What Does It Mean To Be Made In the Image Of God?
Intro into different perspectives
Genesis 1:26-28 LSB
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, so that they will have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that creeps on the earth.”
This has been one of the most controversial and unclear theological concepts for many years. In order to gain a greater understanding a brief overview of the major thoughts on the subject can help. There are primarily three different overarching views or categories of what it means to be made in the image of God. There is the substantial view, the relational view, and the functional view. Understanding these three categories will bring clarity to what someone means when they say we are made in the image of God. Discussions or debates cannot be helpful if there is no clarity as to what the terms mean when discussing. Many talk about the image of God but then never define clearly what it means to begin with.
The lack of clarity on this topic has brought many different suggestions and hypotheses concerning the image of God. This has muddied the waters for serious discussion on the topic and left important questions unanswered in some circles. Hopefully, this article will bring clarity as to what the differences are between the views and ultimately lead to a clearer understanding of what God was saying all along.
The substantial view has been a popular view over the years. This view says to be made in God’s image has something to do with what we are composed of or the abilities humans possess. One example is the idea that what it means to be made in God’s image is that we are made up of a body, soul, and spirit. Because we have these three substances that is what makes us God’s image. Another example of this view is that what makes us made in God’s image is our rationality. Because humans are rational that makes us God’s image. Therefore, what makes us unique and give mankind value is one’s ability to think or reason. One other popular proposal is the soul/spirit. This is slightly different from the combination of the body, soul, and spirit. On this view the connection is that God is spirit and man is spirit. Because both are spirit that is what it means to be made in God’s image. The spiritual substance is the connection between man and God. The bottom line is that our connection with God’s image has to do with our composition or substance. Humans are identified with God’s image in so far as we possess one of these attributes listed.
The substantial view often argues from a deductive approach. It seeks to understand what we know about humans and other creatures and deduce what is distinct about humanity. One of the primary illustrations used is that of humans and animals. An argument may begin like this, humans are made in the image of God, but animals are not. If humans are made in God’s image but animals are not, then what is distinct or unique about humans? They may look at all the similarities between mankind and animals and then say, “What’s different about us?” Many different notions have been given through this method of observation. Proposals such as free will, rationality, creativity, and having a soul have all resulted from this type of thinking.
What about the angels? Many have argued that mankind is the only one made in the image of God to exclude the angels. It is more tricky comparing humans to angels. What is it that mankind has that the angels do not since it has been believed by many that mankind is made in the image of God but not the angels? The angels are a tricky matter because not as much is known about the angels. Much speculation goes into trying to find the difference between humans and angels. Angels do appear to have rationality. They also appear to have free will especially considering some fell. As far as having spirits that also seems quite likely to fit their description as well. Perhaps the angels lacked creative aspects. This argument holds some weight because it fits the context of Gen 1 better. God has finished creating mankind in His image to have dominion over the Earth. Perhaps what is meant by that is a sense of creativity and creation of man’s own doing. While it is difficult to prove if angels have creativity this avoids some of the obvious problems of connecting free will, spirit, and rationality if one is trying to find the difference between humans and angels.
The relational view argues that mankind is made in the image of God because of the relationships that he has. This view argues mankind is made in God’s image because humans have a husband, wife, and children. In this way, man can reflect the Trinity as God is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. This fits the context of Gen 1 because God says, “Let us.” Therefore, the image of God is connected to the plurality that is mentioned. Some may have a less specific view and simply say that it is to reflect the idea that mankind is meant to be in relationship with God and man. Therefore, man is made in God’s image in that he has relationships just as God has relationships in Himself.
The relational view upholds some major themes of the Bible. For those who hold the relational view the two great commands mentioned by Jesus make perfect sense. Jesus said, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.” Both of those are clearly encompassed in their view of the image of God. Mankind is made to be in relationship with God and others. It is at the very core of who man is and that he is meant to connect with others. All throughout the Bible God is trying to reconnect with mankind relationally. In the meantime, all mankind does is destroy his relationships with God and man. Sin destroys the connections between man and everyone else. This also seems to be a distinction between humans and animals. Animals appear to have a sort of relationship with each other and in some cases humans. Animals do not appear to have the same kind of relationship with God as humans do. This creates another reason why one might believe that the relational view is a strong candidate for what it means to be the image of God.
The last major view is what is known as the functional view. The functional view proposes, what it means to be made in the image of God is that man is created for a purpose or to fulfill a function. This view says that man is made to be God’s image by representing God and having dominion over the Earth. God appointed man to be His viceregent on the Earth. This view is not as dependent on the other factors such as deductive reasoning but instead, God has chosen man to represent Himself.
The functional view has been championed by some recent theologians and scholars today. It holds some weight because it has a stronger basis in the context of the Ancient Near East. The language of being the image of God is not unique to the Bible. While most other cultures reserved being god’s image for the kings or Pharaohs only the Bible indicates that all of mankind might represent God. This places mankind in the unique position of human dignity existing for all mankind. If this is however connected to the dominion that man was supposed to have over the Earth does that mean that something is lost in the fall of man in Gen 3? God gave the dominion mandate to mankind in Gen 1 when He said, “Have dominion.” Then He did not repeat the part about dominion when He blessed Noah. God blessed Noah and said to be fruitful and multiply but did not say anything about having dominion over the Earth. Could it be because man lost something in the fall while still being called to represent God?