Theology Proper
The Image of God
Human beings are uniquely made in God's image, grounding human dignity, moral responsibility, and vocation.
The doctrine explained
Genesis 1:26-27 states that God made humankind in his own image and likeness, male and female, and gave them dominion over the earth. The doctrine of the imago Dei holds that this image is not a physical resemblance but some deeper likeness — commonly located in reason, moral agency, relationality, or a God-given vocation to represent God's rule over creation — that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal creation and grounds their unique dignity and worth.
Three broad families of interpretation have developed. The substantival or structural view locates the image in some inherent capacity of human nature, classically reason and free will, following much of the Augustinian and medieval tradition. The relational view, associated especially with Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, locates the image less in a static faculty and more in humanity's capacity for relationship — with God, and with one another, reflecting the 'I-Thou' relationality within the Godhead itself, since God made them 'male and female.' The functional or vocational view, increasingly favored by Old Testament scholars drawing on ancient Near Eastern parallels, holds that being made 'in the image' means being installed as God's representative rulers over creation, much as ancient kings erected images of themselves in distant provinces to represent their rule.
The doctrine carries enormous ethical weight. Genesis 9:6 grounds the prohibition of murder specifically in the fact that man is made in God's image, and James 3:9 rebukes cursing other people because they are made in God's likeness. This has made the imago Dei the primary biblical basis across the Christian tradition for the equal dignity of every human being regardless of ability, age, sex, or social status, and it has been invoked in debates over abortion, euthanasia, disability, racial justice, and the treatment of the poor.
A major theological question is whether and how the image was affected by the Fall. Most traditions hold the image is retained in some form after the Fall (since Genesis 9:6 grounds the murder prohibition after Eden) but marred or distorted in its moral and relational function, to be renewed and perfected through union with Christ, who is himself called 'the image of the invisible God' (Colossians 1:15) and the pattern into which believers are being conformed (Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18).
Biblical basis
- Genesis 1:26-27God creates humankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness.
- Genesis 9:6Murder is prohibited because man is made in God's image.
- Psalm 8:5-6Humanity crowned with glory and honor, given dominion over the works of God's hands.
- Colossians 1:15Christ is the image of the invisible God, the archetype of the imago Dei.
- 2 Corinthians 3:18Believers are transformed into Christ's image with ever-increasing glory.
- James 3:9Rebukes cursing people who are made in God's likeness.
How the wording developed
- 2nd centuryIrenaeus distinguishes 'image' and 'likeness,' with likeness as a moral perfection lost or diminished at the Fall and restored in Christ.
- 4th-5th centuriesAugustine locates the image especially in the rational soul's threefold structure of memory, understanding, and will, echoing the Trinity.
- 13th centuryAquinas develops a substantival account centered on the intellectual nature of the soul as the primary seat of the image.
- 20th centuryKarl Barth's relational reading (Church Dogmatics III/1) locates the image in the human capacity for covenantal relationship and the male-female pair reflecting divine relationality.
- 20th-21st centuriesOld Testament scholars (Gerhard von Rad, J. Richard Middleton) advance functional/royal readings drawing on ancient Near Eastern royal-image ideology.
Misunderstanding vs. the actual claim
Not this: The image of God means humans physically resemble God.
But this: Classical and most modern readings reject a bodily resemblance in favor of some non-physical likeness in reason, relationality, or vocation, since God is spirit.
Not this: The image of God was completely lost at the Fall.
But this: Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9 assume the image persists after the Fall, though most traditions hold it is marred, distorted, or in need of renewal.
Not this: Only baptized Christians or morally virtuous people bear the image of God.
But this: Scripture grounds universal human dignity in the image given to all humanity at creation, independent of faith, virtue, or ability.
Where Christians differ
- • Catholic and much Orthodox theology often distinguishes 'image' (retained after the Fall) from 'likeness' (a moral resemblance lost and restored through grace), following Irenaeus.
- • Reformed and Lutheran theology generally treats image and likeness as synonymous parallel terms, with the whole image significantly corrupted by sin and renewed only in regeneration.
- • Barthian and relational theologians emphasize the image as constituted in relationship rather than as a possessed faculty, shifting the center of the doctrine away from individual capacities.
- • Functional/vocational readings, increasingly influential in Old Testament scholarship, understand the image primarily as a royal commission to represent God's rule, which some see as complementary to, and others as a corrective of, the classical substantival view.
The hardest question
If the image of God is located in rational capacities, how can it be affirmed equally of humans with profound cognitive disabilities or those in a persistent vegetative state, and if instead it is located in relationality or vocation, how can these accounts avoid making the image a matter of degree rather than an equal endowment given to every human being simply by virtue of being human?
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
The Christian Faith — Michael Horton
A single-volume systematic theology that traces how each doctrine developed and where traditions divide.
The Christian Tradition (5 vols.) — Jaroslav Pelikan
The standard history of doctrinal development, indispensable for seeing when a doctrine was actually formulated.
God Crucified / Jesus and the God of Israel — Richard Bauckham
Shows that the highest Christology appears in the earliest sources, not centuries later.
Early Christian Doctrines — J. N. D. Kelly
Patristic doctrine described from the primary texts; the place to check what the Fathers actually said.