Imago Dei and the (Re)Shaping of Our Image

Society embraces a rather incongruous mix of beliefs relating to the value of mankind. Evolutionary ideas simultaneously degrade the value of humans (“man is merely an evolved animal”) and elevate humans to quasidivine status (“man is god”). All such attempts are really about dismissing God from our lives while claiming self-sovereignty. Man’s view of humankind has been severely distorted by the foolish thinking that he himself deems to be wise. Unfortunately, Christians have sometimes exhibited similar paradoxical beliefs, either degrading the value of humankind (“worm theology”) or elevating individuals beyond what the Scriptures teach (“self-esteem theology”). The pendulum appears to have swung in the direction of the latter for now.

The problems with self-image manifest themselves in multiple ways in our world. Mankind often expresses its discomfort with our image by disfiguring, altering, self-identifying (“reassigning”), enhancing, augmenting, sculpting, and pretending that we are not who we really are—anything to become more comfortable in our own skin. Undercutting who we are has led to a multitude of unbiblical responses—driven by our desire to improve, we resort to measures that actually deface, diminish, and even destroy who we are. These extremes show in practices such as abortion, eating disorders, addictions, euthanasia, murder, sex changes, self-injury, and the like. These distortions, however, are merely a symptom of the rebellion we manifest toward God. It is this rebellion that makes us uncomfortable with who we are.¹

A Christian worldview, however, should endeavor to maintain a view of man that neither degrades nor elevates but rather adheres to the biblical norm. The Genesis creation account reveals a deliberate work of God to fashion a creature class in His likeness that would rule as God’s own vice-regent on earth—a way to extend God’s rule into a visible presence. God’s sovereign choice for this dominion position was mankind. In Genesis 1:26–27² Moses describes God’s deliberate work in creating mankind to be His viceruler. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to demonstrate that the imago Dei provides mankind with a theology that values man at a level sanctioned by God—neither too high nor too low.

The Divine Plan of God—1:26

First, God describes His act of creating mankind as a deliberate creation. The words “let us make”³ show a divine determination concerning mankind that is absent with the sea and land animals. God’s crowning achievement shows the unique relationship mankind has with its Creator-God as well as the ruling function we have over His creation. The blessing of verse 28 further highlights this special relationship over other land creatures over whom no blessing is pronounced (vv. 24–25).

Second, God describes His act of creating mankind as a deliberate design. God not only deliberates with careful attention to the creation of mankind, He also has a special design feature for humans. Both of these creative purposes show divine intentionality for His most unique of creations. Moses describes this uniqueness with two words that overlap in meaning, an apparent hendiadys (“image” and “likeness”). Although some see a distinction between these words, the terms are often synonymous in usage (cf. 1:27 and 5:1).

There are three primary positions on what the imago means theologically for mankind.⁴ Since space does not permit a thorough treatment, we will view these positions in broad categories as follows:

• The structural view (man reflects God’s image in his substance, i.e., intellectual, emotional, and volitional structures);
• The relational view (man reflects God’s image in his relationships to God and others, i.e., a social aspect); and,
• The functional view (man reflects God’s image in how he functions in the dominion role, i.e., a telic aspect).

Although it is possible to see these various views represented in the unfolding of the Scriptures, in Genesis 1:26 Moses does not actually explain what the concept means as much as he shows the results via the dominion mandate that follows. In other words, in Genesis 1:26–28 Moses focuses upon how the first couple functions in light of the imago Dei that God placed within them. Therefore, it seems here that God has in mind a particular function the image enables. What is certain in the imago is that man both reflects and represents God (His character and ownership, cf. Mark 12:13–17) to the world around us through the image and dominion motifs.⁵

Third, not only does Moses describe God’s deliberate creation and design, he furthermore describes the deliberate purpose that God has for mankind—filling and ruling. Herein is where function follows form. The design features that God has included in mankind’s structure now enable him to fulfill God’s mandate as vice-regents over the creation, over all the created animals and earth. It is this lofty position that gives mankind a derived value and purpose from God that should lead men both to submit to and reflect the sovereignty of God in their lives (cf. Ps. 8).

The common belief in the Ancient Near East was that the divine essence would empower the image to carry out the former’s will in his place.⁶ Kings would erect monuments of their visage as a reminder that the sovereign was still present in all of their territories. Nebuchadnezzar expected his subjects to bow to his image as a loyalty test (Dan. 3). In the creation account, God equips and appoints mankind to stand in His place as a living and breathing vice-regent through whom He displays His own character and manages His creation. That God created all humans with this function (plural “them,” v. 26) shows that God did not intend any one human or group of humans to stand above all others in this role (leadership positions notwithstanding) but that each should participate in exercising God’s dominion, including both “male and female.” This truth militates against racism, sexism, class warfare, discrimination, and the like.

The Divine Creation of Man—1:27

What God deliberates over in verse 26 He now completes in verse 27. God’s plan was not simply wishful thinking or a plan He lacked the power to impose, but it was an actual purpose He built into His creation. The structure of this verse demonstrates the focal point of the theology—the image of God. Moses writes this text in a chiastic structure:

A: So God created man

B: in his own image,
B’: in the image of God

A’: created he him;

C: male and female

A”: created he them.

This short poem summarizes God’s care in creating mankind—the deliberate creation of mankind in His image extending to both males and females of all people.

Since the Genesis creation account reveals a deliberate work of God to fashion a creature class in His likeness that would rule as God’s own vice-regent on earth, humans should avoid pride in who we are. In light of the imago Dei, humans should maintain, on the one hand, a humble posture towards our Creator, since the value we have either physically or spiritually is derived from God Himself as a gracious and deliberate gift. All the value we need is found in how He has created us and how He relates to us—all of which is of God. On the other hand, humans should also avoid too low of a view of mankind, since God has bestowed such a high position to man in the creation. To devalue men and women of any kind is to devalue the image that they possess, regardless of the level to which that image has been marred by sin.

A biblical balance, therefore, helps us avoid the extreme attitudes that often result in extreme behaviors towards God, ourselves, or others. This balanced approach should result in praise for the God who made us.

Dr. Bruce Meyer is professor of Bible and Biblical Counseling at Maranatha Baptist University in Watertown, Wisconsin.

(Originally published in FrontLine • May/June 2016. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

1. All such attempts at self-redemption, similar to the tower of Babel rebellion, result in an enslaving cyclical downward spiral. The more man attempts to solve his own problems his own ways, the more guilt and shame the person experiences resulting in more attempts to self-redeem (cf. Rom. 1 “given over” motif). The prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) are a good example. [↩]
2. Dr. Fred Moritz published an article previously in FrontLine providing a brief but useful biblical theology on the Image of God: “What Is the Image of God,” 2014. [↩]
3. The use of the plural pronoun warrants another study at another time since it’s outside the scope of this article. [↩]
4. Space does not permit a discussion on the merits or demerits of these positions. For a thorough treatment on this subject see Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) and Ronald Allen, The Majesty of Man (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000). [↩]
5. The entrance of sin has significantly distorted the image but not completely eradicated it (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9); through salvation and sanctification the image in believers is restored (2 Cor. 3:18). [↩]
6. John H Walton, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 21. [↩]