender roles, ordination, and the inclusion of transgender and nonbinary persons. Catholic, Orthodox, and most conservative Protestant bodies hold a binary, complementary reading, while some Anglican, Methodist, and Jewish movements read the image of God more inclusively.
Do the traditions agree on anything in this passage?
Yes — the article notes broad agreement that male and female are both created in God's image and share equal dignity and worth, that sexual difference belongs to the good creation, and that the verse grounds human value. Some traditions read "male and female" as strictly binary, while others read it more expansively in light of evolving understandings of gender.
What does historical-critical scholarship say about this passage?
Scholarship reads the Priestly author as using biological terms for sex in a context of reproduction and the divine image, within an ancient two-sex model. It treats the text as reflecting its ancient setting rather than addressing modern questions of gender identity, and notes that the phrase "image of God" is not gendered.
Does this article argue for one interpretation?
No. It compares how Christian traditions, Jewish interpreters, and historical-critical scholars read Genesis 1:26-28 and does not endorse any single reading. Each position is summarized in its own terms, along with the points the traditions hold in common.
Related disputed passages
- Creation and the age of the earth
The length of the creation days and the meaning of human origins divide traditions, even as all affirm God as creator. The dispute shapes Sabbath practice, science engagement, and human dignity.
- The binding of Isaac
Why God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son and how Jewish, Christian, and academic traditions understand the test and its outcome.
- Women teaching in the church
The passages have been read as restricting women's speech and authority in worship, but traditions divide over whether these rules are timeless or specific to first-century assemblies.
- Wives and husbands
Ephesians 5:21-33 has been used both to authorize hierarchical marriage and to ground mutual submission. Churches disagree over how the instruction to wives to be subject relates to the command for all to submit to one another, and the answer shapes teaching on marriage, authority, and abuse.
Scripture is quoted from the New Consensus Bible, an AI rendering. The article is AI-generated from this project’s records of how each tradition reads these passages; it describes their positions and does not rule between them.