What is the Image of God?
There are four primary interpretations of the image of God in Genesis 1:26–27: the substantive view sees the image in humanity’s rational, moral, and self-aware inner nature; the physical view understands the image as a bodily resemblance to God but raises theological questions, particularly regarding the Trinity; the functional view defines the image in terms of humanity’s role as God’s representative rulers tasked with exercising dominion and spreading creation’s order; and the relational view identifies the image with humanity’s unique capacity for relationship with God and others, especially within the broader narrative of Genesis 1–3. Each view has strengths and weaknesses, with the functional view best suited to the immediate context of Genesis 1, the relational view drawing on the wider narrative, and the substantive view raising questions about its applicability to all humans. While the physical view raises doctrinal concerns, these interpretations are not necessarily mutually exclusive; together, they may contribute to a fuller understanding of the concept.
Four Views on the Image of God
Okay, here we go. Four views on the image of God in 10 minutes. What is the image of God? It comes from Genesis 1:26–27: “God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heaven and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him. Male and female, he created them.”
We want to look at what the image of God specifically means in this passage. Some of the explanations interface with the idea of “after our likeness.” We’re going to look at what are probably the top four scholarly opinions on the image of God.
1. Substantive View (Inner Quality)
The first is what has come to be called the substantive view, and it refers to the inner quality of a person. The basic idea is that the image of God is what humans are. It is our rational, moral, self-aware inner person. It’s a focus on the mind, on the soul, and on our moral capacity as a reflection of who God is. You can see this being really popular in Protestant Christianity, where through the years there has been so much emphasis on the morality of the redeemed Christian, the redeemed follower of Christ, and following God morally. Not that we shouldn’t—this is not a criticism of the view—but you can see how it has risen as a prominent view because we are to reflect the goodness of God, the moral character of God. God is a perfectly moral being, and therefore we reflect his perfect morality, especially when talking about Adam and Eve being created in the beginning and placed in the garden before sin entered the world. If this is what the image of God means, then at the moment they were created, they perfectly reflected God’s image or perfectly bore God’s image.
There are weaknesses to this view. It’s hard to define if it is tied to abilities or characteristics natural to all humankind. For example, if you have young children—an infant, or better, a toddler—or someone with severe mental disabilities who does things that are immoral but not willfully in defiance or rebellion against God, you might ask whether that person reflects God’s morality. That raises the question of whether they are created in the image of God. That’s a weakness of the substantive view. Many theologians have ways of working around that, so this does not make the view wrong, but it is a challenge.
2. Physical View (Bodily Resemblance)
The second is the physical view, and this is almost the opposite of the first. It is the idea that we bodily image God, that we have a bodily resemblance to God. You might not realize this is a common view. It is not common among scholars today, but it has been historically. The basic idea is that what human beings look like bears visible resemblance to what God himself looks like. This takes the idea of “image” in a very literal sense. Today it is rare, but it has had representation throughout history, and it appears in groups that would be considered Christian cults. You can see it in “Jesus only” circles, where there is a kind of physical resemblance being emphasized. Jesus is seen as God, the Father is treated more like an analogy, and the Spirit as the spirit of Jesus. In these circles, the image of God is taken to mean what God looks like, and human beings, as Christ’s creation, look like Jesus.
An obvious weakness is that this view tends to be adopted in systems that deny the Trinity. You lose Father, Son, and Spirit, and you lose a God who transcends creation while also being active within it. That creates serious theological issues.
3. Functional View (Representative Ruler)
The third is what can be called the functional view. This is the idea that humankind is a representative ruler of God. The image of God is what humans are supposed to do with creation. If you go back to Genesis 1:26–27, it is tied to having dominion over the earth. That dominion is interpreted by most scholars as creation care. Adam and Eve were to care for the garden, multiply within it, and as humankind multiplied, they were to spread the goodness of the garden over all the earth—multiply and fill the earth.
And so this idea is that God is the creator, and he created this microcosm of paradise that is Eden. Then he commissioned man in his image to go and spread that to all the earth. It is a very strong contextual view. It fits the immediate context and talks about Adam’s rule. He is both the priest and the king of the garden, and he is supposed to multiply and fill the earth. That is really the strength of it—you can clearly see this view in the text.
There is a weakness to it, though. It does not necessarily exclude the other views, but if someone argues that the image of God means only this one thing and adopts this view exclusively, they might begin to downplay the differences between God and man in a moral sense. So when we see Jesus do certain things in the Gospels, someone might say that was for Jesus to do, and perhaps for the apostles, but not something meant to be reflected in all of humankind. For example, when Jesus makes statements or takes actions about making peace, someone might respond that war still exists for various reasons. This is not making a statement about just war; it is simply an area where this tension shows up. You could end up with a framework where you do not have to reflect God morally in every sense because you create a division where some things are moral for God but not for humans. That creates a philosophical issue. So that is a weakness of the functional view, even though it has very strong contextual representation. That is three.
4. Relational View (Capacity for Relationship)
The fourth view is the relational view. It says that to be in the image of God is to have a capacity for relationship. What the relational view does is work not only with the immediate context but with the broader narrative of Genesis 1 through 3. It reflects on the created design for Adam and Eve to have communion in the garden with God himself. It argues that humans have a capacity for relationship with one another and with God in a way that animals and plants do not. The relational capacity of a human is different even from that of a dog or a cat. Most people would agree with that, even if they would not define the image of God that way.
There is a strong contextual argument when you look at Genesis 1 through 3. You see temple imagery throughout. God meets with Adam and Eve in the garden. There is a sense that they go to the center of the garden, where the tree of life is, and they commune with God. They receive life from the tree, and that tree imagery later becomes imagery of Christ. So the relational view connects the image of God to communion with God and with one another. It ties into what is celebrated in the Lord’s Supper—communion with God and with each other before God. Its strength is that it connects knowing God to relationship, not just knowing about him, but having a relational connection with him. It can even be described as a sacramental expression within this framework.
There is a weakness, though. It does not strongly engage the immediate context of Genesis 1. You do not clearly see this emphasis until Genesis 2 and 3. So critics argue that the relational view lacks strong representation in Genesis 1 itself. Those emphasizing immediate context will often argue for the functional view instead, saying the relational aspect develops later in the narrative.
As this wraps up, notice that these views do not completely conflict with each other. There is a tendency to say one is right and the others are wrong, but there are things to consider, pray about, and study across all of them. As always, Christ is king, and that changes everything. God bless.
