“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.

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.

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]

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.

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,

Read More