The Bible tells us that God made humanity in His own image. In the first chapter of Genesis it reads, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (v27). Without additional consideration, this assertion is simply amazing; yet further reflection proves it even more so.
Issue
The present-day significance of the image of God is clear. “At no time in the history of theology has the doctrine of the imago Dei had a more challenging pastoral relevance or more provocative theological implications than it does within the current of contemporary theology.”[1] While emphasizing the importance of the imago to pastors in 1965, Stewart Zabriskie’s statement does not discount the impact of God’s image on the rest of humanity in today’s culture. James Beck and Bruce Demarest clarify, “The implications of human persons created in the image of God are immense for theology, psychology, ministry, and Christian living. Ramifications of the imago embrace issues of human dignity and value, personal and social ethics, relations between sexes, the solidarity of the human family… and racial justice.”[2] The importance of understanding the imago Dei is critical in our understanding of ourselves and everything else around us. The words of D. Elton Trueblood are true, “Until we are clear about what man is we shall not be clear about much else.”[3]
Because of the importance of the subject, this paper seeks to address the question: What does it mean that humanity was created in the image of God? Truly, this issue touches every aspect of human existence and yet scripture is not explicit concerning exactly what the “image of God” is and what it means to made in His “likeness.” In saying that scripture is not explicit in it’s teaching of the imago, does not mean that it is silent. As a result, there have been many views of the imago Dei developed over the years. Of these views, the three most common are the substantive, the functional, and the relational views.
Positions
Substantive View
Historically the most common view of the image of God is the substantive view. This view suggests that the image of God exists in humanity’s structure or composition. In the substantive view, “the image is identified as some definite characteristic or quality within the makeup of the human.”[4] This view promotes that the actual image of God is in humanity’s being and as such consists of one or more of his or her characteristics, such as rationality, morality, and so forth.[5] The substantive view distinctively holds that the image of God exists in who we are not what we do.
Within the substantive view, several differing positions subsist. Each of these positions argues that the image of God is a separate and specific characteristic of humanity. The prominent view of the substantive position holds that the image of God is in humanity’s spiritual rather than physical nature. Supporting this spiritual nature position, respected scholars such as Irenaeus, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas have argued that it is man’s ability to reason that displays the image of God. John Calvin, however, is convinced that the image of God is in man’s mind and his heart.[6]
Others support the substantial view with the idea that the image of God has a physical existence. While not a popular view, even John Calvin admitted that, concerning the image of God, “there was no part of the man, not even the body itself, in which some sparks did not glow.”[7]
Functional View
While Anthony Hoekema believes some aspect of the imago Dei is associated to man’s substance or structure, he holds that the primary view of the image of God should be functional.[8] Rather than attributing the image to humanity’s being, the functional view ties the image directly to humanity’s actions or tasks. Demarest suggests that most who hold this view “interpret the imago as the human person’s exercise of dominion over the created order and lower creatures.”[9] Genesis 1:27 commands humanity to “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 sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen 1:28). In the functional view, humanity’s fulfillment of this cultural mandate is the embodiment of the image of God.
Relational View
Those who share the Relational view also share the idea that God’s image does not reside within human nature itself. In this view, the image of God rests in humanity’s relational ability or directly in humanity’s relationships. Supporters of this view, such as the neoorthodox theologian Karl Barth, believe “the human person is imago Dei in that he or she has been created to relate with God and with other humans in community.”[10] Millard Erickson explains that from this view, “Humans can be said to be in the image or to display the image when standing in a particular relationship, which indeed is the image.”[11] G. C. Berkouwer narrows the field to just one relationship. Berkouwer says the “essential and unique characteristic of man and man’s nature” is his “relation to God.”[12] Hoekema summarizes Berkouwer’s view of the image of God as an “inescapable relatedness to God.”[13]
Support
What does it mean that humanity was created in the image of God? The shortest answer to this question is that humanity is like God and represents God. Genesis 1:26 records God saying “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” The key words involved in this verse are the Hebrew words for “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demût).[14] Both words refer to something similar to but not exactly like the original. This would imply that humanity, both male and female, are similar to God but not exactly like God. Understanding that the word “image” can also mean to represent the original adds an additional dimension. This, however, is not enough to satisfy our thirst for meaning.
Although many have tried to compile a list of God-like characteristics in man, the results can only be speculative. While scripture does not identify the specific traits that represent God in man, it does not limit them either. As such, it should be understood that all of man’s being and existence, in some limited fashion, bears the image of God.
The words of Herman Bavinck capture this sentiment:
From the doctrine that man has been created in the image of God flows the clear implication that that image extends to man in his entirety. Nothing in man is excluded from the image of God. All creatures reveal traces of God, but only man is the image of God. And he is that image totally, in soul and body, in all faculties and powers, in all conditions and relationships. Man is the image of God because and insofar as he is true man, and he is man, because and insofar as he is the image of God.[15]
Truly, the image of God applies to all of His human being. No aspect of God’s created being or his or her existence fails to bear a trace of His image.
While man bears the image of God, because he is like God and represents God, he does so poorly. Theologians like Klaas Schilder, F. K. Schumann, and E. Schlink argue that the image of God in man has been destroyed by sin.[16] They suggest that the references to the image of God in Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 only reiterate that God made humanity in His image at the time of creation.[17] To make this claim is to do injustice to the scripture. God cautions us about our treatment of others, specifically because all of humanity is made in the image of God. From these two passages, it is also obvious that God’s image does not depend on the achievement or even the potential achievement of any human function or relationship, because God’s image applies to all of humanity not just those relating with or functioning on behalf of God.
It is critical to note that while humanity does retain the image of God, it is not the full and perfect image. This perfection of image and glory rests only in the person of Jesus Christ. Colossians 1:15 says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” If humanity does not retain the full and perfect image of God, then the full and perfect glory is not retained either.
Equally important is our understanding that, while humanity falls well short of the standard or perfect image of God due to sin, one is able, through the work of the Holy Spirit, to reclaim that image. 2 Corinthians 3:18 says, “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” The point is clear in Romans 8:29, “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son.” To be conformed into the image of Christ, is to be transformed into the perfect likeness of God. Romans 8:29 also makes clear another critical issue. Final and complete perfection into the image of God is not a possibility for all of humanity. While the imperfect image exists in and provides significance to all of humanity, only those appointed by God will know His full and perfect image.
Apart from the perfection of the image and glory of God, man fails to achieve the purpose for which he was created. The image of God in man is a declaration of ownership. To be in God’s image means to be His and to be subject to His authority. As creator and owner, God has the right to establish humanity’s purpose or function. All created things have a purpose, likewise God made humanity with a purpose. The purpose for which God created humanity was for His glory. Isaiah 43:7 says, “Everyone who is called by My name, And whom I have created for My glory, Whom I have formed, even whom I have made.” If God created humanity for the purpose of His glory, humanity must be able, at least in its created state, to glorify God.
1 Corinthians 11:7 tells us that man “is the image and glory of God.” To the extent that the image of God exists in man, the glory of God exists as well.
In summary, humanity is the image of God and as such is the glory of God as well. Bavinck provides a powerful summary statement for his position, “Man does not simply bear or have the image of God; he is the image of God.”[18] While this image in man has never been the exact likeness of God, sin has further separated the two and as such removed any possibility of man obtaining the full image of God on his own. To bridge this gap, God sent His exact likeness, Jesus Christ, to be a propitiation for our sin. Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit provide humanity with the ability to represent fully God in one’s substance, functions, and relations as was designed.
Objections
Respected theologian Karl Barth would likely challenge the idea of man’s entire being and existence as God’s image. Barth refutes the idea of the image of God in any anthropological “description of the being of man, its structure, disposition, capacities, etc.”[19] Barth instead holds to the relational view. Barth’s argues for the relational view primarily from Genesis 1:27: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
“Could anything be more obvious than to conclude from this clear indication that the image and likeness of the being created by God signifies existence in confrontation, i.e., in this confrontation, in the juxtaposition and conjuncture of man and man which is that of male and female…?”[20]
It is not as obvious as Barth proposes. Barth believes that the image of God is in this “confrontational relationship” between male and female.[21] While this passage does clearly state that both male and female are made in the image of God, it does not explicitly support the idea of the image of God being present in the relationship between the two. Barth does expand his idea of “confrontational relationships”[22] to that of man to all of humanity and that of man to God. Even if Genesis 1:27 supported Barth’s male/female relational view, it never makes any claims concerning these other two scenarios. Hoekema explains Barth’s view of the imago as the “capacity for confrontation and encounter.”[23]
The failure of Barth’s view comes from the absolute sense in which it claims the image of God to be in the capacity for relationships. While we can concur that relationships can reflect or result from the image of God, they are not the image itself. Hoekema questions Barth’s theory based on the existence of Satan and demons, which also have such capacity to relate. How does Barth’s position address those who simply cannot relate? Would Barth deny the existence of God’s image in those who are unable to relate to God or others? The comatose and the blind deaf mute would be severely limited in their ability to relate. What if one’s ability to relate to others is severely distorted by Autism or brain injuries? We dare not take from these their glory as made in the image of God or their humanity. While scripture is not explicit in its definition of the image of God, it is explicit in its teaching concerning the dignity of all humanity (Ps 8.5, Heb 2.8). As such, the essence of the image of God in man must not lie strictly with man’s capacity for relationships with others.
Anthony Hoekema expresses his conviction, “Since the image of God includes the whole person, it must include both man’s structure and man’s functioning. One cannot function without a certain structure.” Hoekema goes on to say, “Human beings were created to function in certain ways: to worship God, to love the neighbor, to rule over nature, and so on. But they cannot function in these ways unless they have been endowed by God to do so.”[24] Hoekema uses this logic to support his argument that while the image of God exists in some secondary fashion in humanity’s substance, it primarily is found in his function. Hoekema’s argument is not support his conclusion. As it stands, one could argue that God made man’s being to support man’s function or one could counter that man’s function is a result of his being. This uncertainty, however, does not allow one to conclude that the image of God is strictly in man’s function.
If one cannot effectively argue that man’s substance, function, or relational capacity is independently sufficient to bear the image and the glory of God, one must conclude that man is the image of God in his entirety.
| bibliography |
Books
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vols. III/1, III/2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957-1960.
Bavinck, Herman. “Gereformeerde Dogmatiek,” 2, quoted in Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986.
Beck, James R. and Bruce Demarest, The Human Person in Theology And Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the Twenty-first Century. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006.
Berkouwer, G. C. Man, The Image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Calvin, John. The Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne. Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1987.
Cairns, David. The Image of God in Man. 1953. Rev. ed. London: Collins, 1973.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, one-volume edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983-85.
Hoekema, Anthony. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986.
Articles
Zabriskie, Stewart C. “A Critical View of Karl Barth’s Approach to the Christian Doctrine of the Imago Dei,” Anglican Theological Review, XLVII. October, 1965.
Internet
Murphy, S. Gannon. On the Doctrine of the Imago Dei, Minnesota Apologetics Project [on-line], accessed 24 March 2007, http://www.geocities.com/mnapologetics/ImagoDei.htm; Internet.
D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion. New York, Harper & Row, 1957.
[1]Stewart C. Zabriskie, “A Critical View of Karl Barth’s Approach to the Christian Doctrine of the Imago Dei,” Anglican Theological Review, XLVII (October, 1965), 359.
[2]James R. Beck, and Bruce Demarest, The Human Person in Theology And Psychology: A Biblical Anthropology for the Twenty-first Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006), 141.
[3]D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion (New York, Harper & Row, 1957), 14.
[4]Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, one-volume edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983-85), 520-21.
[5]S. Gannon Murphy, On the Doctrine of the Imago Dei, Minnesota Apologetics Project [on-line], accessed 24 March 2007, http://www.geocities.com/mnapologetics/ImagoDei.htm; Internet.
[6]John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne (Grand Rapids, Baker Book House, 1987) 61-62.
[7]Ibid.
[8]Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986), 95.
[9]Beck and Demarest, The Human Person, 141.
[10]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.1. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957), 192.
[11]Erickson, Christian Theology, 524.
[12]G. C. Berkouwer, Man, The Image of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 34.
[13]Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 59.
[14]Ibid., 13.
[15]Herman Bavinck, “Gereformeerde Dogmatiek,” 2 : 595-96, quoted in Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986), 65.
[16]Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986), 61.
[17]Ibid.
[18]Herman Bavinck, “Gereformeerde Dogmatiek,” 2 : 595-96, quoted in Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1986), 65.
[19]Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), 76-77.
[20]Ibid.
[21]Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 50.
[22]Ibid., 52.
[23]Ibid.
[24]Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 69.
No responses yet