Genesis—yes, but which part?

The point of Romans 1:23 is not the fall into sin of the primal pair from Genesis 3, particularly through idolatry, which thus affected either Gentiles specifically or humanity more generally, but humanity’s (אדם ['adam]) “exchange of the glory of the immortal God” in terms of its failure to fulfill its created purpose or identity as creatures made in the image of God, having dominion over creation as vicegerents of the Creator God—hence Paul’s obvious allusion to Genesis 1:26–28 and not Genesis 3:6. Dane Ortlund rightly argues that Paul’s reference here is not to God’s own glory, which then implies an “exchange of worship,” but that “it is probably human glory (the divine image) that is in view.” Humanity’s rejection of its created purpose throughout history took the form of idolatry—a form found in both Gentile and Jewish history—and resulted in a humanity that existed in their actions and desires as shadows of their created selves (Rom 1:24-32). Though the fall narrative of Genesis 2–3 is not implicit in Romans 1:23, Genesis 1:26-28 certainly is. Moreover, though the name “Adam” is not mentioned in Romans 1, the created purpose or identity of corporate humanity (“adam”; אדם) in Genesis 1:26-28 is undoubtedly of central importance in Romans 1:23.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 93–94

<idle musing>
Interesting idea, which I really like and think is probably correct. I don't follow Romans' scholarship very closely, so I don't know how common this view is, but let's let her run with it. It ties in nicely with Second Isaiah's idea of a recommissioned humanity via the Servant.
</idle musing>