Unlike any other creature, humans, both male and female, are created in the “image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26). This fact reminds us that humans are unique, valuable, and significant, distinct from the rest of creation and made for covenant relationship with God himself. While all other creatures are created “after their kinds,” humans are God’s image-bearers. The concept of the imago Dei, then, is crucial for theological anthropology since it distinguishes what is “human” from all other creatures. But what exactly is it? In this article, I will explain and evaluate the three answers historical theology has given, and then I’ll present an answer that incorporates insights from scripture’s use of “image” and “likeness.” I will conclude with five theological implications.
Three Views: Substantive, Functional, and Relational
In historical theology, three main views have been proposed to answer this question. First, there is the substantive view. This view identifies the “image” with a specific quality, capacity, or property in us, usually our reason, will, and/or moral capacities, all located in our souls. Given these common “properties” that all humans share, there is a common kind-nature that constitutes what it means to belong to the genus of humanity. Also, after the fall, we retain these properties despite the effects of sin. As such, fallen humans continue to be image-bearers yet now corrupted by sin. This has been the majority view in theology.[1] Additionally, this view rarely identifies the human body with the image since God is immaterial, hence the identification of the intellect, will, and moral capacities with the image since those properties are most analogous to God.
1. This view is held by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin, plus many more.
Second, there is the functional view. This view identifies the “image” with what we do, specifically in God creating us to have “dominion” over the earth, not in a property we possess. As proof, this view notes the proximity of the creation mandate to the creation account (Gen. 1:26–28) and argues that we are not created “in” God’s image but “as” God’s image to function as those who rule over creation.[2] Much of the contemporary impetus for this view is a more “holistic” understanding of humans and the reluctance to identify the “image” with a specific property; instead, the image is our functioning as God’s representatives and vice-regents.
2. In the contemporary era, this view has been taught by Gerhard Von Rad, David Clines, and J. Richard Middleton.
Third, there is the relational view. This view identifies the “image,” not with a specific property in us or our function, but with our ability to relate to God and to others. The “likeness” between God and humans resides chiefly in the experience of being free for the other. God, as the prototype, is free for us. By analogy, we have freedom to relate to God, our neighbors, and the rest of creation. In the twentieth century, this view was popular among some neo-orthodox theologians such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, but also with other contemporary thinkers.[3]
3. For example, the view was taught by G. C. Berkhouwer, Robert Jenson, Thomas Torrance, and Stanley Grenz.
There is truth in all of these views but there is a twofold problem with them. First, these views veer towards reductionism by privileging one aspect of us at the expense of other aspects, and then identifying that one thing with the “image.” For example, think of the functional view. Ruling is certainly an implication of being created in God’s image, but image and rule are not equivalent. Always in Scripture, ontology (who we are) precedes function (what we do) so that the image has to be more than our function since we cannot do something without first being something. Second, these views do not sufficiently work first from the biblical text. They do not ask what “image and likeness” means in Scripture, and only then move to theological formulation. For this reason, we must turn to the biblical text and then revisit how we should think of “image and likeness” theologically.
Image and Likness in the Canon
From Scripture, there are three points to note.
First, although the number of texts that speak of humans in God’s image and likeness are few, they are all significant, starting in creation and linking us to Christ. Five texts identify humans as the “image of God” (Gen. 1:26–27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7) or the “likeness of God” (Gen. 5:1; Jas. 3:9). A number of other texts refer to our renewal as believers to the “image” or “likeness” of God in redemption (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:47–49; 2 Cor. 3:17–18; Eph. 4:2–24; Col. 3:9–11). Further, Colossians 1:15 teaches that Christ, the divine Son, is the true “image” of God, and thus the archetype of our being created as God’s image (cf. 2 Cor. 4:4; Heb. 1:3). All of these texts are not accidental but linked together from creation to Christ, and from the divine Son as the true image of the Father, the archetype (original) of our creation as the ectype (image).
Second, the foundational text is Genesis 1:26–28. Although people have disputed the meaning of the Hebrew terms for “image” (ṣelem) and “likeness” (dĕmût), an understanding of the terms is gained if we place them in the context of the canon and the ancient Near East.
“Image” (ṣelem)
In the Old Testament and its historical context, the concept of the “image of the god” conveys the idea of a physical representation of the “god.”[4] Yet, in contrast to the ancient world where “image” is reserved only for the king, Scripture applies “image” to all humans, conveying the wonderful truth that all humans, both male and female, are God’s vice-regents—God’s servant-priest-kings—who are created to rule over creation as God’s representatives.[5]
4. See Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 220–38; Peter J. Gentry, Biblical Studies, vol. 1 (Peterborough, ON: H&E Academic, 2020), 1–23.
5. In Gen 1:26–27, ‘ādām (“man”) refers to all humans, both male and female. It is not yet Adam’s proper name.
Further, being created “as” God’s “image and likeness” is followed by a purpose clause (Gen. 1:26c), which is best translated: “in order that they [humans] may have dominion,” that is, in order that they may function as God’s vice-regents. Yet this doesn’t mean that dominion is the definition of the image, as the functional view insists. Instead, as Graeme Goldsworthy rightly argues, dominion is “a consequence of” being created as God’s image.[6] Our function, i.e., to rule over creation, is grounded in our ontology, i.e., that we are God’s image. Psalm 8 confirms this point, which describes humans in royal terms. Significantly, this text is developed in Hebrews 2:5–18 where it is applied to Christ, who is the true “image of God” as the divine Son (Col. 1:15; cf. Heb. 1:3) and the human “image” because of his assumption of our human nature. But more on this below.
6. Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 96.
Image, then, is a term that signifies what we are as humans as entire individuals and our rule over the world: God’s vice-regents created to rule over creation. “Image” isn’t merely identified with one property, nor reduced to our function; it’s a holistic term that refers to humans as humans. It assumes a specific ontology, although it isn’t fully specified. It also entails that God deals with creation on the basis of how he deals with humans, which first begins with the covenant headship of Adam. Goldsworthy nicely underscores this point when he writes,
Although God commits himself to the whole of his creation for its good order and preservation, humanity is the special focus of this care. Creation is there for our benefit. Humanity is the representative of the whole creation so that God deals with creation on the basis of how he deals with humans. Only man is addressed as one who knows God and who is created to live purposefully for God. When man falls because of sin the creation is made to fall with him. In order to restore the whole creation, God works through his Son who becomes a man to restore man. The whole creation waits eagerly for the redeemed people of God to be finally revealed as God’s perfected children, because at that point the creation will be released from its own bondage (Rom. 8:19–23). This overview of man as the object of God’s covenant love and redemption confirms the central significance given to man in Genesis 1–2.[7]
7. Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 96.
“Likeness” (dĕmût)
“Likeness” is similar to “image,” but it isn’t an exact synonym.[8] In historical theology, Irenaeus began a tradition that distinguished image and likeness too much, insisting that “image” referred to our reason and will, while “likeness” referred to our original righteousness. Later Roman Catholic theology identified “likeness” with the concept of a “superadded gift”[9] of grace given to Adam in creation that allowed him to obey God. In the fall, the Catholic tradition argued that the “gift” of original righteousness was lost whereas the “image” (reason and will) remained. This opened the door in Roman Catholicism to a weakened view of sin’s effects on us and undercutting total depravity.
8. See Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 220–38.
9. This was known as the donum superadditum. It is often identified with “likeness” in distinction from “image,” but always in terms of the “superadded gift” of original righteousness that allowed us to merit God’s favor.
Although there is a slight distinction between image and likeness, the strong distinction between them is incorrect. Instead, the words refer to different aspects of the same reality: that we are created as God’s unique servant-kings, and the dual relationship we have, first to God and then to our rule over creation. “Image” refers to the latter, while “likeness” refers to the former. Likeness conveys the idea of “resemblance,” since its emphasis is “on the concept of comparison and likeness” and “on the relationship of the copy to the original.”[10] Specifically, “likeness” specifies a covenant relation between humans and God that parallels the idea of “sonship.” Thus, due to our creation in God’s image-likeness, humans are created to know, love, obey, and resemble God in covenant relationship and to rule over creation as God’s servant-kings.
10. Gentry, Biblical Studies, 8.
Third, the linking of “likeness” and “sonship” is also significant as we move through the canon and the biblical covenants to Christ. Although Adam is not identified as a “son” in Genesis 1–2, he is in the New Testament (Luke 3:38). This is so because “son/sonship” carries a strong representational meaning.[11] Adam is the “image-likeness/son” because he represents God, and by extension this applies to all humans—although Adam’s headship is also unique due to the covenant. Adam (and all of us) is to act in a way similar to God, under his sovereign rule, as God’s image-likeness. Significantly, later in the Old Testament covenants, “son” is applied to Israel (Exod. 4:22; cf. Hos. 11:1) and the Davidic king(s) (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2). In every instance Israel as a nation and David and his sons are to act like God and to stand as his representatives to carry out his rule in the world, as Adam was to do before them. Not surprisingly, this teaching is fulfilled in Christ, who is the true image of God and the divine Son, who in his incarnation, becomes the image-son, the head of the new covenant, by the assumption of our human nature. In this latter sense, the incarnate Son is the antitypical fulfillment of Adam, Israel, and David.
11. On this point see G. K Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 401–2; Graeme Goldsworthy, The Son of God and the New Creation (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 59–82.
When we put this biblical data together, we can say the following. First, Christ is the true image of God (Col. 1:15) because he is the divine Son of the Father, who eternally subsists in and equally and fully shares the one undivided divine essence with the Father and the Spirit. Second, humans are created as the imago Dei, but in a real sense, this means we are patterned after the divine Son. Yet in regard to the Son, he is the “image” in the absolute sense because he is the eternal Son of the Father, while humans are the image only in a relative sense. As Herman Bavinck nicely states it: “The former [Christ] is the image of God within the divine being, the latter [humans] outside of it.”[12] Humans are created as finite creatures patterned after the image of the divine Son. Third, since the Son does not merely bear the image; he is the image. So, humans, at a finite level are the image of God. Thus, we cannot identity the “image” with merely this or that property as the substantive view does; instead, humans, as entire individuals, are ontologically the “image and likeness of God,” created with intrinsic dignity and value.
12. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003–2008), 2:533.
In summary, “image” and “likeness” are terms that signify our uniqueness and dignity before God, and the representative role we play for the entire creation as God’s servant priest-kings. The terms are holistic referring to humans as a whole, that indicate a vertical relationship between humans and God that can be described in terms of obedient sonship, and a horizontal relationship between humans and the world that is understood as servant kingship.
Image and Likeness in Theological Formulation
Many theological conclusions could be given, but I conclude with five.
First, we cannot identify the “image-likeness of God” with a specific part of us; instead, humans as holistic beings are by definition the imago Dei. This is true for both males and females since both share in the same kind-nature that constitutes what it means to be human in contrast to other creatures.[13] For this reason, humans are created with intrinsic value and significance resulting in a “sanctity of life” ethic. Scripture makes no distinction between “human tissue” and “personhood.” From the moment of conception, the developing fertilized egg is ontologically the imago Dei, and worthy of respect, protection, and care. In our day, as we live in the midst of a culture of death, the church must stand for human life in no uncertain terms.
13. On this point, see Kyle Claunch and Michael Carlino, “Gender Essentialism in Anthropological, Covenantal, and Christological Perspective,” Eikon 6.2 (Fall, 2024): 20–71.
Second, there is also a strong Christological aspect to our being created in God’s image-likeness. In historical theology, many, such as Augustine, argued that the “image of God” refers to the entire Trinity and not only the divine Son.[14] There is truth in this, yet as Bavinck notes, “the meaning of the image of God is further explicated to us by the Son, who in an entirely unique sense is called the Word (logos); the Son (huios); the image (eikōn), or imprint (charaktēr), of God (John 1:1, 14; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3); and the one to whom we must be conformed (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21; Eph. 2:23f.; 1 John 3:2).”[15] So, while we were created in God’s image, we are not the original image since the eternal Son is the archetype image and humans are the ectype, obviously allowing for the Creator-creature distinction.[16] The Son, then, from eternity is the pattern by which we are created, which makes sense of why the divine Son assumed our human nature (and not the nature of another creature) to redeem us. By being made in the image of God as a man, God the Son has become the incarnate Son, the last Adam, and the first man of the new creation, to restore what Adam lost in his sin.
14. Augustine, On the Trinity, 7.6.12; 12.6.6; 14.19.25.
15. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 2:533. It should be noted that Bavinck was hesitant to affirm that the image of God only applies to the image of the Son or the incarnate Christ.
16. See Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 118–19; Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 327.
Third, as for the three historical views on what the “image-likeness” of God is, there is truth in all of them, but in the end, they are all reductionistic. The substantive view is correct that image refers to our ontology, but it is incorrect in that the image of God is not merely one aspect of us (although our intellect and will are part of what it means to be created in God’s image). The functional view is correct that we were created to rule, but this also assumes a specific ontology that requires specification. The relational view is correct that we were created for covenant relationships, but “image-likeness” is not reducible to this. As created, humans are the imago Dei, which encompasses all of these views.
Fourth, in terms of the impact of the fall, Scripture teaches that our image-likeness was distorted, defaced, and corrupted by sin but not lost.[17] For this reason, in redemption, by our union with Christ and the work of the Spirit in regeneration and sanctification, our defaced image is gradually restored, and ultimately fully restored in our glorification at Christ’s return. In redemption, we are truly made more human again, being conformed to Christ’s glorified humanity (Col. 3:10; 2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:29).
17. Genesis 9:6, Acts 17:28, and James 3:9 all assume that the image of God remains even post-fall.
Fifth, although the Bible does not pit the individual over against the corporate, Bavinck is right to insist that the “image of God” in its totality is seen in humanity as a whole. No doubt, as individuals we are God’s image, but there is a sense in which “the image of God is much too rich for it to be fully realized in a single human being, however richly gifted that human being may be.”[18] Thus, ultimately in Christ and the church, we will see the fullness of the renewed and glorified image of God, a day that the church should long for in eager anticipation.
