If the attempt to embody God does so at the expense of God's sexuality (a monotheistic God can have no sexual experience), the obverse is also true: sexuality can only be predicated ofGod at the cost ofdivine embodiment. In other words, a monotheistic God cannot have both a body and a sexual experience. This second form of incompatibility is evident in the attempt by some interpreters to reconcile the sexual division of humanity with the in1age of God. Mter all, it is reasonable to read Gen. 1:26-28 as suggesting that men and women are both made in the image of God. Phyllis Trible's God and the Rhetoric ofSexuality is one of the most articulate expositions of this argument?8 In Trible's view, the division into male and female is what distinguishes humans from animals. "Procreation is shared by humankind with the animal world ... sexuality is not" (Trible 1978, 15). That is, although Gen. 1 says that both animals and humans reproduce, the attributes of male and female are exclusively human characteristics, at least in Gen. 1.29 Animals, by contrast, are divided "according to their kinds," a form of categorization that does not apply to hUlTIans. Through a literary analysis, Trible goes on to suggest that "male" and "female" to "the image of God." That is not to say that sexual differentiation can be applied to God (Trible 1978, 21). But sexuality is one of the human experiences that points toward an understanding of Israel's transcendent deity. Trible develops her argument by exploring the metaphors used to depict God. Not only is God metaphorically a father, husband, king, and warrior but also a woman who conceives, gets pregnant, gives birth, nurses, and mothers children.