This paper examines the theological and exegetical debates surrounding Genesis 1:26 in the fourth century, starting with Eusebius of Caesarea's interpretation and comparing it with the positions of Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra. By analyzing key texts from these authors, the study explores how each thinker approached the nature of the Logos, its role in creation, and its relationship to God the Father. The analysis highlights significant theological divergences: Eusebius' subordinationist interpretation, which conceives the Logos as a distinct and preexistent Second God, mediating between the transcendent First God and creation; Athanasius' defense of the Nicene homoousios, emphasizing the consubstantial unity between the Father and the Son; and Marcellus' monarchian emphasis on the monadic nature of God, interpreting the Logos as a functional aspect of the divine rather than a distinct hypostasis. These interpretations reveal tensions between the theology of the one God and the intra-divine relationship, both before and after Nicaea. By situating these debates within their historical and political contexts, the paper sheds light on the dynamic interaction between theology, ecclesiastical politics, and the quest for orthodoxy in early Christianity.