Genesis 1:26–27 states: “Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky…’ So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
Few verses in Scripture have provoked as much theological and philosophical reflection as these. The phrase “image of God” (Latin: imago Dei) has been interpreted in various ways over centuries of Jewish and Christian thought, and each interpretation carries its own implications for ethics, anthropology, and theology.
Let’s explore the three primary views—the Substantialist, Functional, and Relational—and then examine lesser-known views, modern perspectives, and the strengths and critiques of each approach.
1. The Substantialist View
Also known as the ontological view, this interpretation holds that the imago Dei refers to a particular trait or set of traits within the human being that mirrors God.
Common Traits Associated with God’s Image:
- Rationality: Ability to reason and think abstractly
- Moral conscience: Distinguishing good from evil
- Free will: Capacity for voluntary, moral decision-making
- Spiritual awareness: Ability to worship and reflect on God
- Creativity: Artistic and innovative expression
Strengths:
- Aligns with classical theological anthropology (e.g., Augustine, Aquinas)
- Upholds human dignity as inherent and unique among creation
- Offers a clear distinction between humans and animals
Critiques:
- Risks reducing the divine image to mental capacities, which could marginalize those with cognitive impairments
- Overemphasis on individual traits may ignore the corporate or communal nature of humanity
- It may be anachronistic, reading modern ideas into ancient texts
2. The Functional View
This view focuses not on what humans are, but on what humans do. According to Genesis 1:26–28, being made in God’s image is linked to rulership over creation.
Key Concepts:
- Humanity is God’s vice-regent, ruling on Earth as God’s representativeThe
- imago Dei is a commission, not just a condition
- Emphasizes stewardship and responsibility over nature
Strengths:
- Draws directly from the Genesis text, especially the immediate context
- Emphasizes human vocation, not just identity
- Avoids elitist interpretations based on intelligence or ability
Critiques:
- May exclude those unable to exercise dominion (e.g., infants, disabled persons)
- Doesn’t fully explain what distinguishes humanity from other rulers in the natural world (like predatory animals)
- Tends to neglect the relational and spiritual dimensions of humanity
3. The Relational View
This approach emphasizes the relational nature of the Trinity and sees the image of God primarily as the human capacity for relationships—with God, others, and creation.
Core Ideas:
- Humans are inherently relational beings
- Reflect the Trinitarian God, who exists in eternal relationship
- The imago Dei is fulfilled in community, love, and mutual self-giving
Strengths:
- Strong alignment with biblical themes of love, covenant, and community
- Inclusive of all people, regardless of abilities
- Compatible with New Testament theology (e.g., John 17, 1 John 4)
Critiques:
- Can be vague or overly abstract
- Less clear on what distinguishes humans from highly social animals
- May understate the individual dimension of the divine image
4. The Christological View
This lesser-known perspective interprets the imago Dei in light of Christ, who is referred to in Colossians 1:15 as “the image of the invisible God.”
Key Points:
- Jesus is the true image, and humans reflect God only in Him
- The image is broken in sin and restored through Christ
- Human destiny is to be conformed to the image of Christ (Romans 8:29)
Strengths:
- Deeply theological and centered on redemptive history
- Bridges Old and New Testaments
- Provides a dynamic vision of sanctification
Critiques:
- Risks disconnecting the imago Dei from all non-Christians or pre-Christ people
- Could limit the universality of the divine image
5. The Eschatological or Transformational View
Some modern theologians argue that the image of God is not static but progressive—it unfolds over time and will be fully realized in the eschaton.
Strengths:
- Accounts for growth, development, and spiritual transformation
- Avoids simplistic definitions of the image
- Stresses that the imago Dei points forward to God’s ultimate purpose
Critiques:
- Harder to root in the original context of Genesis
- May conflate image and likeness more than the biblical text supports
6. Flaws in Misusing the Doctrine
While the concept of the imago Dei has inspired profound insights, it has also been abused historically:
Racial and ethnic superiority: Some claimed certain groups bore the image more fully
Gender debates: At times used to assert male superiority, despite Genesis stating “male and female He created them”
Colonialism and domination: Justified exploitation under the guise of “exercising dominion”
It is critical that interpretations of the imago Dei always remain rooted in humility, equality, and the character of God as revealed in Christ.
7. Conclusion: A Multi-Faceted Image
The imago Dei is rich and mysterious—more a multi-faceted diamond than a one-note doctrine. Each view offers a lens that helps us see one piece of the truth:
- The Substantialist View reminds us of our unique dignity
- The Functional View calls us to responsibility
- The Relational View speaks to our need for love and community
- The Christological View roots our identity in redemption
- The Eschatological View offers hope for what we are becoming
Rather than choose just one, many theologians today adopt a composite approach—affirming that we are valuable, responsible, relational, and redeemable. In being made in God’s image, we reflect His nature, represent His will, and are called into communion with Him and each other.
Support Me On Patreon