What Is the “Image of God” and Why Does It Matter?

Humanity reflects God in form, relation, and rule—that is what it means to be created in His image (Lat. imago Dei) (Gen. 1:16–28). This image continues to be present in humanity even though it was corrupted by the Fall of Adam and Eve (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). The lexical data of the two parallel words “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (damuth) given in Genesis 1:26 indicate the idea of form. The Septuagint’s rendering of the Hebrew word tselem by the Greek word eiko-n anticipates the common New Testament word for “image.”

In short, humanity represents God in the same way a statue represents a false god. This may provide insight as to why God did not want graven images made of Him (Ex. 20:4)—He already had living statues to testify to His nature. The term’s connotations of form are also seen in the reference to Seth being in the “likeness” of Adam (Gen. 5:3). What this substantial representation consists of, though, is not self-evident in the biblical record. Yet we can deduce at least two areas included in this representation: mental capacities and moral capacities (Col. 3:10).

Genesis 1:27 defines the image of God with emphasis on the maleness and femaleness—that is, the relations—involved in what this image entails. This becomes clearer when the concept is repeated in Genesis 5:2. There, an added feature is seen when the male and female are collectively named “humankind” (adam). Hence, part of what it means to be made in God’s image appears to be the capacity for relationships. One implication is that humanity’s “personality” reflects the “personality” of God.

Strong images emerge out of the passage concerning humanity’s subjugation of the created order on earth. The verbal expression “have dominion” (radah) in Genesis 1:26, 28 may indicate “to trample or stomp down” or “to master.” The verbal expression “subdue” (cabash) is a slightly weaker term implying “to knead or tread.” The implication for the image of God is that humanity has been given the authority to rule, and the substantial makeup to do so.

The traditional three ways for organizing the biblical material concerning the image of God—substantive, functional, and relational—all have some explanatory value. The substantive view sees the image as something within the makeup of humanity, a quality or characteristic that comprises their essence to some degree. This is the dominant view in church history. Animals do not possess the image of God; this suggests it is what makes us more like God and less like animals. The substantive view emphasizes the lexical forms of the words “image” and “likeness” (Gen. 1:26). Reason is the human faculty generally thought to be the human characteristic most associated with the image of God. A rational or moral component is the focus, since God is Spirit and does not have a body. Many who follow this approach suggest that the imago Dei consists of intellect, emotion, and will.

The functional view emphasizes activity. The divine image, then, is something humans do, not their substantive makeup. Usually in Scripture, human action involves stewarding, ruling, or exercising dominion over the earth and creation (Gen. 1:26, 28; Ps. 8:5–6).

Finally, the relational approach contends that the image is something humanity experiences in their response to both God and other humans (Gen. 1:27). Some seek to combine the three, usually nesting the functional and relational views as aspects of the substantive. Here the capacity to relate to God, like the Trinity relates to one another, or the capacity to rule, given as part of God’s design, inform the full spectrum of human existence and activity.

Others understand the image of God Christologically. A strength of this approach is that Christ makes visible the invisible God (John 14:9). Paul describes Jesus as “the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4) and “the Son” as the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). These verses suggest something more may be in view than the traditional approaches capture. In Ephesians 4:22–24, Paul contrasts the “old self ” with the “new self, created to be like God.” The same contrast occurs in Colossians 3:9–10, though this time he points out that “the new self . . . is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.” The image is something received in Christ. The question is not what is the image of God but who—Jesus Christ. Learning to be human is a gift we receive through Christ by His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:21–22).

Why does this matter? It reminds us to see each other primarily as image-bearers of a holy God, and only secondarily through our particularity. This should discourage us from treating others like a commodity, which happens all too often in our culture. While ethnicity and race are important indicators of our identity and wonderful gifts from God, His image in us is what locates our value and worth. Racism, tribalism, and other ethnicity-based ideologies are sins, for they treat certain image-bearers as inferior to others (Acts 17:26; 1 Tim. 5:21; James 2:8–9). Relating to others as image-bearers can provide resources for reconciliation among groups that are and remain, as part of God’s wonderful design, different.