DISCUSS THE BIBLICAL CONCEPT OF THE CREATIOIN OF MAN IN THE

IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF GOD AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS ON HUMAN

IDENTITY/SACTITY

By Paul Yusuf
ID No. 2023110
CTPP 803 Christianity, Human Identities and Worldviews

Introduction

The concept of the image of God in man is a topic that has been

debated and discussed for centuries among theologians, philosophers,

and scholars. This idea stems from the belief that human beings are

created in the likeness and image of God and therefore possess inherent

value, dignity and worth.1 The Biblical account of creation asserts that

humanity is uniquely created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis

1:26-27). Man, in this case was a highspot of creation. His creation was

quite different from

other creation, for God gave special attention to the creation of man. As Y

ohanes Verdianto averred, “Unlike animals and plants, humans received speci

al attention from God when they were made. God did not say "let the be"

when he created man as he did when with animals and plants.”2 The animals

that precede Adam are created according to their own kinds. The sea creatures, birds of the

air, beasts, cattle, and things that creep on the ground are all made after their own kinds, to

look and act like their own species. This distinction, however, is not made of the Adam.

Humanity is uniquely introduced as created in the image and likeness of God. John Sailhamer

explains, "Man's image is not simply of himself; he also shares a likeness to his Creator. 3 It

1
Image of God in Man Research Paper. Essaygpt.hix.ai/essay
2
Yohanes Verdianto, Created in the Image and Likeness of God: An Exposition of Relationship in
Human Creation, January 2022. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-
Journal) Humanities and Social Sciences 5(1) DOI:10.33258/birci.v5i1.4058
3
John Sailhamer, EBC. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol 2 Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1990.

1
was a special treatment. “The Lord God formed the man from the dust of

the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man

became a living being” (Genesis 2:7). Everything in creation was good

except one thing, that Adam was alone and thus he was not true image of

God. When God saw that there was no suitable helper found for him, Eve

was created from Adam's rib (Gen. 2:21). So God created Eve, an equal to

Adam, so they could relate to one another. Adam and Eve were created in

the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26, 27). According to Richard

Ritenbaugh, in creating man in the image and likeness of God, God

explains that He will create man to be just like Him. Man will not only look

like God, but humanity would also have spiritual ability to understand His

nature and to conform to it.4 This does not mean that God has physical

features like man e.g., having eyes, mouth etc. The unique form of man is

his abilities like His own. Man can think, reason, make decisions and plan.

He can originate and evaluate ideas and bring them to completion. He can

communicate and express complex concepts… Similarly, Alberto will say

“There are some basic attributes of human nature we have in our likeness

with God such as our intellect, our free will, and our capacity to relate. 5 It

is on this premise that Saadia Gaon and Philo argued that “being made in

the image of God does not mean that God possesses human-like features

but rather the reverse that the statement is figurative language for God

bestowing special honour unto mankind, which he did not confer unto the

4
Richard T. Ritenbaugh, God’s Master Plan in Forerunner Commentary (What the Bible Say About
Image and Likeness of God. bibletools.org/
5
Alberto Rojas, “Created in the Image and Likeness of God” – Let’s Unpack It. Inland Catholic Byte
Icbyte.org/index

2
rest of creation.”6 In addition God input in man a sense of organization

and administration. “And God said, let us make man in our own image,

after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,

and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth,

and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth (Genesis 1:26).

As Alberto Rojas points out, “We are spiritual people by nature. We are

created in the image and likeness of God so that we make God’s glory

visible to the world.”7 The doctrine of man created in the image and

likeness of God has profound implications for human identity/sanctity to

human life. This paper explores the biblical concept of the creation of man

in the image and likeness of God and its implication on human

identity/sanctity of human life.

The Image and the Likeness of God

According to the church fathers, the terms image and likeness do

not mean the exact same thing. In general, the term image can be

thought of as the powers with which each one of us is endowed by God

from the moment of our existence. By making proper use of being created

in His image, each one of us has the ability to acquire God’s likeness or to

be deified.8 The “image of God” is a key concept in Christian theology. It is

foundational to Christian thinking about human identity, human

significance, bioethics, and other topics. Being made in the image of God,

says Lyons and Thompson, does not refer to the physical body, the

6
Saadia Gaon, The book of Beliefs and Opinions”, 1948. Yale University Press; Philo, “On the
Creation of the World” Vol 1, 1929.
7
Alberto Rojas, “Created in the Image and Likeness of God” – Let’s Unpack It. Inland Catholic Byte
Icbyte.org/index
8
https://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/darren/darren03.html

3
posture, or the authoritative aspect of man. 9 John Frame says, Image of

God: Is exercising dominion over creation.” 10 Similarly, Gordon Spykman

see “image of God” “The unique capacity of human beings to reflect God’s

character, exercise dominion over creation, and live in covenant

relationship with Him.”11

These definitions highlight the unique status and characteristics of

human beings as image-bearers of God, reflecting His nature and

exercising dominion over creation.

Before delving into discussing the image and likeness of God and its implication on human

dignity/sanctity, this paper will make a brief review of some popular “traditional views” of

man in the image of God as postulated by classical scholars and also, “The Modern View:

Corporeal Attributes.”

The Traditional View of Man in the Image of God.

The traditional view remained prominent throughout a great duration of church

history, though various commentators throughout the centuries have emphasized different

aspects of man’s unique possession and practice of intellect, will, reason, logic, personality,

and self-consciousness as the definitive elements of the image of God which humankind was

created.12

9
Lyons, M. and Bert Thompson, “In the Image and Likeness of God.”
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?
10
Frame, J.M. “Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief,” 2013. P&R Publishing, p.
441.
11
Spykman, G.J. “Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics,” 1992. Eerdmans,
p. 234.
12
Chris Mueller, “What it Means to Be Created in the Image of God. A Senior Thesis submitted in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for Graduation in the Honours Programme, Liberty University, 1999.
DOC-20241014-WA0004.

4
 Traditional view on man created in the image and likeness of God (Imago Dei)

emphasized humanity’s unique relationship with God, reflecting His character and nature. the

traditional view proposes that humankind's uniqueness be specified to its spiritual qualities and

capacities. This position is founded on the dual recognition that these spiritual qualities differentiate

humans from animals and enable the male and female to have the dominion they are assigned. This

traditional view remained prominent throughout a great duration 13 We will see the view of some of

these traditionalists.

Irenaeus

The early church father Irenaeus (ca. 130-200) was bishop of Lyons, in modern day

southern France. In his work, Against Heresies, He argued that the image of God in man

consist of rationality and free will 14 Spiritual nature including the soul, 15 moral qualities

such as righteousness and holiness, 16 and dominion over creation. 17 that despite the Fall,

man continued to possess the “image” of God, but not the “likeness”. 18 However, the work

of Christ “re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the

invisible Father through means of the visible Word”.

For Augustine, “The image of God is not in the body, but in the soul” Augustine

asserts that Imago Dei is a spiritual and intellectual resemblance between God and Humanity.

He emphasized that the image of God is in the soul which he located the image of God in the

human soul, specifically in the rational and intellectual and intellectual faculties. 19 He also

contends that Trinity of God is also reflected in human nature by producing an analogy: the

mind is the Father, knowledge is the Son while love is the Holy Spirit. 20 Coming to rationality

13
Augustine, The City of God (De Civitate Dei), Book XII, Chapters 1-3. University of American
Press, 1950.
14
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Section 3
15
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 6, Section 1.
16
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 12, Section 2.
17
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 1.
18
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (Adversus Haereses), Book 5, Chapter 16, Section 2.
19
Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus Dods, 1887). (City of God, 22.24
20
“Holy Spirit, De Trinitate, 9.4.4. Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus Dods, 1887).
(City of God, 22.24)

5
and free will, Augustine stressed that human rationality and free will are essential aspects of

Imago Dei.21 Turning to moral and spiritual nature, Augustine believes Imago Dei to

encompass humanity’s moral and spiritual nature, which include virtues like justice, wisdom,

and charity.22

For Thomas Aquinas, “The image of God is the intellectual nature of man” He

developed a comprehensive understanding of man created in the image of God integrating

Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology.

Aquinas sees Imago Dei as a multifaceted concept, covering; intellectual nature

looking at it through the lens of human rationality, intellect, and will similar to God’s

intellectual nature. He also asserts that human soul is immortal, immaterial, and uniquely

bears God’s image. And that image of God reflects the trinity (mind (Father), knowledge

(Son), and love (Holy Spirit). For moral and virtuous, Aquinas includes moral virtuous like

justice, prudence, and charity.23

John Calvin, “The image of God is the spiritual and immortal soul” He developed a

comprehensive understanding of man created in the image of God (Imago Dei), emphasizing

humanity’s spiritual and moral resemblance of God based on spiritual and intellectual.

According to him, human rationality, conscience and intellect reflect God’s spiritual nature.

On moral and virtuous, Imago Dei includes moral virtues like justice, righteousness, and

holiness. Speaking on Relational and Social, Calvin averred those human relationships and

social nature reflect Gods relational character. His view on “dynamic and progressive states

that Imago Dei is not static, but dynamic and growing through spiritual renewal.24

21
Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus Dods, 1887). (City of God, 22.24) “De Civitate
Dei, 22.24
22
Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus Dods, 1887). (City of God, 22.24) “De Moribus
Ecclesiae Catholicae, 1.25,46,
23
“Summa Theologica” by Thomas Aquinas, (translated by Fathers of the English Dominican
Province, 1920)
24
John Calvin “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (translated by Henry Beveridge, 1845)

6
 Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher and a theologian, developed a unique

understanding of man created in the image of God (Imago Dei) His first view is on

“Allegorical interpretation”. He sees it as a spiritual and intellectual resemblance of God. 25

He also spoke on “Divine Logos, here, Philo identified the image of God with the divine

Logos, that is, “reason” that governs the universe. 26 He argued that the image of God as the

rational soul, which enables human to reason and understand divine truth. 27 On “Moral and

Virtuous”, Philo saw Imago Dei as encompassing moral virtues like wisdom, justice, and

self-control.28 For “Potential for Deification”, Philo believed that humans, through spiritual

growth and virtue, could attain a state of divine likeness.29

Tertullian

Tertullian (ca. 150-220), the outstanding apologist of the western church, ministered

in Carthage, North Africa. He advocated that the image of God in man, though lost as a

result of sin, included physical likeness and eternality, which are restored in conversion (On

Baptism 5).

Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-215) was not totally consistent in his use of the

terms for image and likeness. Sometimes he used them as virtual synonyms, following

closely after Philo, and referring to general endowments that all people have (The

Exhortation to the Heathen 98.4). At other times, he uses “image” to refer to rationality, the

power of reasoning, which all men have (The Exhortation to the Heathen 1.20.3), while

25
Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical Library,
1929. On the Creation, 134-144
26
Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical Library,
1929. Allegorical Interpretation,1.42-44.
27
Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical Library,
1929. On the Creation, 139.
28
Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical Library,
1929. On the Virtues, 203-205
29
Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical Library,
1929. On the Migration of Abraham, 174-175.

7
“likeness” refers to ethical similarity of the person to God (Stromata 6.136.3). In any case,

he rejected that any physical likeness to God was included in the image (Stromata 2.19).

The Modern View: Corporeal Attributes (Material; Tangible; Physical).

The most common ways of understanding what Scripture means when it says God made

humans in his own image are usually categorised into the following four approaches.

1. Substantive (also called structural, mimetic, or noetic). 2. Functional (also called vocational

or representative). 3. Relational. 4. Multifaceted (or dynamic).

Each of these views has different implications for human behaviour and Christian theology. We will

consider each view in turn as to its Scriptural support and as to its theological foundation for a

credible gospel presentation.

Substantive Approach

The substantive approach to understanding the image of God (Imago Dei) in humanity

focuses on the inherent qualities, in other words attributes of God present in human nature.

The Key proponents of this approach are: Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Charles Hodge and

Millard Erickson.

This is a very popular approach. This view argues that man has an inherent attribute of God

that differentiate him from the created animals. Rational thought is one of those attributes that is held

to distinguish between humans and animals. One such attribute that clearly distinguishing humans

from animals is the capacity for rational thought. Rationality in humans is seen as analogous to divine

rationality, except more limited. Other capacities, such as self-determination, morality and altruism,

help to describe more fully the distinguishing human attributes.30 These classifications, sometimes

with different nomenclature, have been noted by many authors, Cortez, McFarland, Migliore, Sands,

and Welz.31
30
Cortez, M. “Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei.” InteVarsity Press
Academic. pp 18.
31
Cortez, M. “Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei.” InteVarsity Press
Academic. Pp 18; McFarland, Creation and Humanity: The Sources of Christian Theology. (pp xxi) Louisville,
Ky: Westminster John Knox Press; Migliore, “Faith Seeking Understanding. An Introduction to Christian

8
 Thomas Aquinas argues that the image of God is rooted in humanity’s rational nature

(intellect, will, and emotions). That human being possesses a unique capacity for abstract

thought, moral judgment, and spiritual aspiration. To him, these qualities or attributes reflect

God’s own nature, showing Humanity’s substantive similarity to God. 32 As for Calvin, the

image of God is comprised of humanity’s spiritual, intellectual, and moral qualities, and that

human beings are created with a conscience, enabling them to discern right from wrong. He

is of the view that this moral awareness depicts humanity’s substantive connection to God’s

moral nature.33 Similarly, Hodge declares that the image of God includes humanity’s rational,

moral, and immortal nature. That human beings possess a unique capacity for self-awareness,

free will, and spiritual aspiration. He argues that these qualities distinguish humanity from

other creatures, showing substantive similarity to God.34 In the same vein, Erickson contends

that the image of God includes humanity’s spiritual, intellectual, and relational capacities,

and that human beings are created with a unique capacity for love, compassion, and moral

responsibility, and that these attributes portray humanity’s substantive connection to God.35

The position of these scholars has been applauded because of their relative strengths.

Summarily, they emphasize humanity’s unique qualities and capacities, highlighting the

substantive connection between humanity and God. They also provide a foundation for

human dignity and worth. However, some weaknesses have been identified with their

positions because they overemphasize humanity’s rational and intellectual aspects and failing

to fully account for the relational and functional aspects of the image. Worst still, this

position may lead to an overly individualistic understanding of humanity. Furthermore, some

Theology (2nd Ed. pp. 140-141). Michigan: Eerdmans; Sands “The Imago Dei as Vocation.” Evangelical
Quarterly, 82 (1) pp. 31-39: Welz, “God’s Eternal Goodness: Theology, Identity, and Covenant in the Works of
John Wesley and Karl Barth. pp. 74. Deo Publishing. In Derek Thompson, “The Theological Implications of
Being Made in the Image of God;” September, 2014.
32
Aquinas, T. Summa Theologica (vol. 1, Q. 93. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican
Province. (1947). New York: Benziger Brothers.
33
Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 15). Translated by H. Beveridge.
(1845). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
34
Hodge, C. Systematic Theology (vol. 2, Chapter 4). (1872). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
35
Erickson, M. Christian Theology (Chapter 32. (1983). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic

9
critiques note that the substantive approach overly emphasizes humanity’s similarities to

God, neglecting the distinction between Creator and creature. Others contend that this

approach focuses too narrowly on humanity’s intellectual and moral capacities.

Paul Sands summarises the criticisms levelled at the substantive approach as (1) not doing

justice to the dynamic view of human nature found in Paul's epistles, (2) being too individualistic (3) a

tendency to see male's as more in the image of God than females, and (4) for its rationalism as seen in

the Mindbody dualism.36 The emphasis in Genesis 1:26-28 is with humanity as a whole rather than the

individualistic human attributes the substantive view proposes.

A further observation on the limitation of this approach can be traced to the “emphasis in

Genesis 1:26-28 is with humanity as a whole rather than the individualistic human attributes the

substantive view proposes. The dualistic emphasis on human attributes disregards the scriptural

understanding of the whole person (body/soul/spirit). The whole of creation reflects the glory of God

(Ps 19:1; Rom 1:19) and not just some human attribute. 37 Similarly, Wobbler, Herrmann, Hare,

Wrangham, & Tomasello argue that “There is difficulty in finding a human attribute that applies to all

humans. Chimpanzees display a capacity for cognitive development to the level of a two-year-old

human. Animals display such human attributes as loyalty, emotions, and self-determination. 38

Functional Approach

“God said: Let us make humankind, in our image, according to our likeness. Let them

have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the heavens, animals, all the earth, and all

crawling things that crawl upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the

image of God did he create it, male and female he created them. God bless them, God said to

them: Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of

36
Sands, P. “The Uses and Abuses of the ‘Image of God’ in Christian Theology.” Journal of
Theological Studies, 61 (2), 33. In Derek Thompson, “The Theological Implications of Being Made in the
Image of God;” September, 2014.
37
Derek Thompson, “The Theological Implications of Being Made in the Image of God. September,
2014.
38
Wobber, V., Herrmann, E., Hare, B., Wrangham, R., and Tomasello, M. (2013). “Differences in the
early cognitive development of children and great apes.” Developmental Psychobiology. doi:
10.1002/dev.21125.

10
the sea, the fowl of the heavens and all living things that crawl about upon the earth.” This

can be said to be a functional definition of the Imago Dei.

A more accurate translation of the phrase, based on Hebrew grammar and

inscriptional evidence, would be “as our image.” In this case, humans would be God’s

representatives in the physical realm.39

The functional approach applies the Gen 1:26 phrase 'let them have dominion' to define the

'image of God' in terms of what humans do as oppose to what they are. Proponents of the functional

view argue that Gen 1:26 applies an ancient belief of surrounding cultures that kings were divine

representatives.40 Thus, human beings serve as God's representative rulers. This argument has been

criticised because of its reliance on extra-biblical sources to interpret Scripture and the fact that

Scripture itself does not use the 'representative rulership of its kings' to image behaviour.41

However, Clines and Konkel note that this ancient Near East concept of representation, when

applied to the imago dei in Genesis 1:26-28, brings with it several ramifications, First, it removes any

trace of a structural aspect of the imago. Humans are the imago dei because God chose them to be his

representation on earth. Our physical appearance and our mental capacities may help us in our task as

the imago dei but they have nothing to do with imago itself. 42 In Franz’s persuasive lament from the

point of functional/ambassadorial perspective, he writes that “If God is redemptive, communal,

personal, and relational, and that man is a reflection of God, then the organizations we create and the

managerial systems we enact are poorer for our neglect of these realities, for example, our

organizations are lonelier, meaner, more fragmented, and dysfunctional…Existing management

models are not wrong but are incomplete.”43

39
D.J.A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Ttbdake Bulletin 19 (1968):73-80; A.H. Konkel, ”Male
and Female as the Image of God.”Didaskalia 3/2 (April 1992): 1-2; James Barr. “The Image of God in the Book
of Genesis: A Study in Terminology,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51/1 (Autumn 1968):13-22; von
Rad, 58-59. In Ryan Kiassen, As The Image”:A Functional Understanding of the Imago Dei, Quodlibet 6 (224)
40
Cortez, M. Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei. InteVarsity Press Academic.
Pp 21.
41
Clines, 73-80; Konkel, 1-2. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004).
42
Clines, 90; Konkel, 2-3. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004)
43
Franz, R.S. “An Exercise in Theological Imagination: Mission Constructs and Management
Implications. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 17(1), 43-58.

11
 Second, the functional view of the imago dei makes humans the representatives of

God as his vice-gerents.44 Sands explained this point succinctly, when he said, “In exercising

dominion, we are called to function as royal ambassadors to share in the administration of

resources and creators.45 This position is pictured in 2 Corinthians 5:20a, Paul writes, “we are

ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us.” Also, Pregitzer, goes on

to say that, “We are called to minister to the world as agents of reconciliation between Gods

and man.”46

Thirdly, the functional view of the imago dei resists dividing the person into component parts.

Imago dei looks at humans as a unity. The imago is the whole person because it is through the whole

person that God has decided to manifest his presence on earth.47

D.J.A. Clines in Derek sums up the functional understanding of the imago dei quite

succinctly:

Man is created not in God’s image, since God has no image of His own, but as God’s
image, or rather to be God’s image, that is to deputize in the created world for the
transcendent God who remains outside the world order. That man is God’s image
means that he is the visible corporeal representative of the invisible, bodiless God; he
is the representative rather than representation, since the idea of portrayal is
secondary in the significance of the image. However, the term likeness is an
assurance that man is an adequate and faithful representative of God on earth. The
whole man is the image of God without distinction of spirit and body. All mankind
without distinction, are the image of God…Mankind, which means both the human
race and individual men, do not cease to be the image of God so long as they remain
men; to be human and to be the image of God are not separable.48

It has been observed by some scholars that the fall of man has broken the representative nature of man

in the image of God. Man lost his link with God. The fall of man then resulted in his inability to know

and do the will of God.

The fall also produced disunity within humanity as a whole. Before the fall, man and woman

were united as one flesh, together forming the imago dei. As a result of the fall also, we find conflict

44
Derek Thompson, “The Theological Implications of Being Made in the Image of God. September,
2014.
45
Sands, P. “The Imago Dei as a Vocation” Evangelical Quarterly, 82(1), 28-41.
46
Pregitzer, Michael, “Introducing the Ambassador Scorecard: A Christian Approach to HR
Professional Excellence. Christian Business Academy Review, 3(1), 48-60.
47
Clines, 85-87. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004)
48
Clines, 101. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004)

12
between the husband and the wife, and parents and children (Genesis 3:16). Individual began to exalt

themselves over others, taking revenge for real or imagined wrongs (c.f. Genesis 4:3-8;4:23-24).

Humanity was no longer able to function together as the corporate imago dei. 49

The fall did not only bring disunity and disconnect with God and other fellow human beings incurred

a curse upon the ground and the ability of man to take dominion and rule over other created things. To

Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded

you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat

of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of

the field. By the sweat of your brow, you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from

it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 3:17-19).

The functional approach to understanding the image of God (Imago Dei) in humanity

focuses on humanity’s role or function as representative and steward of God’s creation.

Notable school on this position are: Gordon Wenham and John Walton.

Gordon emphasizes humanity’s dominion and responsibility to care for creation. 50

Sharing the same view, John Walton views humanity as God’s representative, exercising

stewardship over creation.51 Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky put it this way, 'Man created “in

the image” is the person capable of manifesting God in the extent to which his nature allows itself to

be penetrated by deifying grace. 52 However, 'The functional view’s narrow focus on its derivation in

Genesis 1:26 does not make it sufficiently well grounded in Scripture.53

Relational Approach

The Relational approach to understanding the image of God (Imago Dei) in humanity

emphasizes the interpersonal and communal aspects of human nature, highlighting

humanity’s capacity for relationships with; God, others and creation. In this line we have

proponents like: Emil Brunner, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Stanley Grenz. They
49
Blocher, 121-125; C.F.D. “Moule, Man and Nature in the New Testament” (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967), x-xii. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004).
50
Gordon, W. The Book of Genesis (vol. 1, Chapters 1-15). (1987). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
51
John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Condition, 2015.
52
Lossky, V. In the Image and Likeness of God. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.
53
Vladimir

13
argued that humanity’s nature reflects God’s own relational character, for example, the

Trinity and that human relationships are very important to understanding the image of God.

This interpretation links relationality in humans with that within the Trinity. Karl Barth proposed the

'I-Thou' relationship as establishing human responsibility towards God and each other. Barth saw

biblical support in humanity's creation as male and female (Gen 1:27) directly following the statement

that humans are made in God's image as suggestive that the image involves relationship. These

scholars also argued further that love, compassion, and community are fundamental elements

to humanity’s created nature.54

It is observed that the position of these scholars above attracts some strengths. This is

so because they “emphasize humanity’s interpersonal and communal aspects, highlighting the

importance of relationships in understanding the image of God. They also provide a

framework for understanding human dignity and worth. However, the position has some

observed limitations, for example, they overlook humanity's rational and moral capabilities.

They produce an overly collectivist understanding of humanity”.55

Multifaceted Approach

Some scholars contend that to only look at one aspect or two of humanity’ image of

God without looking at man from the totality of all aspects is a great oversight. The

multifaceted approach is therefore, to fill this gap. The approach argues that to understand

man in the image of God, there should be an integration of various aspects of human nature,

relationships, and responsibilities. The approach recognizes the complexity and richness of

the Imago Dei.

54
Brunner, E. The Christian Doctrine of Man (1947). Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press; Karl Barth,
Church Dogmatics (vol. III/2, Chapters 1-5). (2009, pp. 140-186). Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Bonhoeffer, D.
Creation and Fall. (1937). New York: Macmillan; Grenz, S. The Social God and the Relational Self. (2001).
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

55
Brunner, E. The Christian Doctrine of Man (1947). Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press; Karl Barth,
Church Dogmatics (vol. III/2, Chapters 1-5). Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Bonhoeffer, D. Creation and Fall. (1937).
New York: Macmillan; Grenz, S. The Social God and the Relational Self. (2001). Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox Press.

14
 The proponents of this view include Berkouwer, Anthony Hoekema, Millard

Erickson, and Stanley Grenz. Their contentions include: The Imago Dei is a multifaceted

concept that cannot be reduced to a single aspect; humanity’s complexity requires an

integrated understanding of various aspects; multifaceted approach provides a comprehensive

framework for understanding human nature56 Multifaceted approaches, as Cortez calls them, see

all the other views as too narrow. The image of God applies to the entire person as a social being and

not just some particular capacity, function or relationship of individual humans. Gen 5:3 where Adam

'became the father of a son in his likeness, according to his image' implies a broader understanding of

the image. We would not describe the likeness of a child to its parent in terms of only one feature. 57

Fergusson rejects the classical approaches and proposes that the image points to 'forms and conditions

that characterise human life in community.' Fergusson goes on to say, 'The concept of the imago Dei

requires to be treated in this diffuse manner, rather than continuing the search for a single ingredient

of which it is the referent', and this leads him to suggest a multifaceted approach involving the

relational view.58 Cortez is another example of a theologian who rejects the substantivist approach. He

proposes a combination of the functional and relational approaches. 59 The strengths of this view lie

on the complexity and richness of the Imago Dei, integrates various aspects of human nature

and relationships, and also provides a comprehensive framework for understanding human

dignity and worth. Their weakness lies on the lack of clarity and specificity, and also requires

careful balance between various aspects. It may also lead to overemphasis on certain

aspects.60
56
Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics Series (14 volumes) Eerdmans, 1952-1972. pp 69; Anthony
Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 1986. Publisher: Eerdmans; Erickson, M. Christian Theology (Chapter 32.
(1983). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Stanley Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self, 2001.
Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press; Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis
1, 2005. Publisher: Brazos Press.
57
Cortez, M. Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei. InteVarsity Press Academic.
Pp 86.
58
Fergusson, D. The Image of God: Faith, Rationality and the Human Being. Fortress Press.
59
Cortez, M. Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei. InteVarsity Press Academic.
Pp 30.
60
Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics Series (14 volumes) Eerdmans, 1952-1972. pp 69; Anthony
Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 1986. Publisher: Eerdmans; Erickson, M. Christian Theology (Chapter 32.
(1983). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Stanley Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self, 2001.
Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press; Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis

15
Human Identity

A look at the meaning of human identity will through more light and understanding as

this paper will be discussing the implication for human identity later.

Human identity is complex, multifaceted, and dynamic. Man in the image of God gives

man his identity as a special creature, as he shares, in part, in God’s nature.61

J.P. Moreland defined human dignity to mean “the inherent worth and value of human

beings, rooted in their creation in the image of God.” 62 For Timothy Keller, “Human dignity

is the inherent worth and value of every human being, regardless of their background,

circumstances, or behaviour.”63 According to N.T. Wright, “Human dignity is rooted in our

creation in the image of God, and is characterized by our capacity for relationship, morality,

and stewardship.”64 In the words of David Gushee, “Human dignity refers to the inherent

worth and value of every human being, which is grounded in our creation in the image of

God and our inherent capacity for moral agency.” 65 Similarly, Arthur Holmes asserts that

“Human dignity is the inherent worth and value of human beings, rooted in their creation in

the image of God and characterized by their capacity for rational thought, moral agency and

spiritual aspiration.”66

The commonalities of these definitions is their emphasis in the inherent worth and

value of human beings, rooted in their creation in the image of God.

1, 2005. Publisher: Brazos Press.

61
Thomas A. Kilian, The Image of God: A Research Paper Identifying and Detailing the Form,
Content, and Function of the Image of God in Which Man Was Made, 2017.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313870470

62
Moreland, J.P. “The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning, 2009. Harvest House
Publishers, p. 154.
63
Keller T. “Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, 2010. Dutton, p. 74.
64
Wright, N.T. “Virtue Reborn”, 2010. SPCK Publishing, p. 123.
65
Gushee, D.P. “Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2003. InterVarsity Press,
p.235.
66
Holmes, A.F. “All Truth is God’s Truth, 2007. Eerdmans Publishing, p. 187.

16
 Job, painstakingly addressed God with a question in an attempt to know what is

special about man that God have given unreserved attention. He asked, "What is man, that

You should exalt him, That You should set Your heart on him… (Job 7:17, NJV). Located in

a puzzled mind, King David also raised the same rhetorical question before God. “What is

man that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him? For You have

made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honour.”

NJV (Ps 8:4, 5, NJV). These passages highlight God’s remarkable concern for humanity,

despite our limitations. For Man is full of weaknesses; fragile and vulnerable, humans have

limitation, said differently, he has finite knowledge and capabilities; man is sinful by nature,

prone to error and rebellion. Despite these limitations, God is mindful, caring and God is

actively engaged in human affairs.

Yet, in a similar attempt to know who is ‘man’: Secular humanist define man as “the

product of a random evolutionary process with limitless potential, and will one day take

control of (his or her) development” (and destiny).67

In the field of psychology, it is said that human identity “is most commonly used to

describe personal identity, or the distinctive qualities or traits that make an individual unique.

Hence, human identities are strongly associated with self-concept, self-image (one's mental

model of oneself), self-esteem, and individuality.”68 Said differently, human identity is how

an individual take stock of his or her own value within his or her social, political, cultural,

psychological, and economic environment.

Looking into the area of philosophy, human identity is centered on self-image or self-

actualization by an individual.”69 In African Traditional Religions, human identity is rooted

in the principle of lineage (e.g, kinship principle). It is for this reason that John S. Mbiti

67
John Stott, p. 34,
68
https://www.google.com/search?q=human+identity+meaning&rlz. Accessed on 29th August 2024.
69
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-
0086.xml. Accessed on 29th August 2024.

17
asserts that in African traditional society, the saying goes: “I am, because we are; and since

we are, therefore I am.”70 Therefore, the belief is that:

Just as God made the first man, as God’s man, so now man himself makes the
individual who becomes the corporate or social man. It is a deeply religious
transaction. Only in terms of other people does the individual become conscious of
his being, his own duties, his privileges and responsibilities towards himself and
towards other people.71

Other summary definitions of man and his/her identity: 72

i. Aristotle = a political animal -identity in social and
political engagements.
ii. Thomas Willis = a laughing animal - identity in entertainment
iii. Benjamin Franklin = a tool-making animal - identity in industrial
advancement
iv. Edmund Burke = a religious animal - identity in religious
engagement
v. James Boswell = a cooking animal - identity in consumption

1. Economic concept of human identity is defined by productivity, consumption and

economic status, asserted by Karl Marx. 73 Becker asserts that human identity is hinged

as individuals as investments.74 The argument against this perspective is that it

reduces humans to economic units, neglecting intrinsic human value.

2. Psychological Concept of Human Identity: This is formed through self-awareness,

emotions, and relationships.75 This perspective is criticised on the ground that it

overlooks social and cultural values.

3. Political Concept of Human Identity: Focuses on nationality, and political affiliation. 76

Rousseau see it as a social contract which is based on individuals as citizens. 77 The

70
John S. Mbiti, African Religious and Philosophy (Second Edition). Jordon Hill, Oxford: Heinemann,
1989, p. 106.
71
Ibid., p. 106
72
John Stott, The Contemporary Christian. Leicester, U.K.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992, p. 35-36. Read
the book by Keith Thomas titled: Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1806.
(1983, Penguin, 1984).
73
Marx, K. “Das Kapital, 1867.
74
Becker, G.S. “Investment in Human Capital.”, 1962.
75
Erikson, E. H. “Childhood and Society”, 1950.
76
Aristotle, “Politics”, 350 BCE).
77
Rousseau, J.J. “The Social Contact », 1762.

18
 limitation of this perspective is that it lays too much emphasis on state interest over

individual rights.

4. Social Concept of Human Identity: Mead believes that this perspective is shaped by

social interactions, roles, and relationships. 78 Blumer’s focus is on Symbolic

interaction as an identity formed through communication. 79 However, this perspective

neglects individual agency and free will.

5. Cultural Concept of Human Identity: Geertz asserts that this is influenced by cultural

norms, values, and traditions.80 For Hall, this is a identity formed through cultural

narratives and symbols.81 The limitation of this perspective is that it overlooks power

of dynamics and cultural homogenization.

6. Biblical Concept of Human Identity: This perspective indicates that man is created in

the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), defined by relationship with God, not external

factors (1 Corinthians 6:20) and that this identity is rooted in Christ’s redemption (2

Corinthians 5:17).

From the above definitions and explanations, we realize that human identity is not

derived from secular field of study like politics, sociology, biology, psychology, philosophy

or from African traditional perspective or from other social sciences but on biblical

perspective. From a Biblical perspective, human identity is rooted in God who made man

and woman in His image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26-27).

Implication for Human Identity

The Bible teaches us those human beings are created by God, sustained by God and

created for God (Genesis 1:26-27; Colossians 1:16,17; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36;

Hebrews 1:3): This puts extreme value on the human being. The other human being our

78
Mead, G. H. “Mind, Self, and Society”, 1934.
79
Blumer, H. “Symbolic Interaction”, 1969.
80
Geertz, C. “Interpretation of Cultures.” 1973.
81
Hall, S. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora, 1990.

19
neighbour, was created, not for us to us and abuse according to our mood and our purposes.

But for God and for his purpose. Every human being is God’s possession and God’s property

by virtue of creation.

Our knowledge that “God created man in his own image; he created him in the image
of God; he created them male and female” (Gen. 1:27), “changes everything, doesn’t
it? That every life is created in God’s image changes our view of people. It changes
our actions toward them. It changes the issues we care about and to which we devote
ourselves. The image of God has profound implications”.82

Human life has inherent value, regardless of circumstances. The Christian worldview

traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the

image of God. Luke Nix will say that “if humans are intrinsically valuable, they are set of

objectives (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view asserts that humans

possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin

colour, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge

others’ value.83

Christians believe in the intrinsic value of every human being because we are created

in the image of God. Nothing negates that image and the value it instils in every human

being, not even sin. Every human bear that value throughout his or her life. 84 It is also

believed that “When God created human beings, he gave them a specific identity which

distinguishes them from everything else… This gives to human beings a unique value and

unique responsibility. It gives to a human being a significance, a dignity and a role which

nothing else can achieve or fulfil, and puts a heavy boundary around the way we view and

treat one another.85 This is why any person that violates other persons value is levelled anti-

ethical and devoid of humour, totally evil and sinful. Penner said, because we are Christians,

82
Mike Livingstone, 5 Practical Implications of the Image of God (Session 8 – Genesis 1:27:9:1-7;
Matthew 5:21-22, January 14, 2019.
83
Luke Nix, Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value? Saturday, September 28, 2019. ossexamined. org
84
Melinda Penner, Intrinsic Human Value Is the Same for All and Can Never Be Lost, 25 August,
2017. Str.org/w/intrinsic
85
Rosemary Bardsley, Principle 5: The Sanctity of Life, 2016. swordforyou.com

20
we revile abortion, condemn racism, reject euthanasia, and denounce murder no matter who

the victim is.86 Unfortunately, race, religion, skin colour, education, sex etc have been

deployed as a reason throughout human history to impose obedience and abuse other human

beings. On the contrary, John Davis asserts that:

Human beings have inestimable value in the sight of God, irrespective of

gender, race, state of health, dependency, or social and economic utility, but
simply and profoundly because human beings, among all God’s creatures,
have been designed and created for the purpose of enjoying a personal
relationship through Jesus Christ with the Creator of the universe.87

The Bible teaches us that all humans trace our lineage to Adam and Even who were

created in the image and likeness of God.

A reminder by Penner states:

Quality of life can’t negate intrinsic human value. We bear God’s image, and that
gives lives value even when they are fraught with illness and disease. Our obligation
is to care and protect the weak and vulnerable, not end their lives because the quality
is deemed a low.88

Today, humans are seen as mere tools, and products of random, meaningless, physical

processes to be used and dropped when the odds set in. The only value and dignity possible is

subjective, whatever someone chooses to assign.

Human beings are special because they aren’t accidents of evolution, but intentional,

special creations by God, who placed his own image on us. Tim Keller sums it up this way in

“The Reason for God.” The Christian Gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for

me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep

humility and deep confidence at the same time. It undermines both swaggering and

snivelling. I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone. 89 The

86
Melinda Penner, Intrinsic Human Value. Para 2.
87
John Davis, “Sanctity of Life,July 1, 2005. para. 5, ligonier.org/learn
88
Melinda Penner, Intrinsic Human Value. Para 5.
89
Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism, 2008. Publisher: Dutton
(Penguin Group)

21
Christian Gospel answers the deepest cry of our hearts – to be loved and accepted, to be

valued unconditionally.

Because God created humans in His image, each human life has intrinsic value. That we are

made in God’s image means human worth is not based on race, ethnicity, economic status,

social standing, or physical attractiveness. Consequently, the image of God disallows

prejudice of any kind.90

Many Christian theologians believe that humans possess rationality, creativity, moral

agency, and the capacity for relationship, all of which are seen as reflections of God’s own

attributes. This understanding of the image of God in man has profound implications for how

we view ourselves and others, as well as how we treat and interact with one another.91

From the lens of ethical implication, if human beings are indeed created in the image

of God, then it follows that we are called to treat one another with respect, dignity, and

compassion. This means valuing the inherent worth and dignity of every individual,

regardless of their race, gender, religion, or social status. It also means working toward

justice, equality, and the common good, as a way of honouring the divine image in each

person.92

Many religious and spiritual traditions teach that recognizing and honouring the

divine image in oneself and others can lead to personal transformation, spiritual growth, and a

deeper sense of connection with the divine. By cultivating virtues such as love, compassion,

forgiveness, and humility, individuals can strive to embody the image of God in their own

lives and relationships, thereby contributing to the flourishing of themselves and others.93

90
Mike Livingstone, 5 Practical Implications of the Image of God (Session 8 – Genesis 1:27:9:1-7;
Matthew 5:21-22, January 14, 2019.
91
Thomas A. Kilian, The Image of God: A Research Paper Identifying and Detailing the Form,
Content, and Function of the Image of God in Which Man Was Made, 2017.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313870470
92
Thomas A. Kilian, para
93
Thomas A. Kilian, para

22
 The “Image of God” framework offers a lens through which to view the moral and

spiritual responsibilities of humanity…This role often translates into the ethical imperative to

act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. These responsibilities are seen as reflections of

divine attributes, calling believers to emulate the character of their creator in their daily

lives.94

The relational aspect of the “Image of God” is another crucial dimension. It posits that

human beings are created for relationships—not only with each other but also with the divine.

This relationality is often seen as a mirror of the relational nature of God, as depicted in

Christian Trinitarian theology. The capacity for love, community, and fellowship is thus

understood as a fundamental part of what it means to be human.95

Additionally, the concept of the “Image of God” has been instrumental in shaping

Christian views on redemption and salvation. Theologically, the idea that the image can be

marred by sin yet restored through divine grace has profound implications. It underscores the

belief in the transformative power of salvation, where individuals are renewed and restored to

reflect God’s image more fully. This process of restoration is often seen as a lifelong journey,

involving continuous growth in spiritual and moral likeness to the divine.96

Modern theologians emphasize that both men and women are equally bearers of the

divine image, suggesting that gender does not confer a hierarchy of value or role within the

spiritual community. This egalitarian perspective is supported by various scriptural

interpretations that highlight mutual respect and partnership.97

Theological reflections on the “Image of God” have inspired movements for social

justice, particularly in advocating for women’s rights and challenging systemic gender
94
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July 28,
2024. para. 7 https://divinenarratives.org
95
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July 28,
2024. para. 8 https://divinenarratives.org
96
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July 28,
2024. para. 9 https://divinenarratives.org
97
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July 28,
2024. para. 10 https://divinenarratives.org

23
discrimination. These efforts are grounded in the belief that recognizing the divine image in

every person necessitates the dismantling of structures that devalue or oppress based on

gender.98

In more recent years, the discussion has expanded to include non-binary and

transgender identities. The recognition that the “Image of God” transcends traditional gender

binaries has led to more inclusive interpretations that affirm the dignity and worth of all

individuals, regardless of their gender identity.99

The theological understanding of the “Image of God” has profound implications for

discussions about race and racial equality. Central to this discourse is the recognition that all

humans, regardless of racial or ethnic background, embody the divine image. This

foundational belief challenges any form of racial hierarchy or discrimination, asserting the

inherent dignity and worth of every individual. Historically, this principle has been both a

source of inspiration and a point of contention within various religious communities.100

The civil rights movement in the United States, for example, drew heavily on the

theological assertion that all people are created in the image of God. Leaders like Martin

Luther King Jr. invoked this idea to argue against the dehumanizing effects of racism and

segregation, advocating for a society that reflects divine justice and equality. This theological

grounding provided a moral imperative that galvanized support across diverse religious and

cultural groups, emphasizing that racial justice is not merely a social or political issue, but a

98
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July 28,
2024. para. 11 https://divinenarratives.org
99
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July 28,
2024. para. 12 https://divinenarratives.org
100
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July
28, 2024. para. 13 https://divinenarratives.org

24
deeply spiritual one.101 Appreciating the fact that man is made in the image of God “has a

profound implication for how individuals are treated within society, underpinning arguments

for human rights and equality.102 Ref: The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications.
(Divine Narrative Team), July 28, 2024. https://divinenarratives.org

Contemporary theologians and activists continue to explore how the concept of the

“Image of God” can inform and inspire efforts toward racial reconciliation and justice. They

argue that recognizing the divine image in every person calls for an active commitment to

dismantling systemic racism and fostering environments where all individuals can flourish.

This involves not only addressing overt acts of discrimination but also challenging the subtle,

pervasive biases that undermine the dignity of marginalized communities.103

Likewise, the very concept of democracy finds its true basis in this crucial, biblical

truth. The principles of “one person, one vote” and the principles of political equality and

self-government are consistent with the equality of all persons as equally bearing the image

of God.

It is in the image of God that Christian faith grounds a sanctity-of-life ethic in issues
such as abortion, euthanasia, and stem-cell research. As image bearers of God by their
fact of being created by God, the lives of human beings, as stated above, have
intrinsic and not merely instrumental value. Innocent human life is inviolable and may
never be illicitly destroyed for someone else’s benefit. If it is asked, “When does the
image of God appear in man,” the best biblical answer is, “At the beginning, at the
creation: When a living human being is present, the image of God is present.” Human
life has transcendent value in the eyes of God from the moment of conception until
natural death, and must always be respected as such.104

This statement is also affirmed by David Livingstone when he says:

The image of God is why we contend for the sacredness of human life—from
conception to natural death. It is why we oppose abortion and stand up for the unborn.
David the psalmist said to God: “it was you who created my inward parts; you knit me
together in my mother’s womb” (Ps. 139:13). God said to Jeremiah, “I chose you
before I formed you in the womb” (Jer. 1:5). Scripture clearly informs us the yet-to-
101
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July
28, 2024. para. 14 https://divinenarratives.org
102
The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications,
103
Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications, July
28, 2024. para. 15 https://divinenarratives.org
104
John Davis, “Sanctity of Life, July 1, 2005. para. 7, ligonier.org/learn

25
 be-born child is a creative work of God—created with purpose, and as such deserves
protecting.105

As Christians, we have to remake the world where a man is another man’s concern.

Where we role-take to better understand the feelings of our brothers and sisters, where we

respect the sanctity and worth of one another.

This is a vision for a world we WANT to live in. This is a true and better story. This is
the base layer that makes equality and goodness and generosity and all the rest work
—an understanding of humanity as made in the image of God, therefore with an
inherent dignity. This is why it’s worth opposing the slave trade. This is why it’s
worth opposing trafficking. This is why it’s worth fighting for public health and
education, why it’s worth fostering and adoption, why it’s worth pouring into
biological children, why it’s worth building businesses that provide jobs. This is why
it’s worth caring for those whose bodies are failing and those who have seen their
usefulness to society pass away, and why it’s worth caring for those not yet born.
Because these things are in line with the dignity that all people have being made in the
image of God. Christianity has a positive vision for the world and for you and for me
—one that we want. 106

David Livingstone adds:

If God created humans in His image, and every life has value, then we cannot ignore
those trapped in poverty, trafficking, or homelessness. We cannot ignore the widow or
the orphan who bears the image of God. As image bearers of God—protector of
strangers and helper of the fatherless and the widow (Ps. 146:9)—we
must do something. Has God not told us…

 “Open your hand willingly to your poor and needy brother in your land” (Deut
15:11).
 “Speak up for those who have no voice, for the justice of all who are
dispossessed. Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the
oppressed and needy” (Prov. 31:8-9).
 “Pursue justice. Correct the oppressor. Defend the rights of the fatherless. Plead
the widow’s cause” (Isa. 1:17).

Jesus taught that our response to the least of this world is in some measure an indication of

the validity of the relationship with profess to have with Him. (See Matt. 25:35-45.).107

With this vision in our hearts, we can conquer the world with the love of Christ. Draw

the oppressed, the poor, the vulnerable to the freedom and saving knowledge of the Lord
105
Mike Livingstone, 5 Practical Implications of the Image of God (Session 8 – Genesis 1:27:9:1-7;
Matthew 5:21-22, January 14, 2019.
106
John Davis
107
Mike Livingstone, 5 Practical Implications of the Image of God (Session 8 – Genesis 1:27:9:1-7;
Matthew 5:21-22, January 14, 2019.

26
Jesus Christ. “It was this kind of vision for humanity that contributed to Christianity

spreading like wildfire through the Roman Empire. In a time and a day where society viewed

people as things to be exploited, a society that valued power and the use of it to oppress

others—socially, sexually, economically, militarily—Christianity stepped in with love and

value and dignity.”

These words from Rosemary is a test dose for Christians:

Before we despise people, before we hurt people, before we treat humans and human,
life with contempt, let us remember these three indicators of the sanctity and
sacredness, of human life: this human is special because of creation in the image of
God; and this human is special because of the extreme measures God took to save this
human from eternal condemnation. The principle of the sanctity of human life means
that we see every human being with a big sign on them saying precious to God. Do
not touch! Do not harm their bodies with physical harshness. And do not harm their
souls with verbal and emotional hardness.108

In Matthew 8, Jesus reached out and touched a leper to heal him. In a society that said

of lepers, “unclean” and carefully walled away the sick, lest there be any risk of not even

physical illness, but just spiritual uncleanness, Jesus reached across that health divide and

touched a hurting man to heal him.

In Luke 7, Jesus was condemned by his society because he did not shun a woman who

was a sinner, which probably meant in their parlance that she was a prostitute. In an

unbelievably large social divide, Jesus crossed it. In Matthew 14, Jesus fed thousands, and he

regularly emphasized and showed his care for the poor, places like Luke 6.

Jesus, in his life on earth, treated all with dignity, including and even especially those

we might not have expected. He thought they were worth something. He thinks every one of

us is worth something. Here’s how much: if we think something is valuable, we will pay a lot

for it. If we think Tesla is a valuable company, we will pay a lot for its stock. And if

something suddenly makes it appear less valuable—like last week’s earnings call—we will

suddenly only be willing to pay less.

108
Rosemary Bardsley, Principle 5: The Sanctity of Life, 2016. swordforyou.com

27
 Just like Jesus, when we know that all humans are created in the image and likeness

of God, and therefore possess human identity and sanctity of life rooted in God, demands that

Christians should reach out for the lost by sharing the gospel of the goodnews to the lost

(Acts 20:24). Spurgeon said: “Man was made in the image of God, and nothing will satisfy

man but God, in whose image he was made.” 109 Consider the tremendous implications this

has for the church in the area of evangelism and missions.

It is based on the implication of man created in the image of God has on the church

that ECWA in composing its anthem include mission thought as part of its wordings. For

example, standard one says:

Love for the dying and the perishing; A call to save the lost we heed; Through the

raging storms and all uncertainties; Our lives we freely give…

2. The Bible our authority, mission our identity, Touching lives with what we preach. In

life and speech, faithful we shall be, Drawing hearts of man to Christ.

3. Help the poor and homeless, clothe the weak and cold; Giving all we have for Christ.

Our strength and substance we will not spare, we shall draw all men to Christ.110

Conclusion
The image of God in man is complex and multifaceted concept that has profound

implications for how we understand ourselves, others, and the world around us. Imago Dei

doctrine underscores humanity’s inherent value, dignity, and sanctity. By recognizing and

honouring the divine image in each person, we can cultivate a deeper sense of empathy,

compassion, and respect for all humanity. As Christians, we must; uphold the inherent worth

dignity of every human being, advocating for justice, compassion, and human rights,

recognizing human right as sacred, from conception to natural death, and reflecting God’s

character in our relationships and actions.

109
Spurgeon, C.H. “The Park Street Pulpit: vol. 4, 1858
110
ECWA Anthem “OH GOD BE GLORIFIED. (eds. By Rev. Romanus Ebenwokodi, February, 2019.

28
29
References

Textbooks

Aristotle, “Politics”, 350 BCE).

Augustine, The City of God (De Civitate Dei), Book XII, Chapters 1-3. University of
American Press, 1950.

Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus Dods, 1887). (City of God, 22.24
“Holy Spirit, De Trinitate, 9.4.4. Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus
Dods, 1887). (City of God, 22.24).

Augustin,“The City of God” (translated by Marcus Dods, 1887). (City of God, 22.24)
“De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, 1.25,46,

Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics. Vol. III, Part 2.

Becker, G.S. “Investment in Human Capital.”, 1962.

Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics Series (14 volumes) Eerdmans, 1952-1972. pp 69;

Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 1986. Publisher: Eerdmans; Erickson, M.
Christian Theology (Chapter 32. (1983). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic; Stanley
Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self, 2001. Publisher: Westminster John
Knox Press; Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1,
2005. Publisher: Brazos Press.

Blocher, 121-125; C.F.D. “Moule, Man and Nature in the New Testament” (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1967), x-xii. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004).

Bratsiotis, P. N. "Genesis 1:26 in der orthodoxen Theologie," EvTh 11 (1951152): 15-44,

as cited in Westermann, 149.

C. Geertz, “Interpretation of Cultures.” 1973.

C. Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 2, Chapter 4). (1872). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Calvin John “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (translated by Henry Beveridge, 1845)

Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book 1, Chapter 15). Translated by H.

Beveridge. (1845). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Clines, D .J.A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” Ttbdake Bulletin 19 (1968):73-80; A.H.
Konkel, ”Male and Female as the Image of God.”Didaskalia 3/2 (April 1992): 1-2;
James Barr. “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis: A Study in Terminology,”
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 51/1 (Autumn 1968):13-22; von Rad, 58-59.
In Kiassen Ryan, As The Image”:A Functional Understanding of the Imago Dei,
Quodlibet 6 (224)

Clines, 73-80; Konkel, 1-2. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004).

30
Clines, 90; Konkel, 2-3. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004)

Clines, 85-87. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004)

Clines, 101. In Ryan Klassen, Quodlibet 6 (2004)

Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today, 152 in Thomas A. Kilian III,
The Image of God: A Research Paper Identifying and Detailing the Form, Content,
and Function of the Image of God in Which Man Was Made, 2017.

D.P. Gushee, “Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, 2003.

InterVarsity Press, p.235.

E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1947). Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press;
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (vol. III/2, Chapters 1-5). (2009, pp. 140-186).
Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Bonhoeffer, D. Creation and Fall. (1937). New York:
Macmillan; Grenz, S. The Social God and the Relational Self. (2001). Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press.

E.H. Erikson, “Childhood and Society”, 1950.

G. H. Mead “Mind, Self, and Society”, 1934.

Gaon Saadia, The book of Beliefs and Opinions”, 1948. Yale University Press; Philo, “On the
Creation of the World” Vol 1, 1929.

Fergusson, D. The Image of God: Faith, Rationality and the Human Being. Fortress Press.

Franz, R.S. “An Exercise in Theological Imagination: Mission Constructs and Management
Implications. Journal of Biblical Integration in Business, 17(1), 43-58.

Garrette, J.D. “Doing Philosophy As A Christian.”, 2011. Publisher: IVP Academic. pp 221.

H. Blumer, “Symbolic Interaction”, 1969.

Hall, S. “Cultural Identity and Diaspora, 1990.

Hamilton Victor P., The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17. NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Company: 1990), 134.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, (Adversus Haereses), Book 5, Chapter 16, Section 2.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Section 3

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 6, Section 1.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 12, Section 2.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 5, Section 1.

31
J.J. Rousseau, “The Social Contact », 1762.

J.P. Moreland, “The God Question: An Invitation to a Life of Meaning, 2009. Harvest House
Publishers, p. 154.

John S. Mbiti African Religious and Philosophy (Second Edition). Jordon Hill, Oxford:
Heinemann, 1989, p. 106.

Karl Marx, “Das Kapital, 1867.

Keller Timothy, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism, 2008. Publisher:
Dutton (Penguin Group)

Kelsey David, “The Idea of the Image of God in Western Civilization, 2005.

Kilian Thomas A. The Image of God: A Research Paper Identifying and Detailing the
Form, Content, and Function of the Image of God in Which Man Was Made, 2017.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313870470

Livingstone Mike, 5 Practical Implications of the Image of God (Session 8 – Genesis

1:27:9:1-7; Matthew 5:21-22, January 14, 2019.

M. Cortez, M. “Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei.” InteVarsity

Press Academic. pp 18.

M. Cortez, “Created in God’s Image: An Investigation of the Imago Dei.” InteVarsity Press
Academic. Pp 18; McFarland, Creation and Humanity: The Sources of Christian
Theology. (pp xxi) Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press; Migliore, “Faith
Seeking Understanding. An Introduction to Christian Theology (2nd Ed. pp. 140-141).
Michigan: Eerdmans; Sands “The Imago Dei as Vocation.” Evangelical Quarterly, 82
(1) pp. 31-39: Welz, “God’s Eternal Goodness: Theology, Identity, and Covenant in the
Works of John Wesley and Karl Barth. pp. 74. Deo Publishing. In Derek Thompson,
“The Theological Implications of Being Made in the Image of God;” September, 2014.

M. Erickson, Christian Theology (Chapter 32. (1983). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic

Michael Pregitzer, “Introducing the Ambassador Scorecard: A Christian Approach to HR

Professional Excellence. Christian Business Academy Review, 3(1), 48-60.

Mueller Chris, What it Means to Be Created in the Image of God. A Senior Thesis submitted
in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for Graduation in the Honours Programme,
Liberty University, 1999. DOC-20241014-WA0004.

N.T. Wright, N.T. “Virtue Reborn”, 2010. SPCK Publishing, p. 123.

Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical
Library, 1929. On the Creation, 134-144

Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical

32
 Library, 1929. Allegorical Interpretation,1.42-44.

Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical
Library, 1929. On the Creation, 139.

Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical
Library, 1929. On the Virtues, 203-205

Philo, De Opificio Mundi, translated by F.H. Colson and G.H. Whitaker (Loeb Classical
Library, 1929. On the Migration of Abraham, 174-175.

Ritenbaugh Richard T., God’s Master Plan in Forerunner Commentary (What the Bible Say
About Image and Likeness of God. bibletools.org/

Rojas Alberto, “Created in the Image and Likeness of God” – Let’s Unpack It. Inland
Catholic Byte Icbyte.org/index

Sands, P. “The Uses and Abuses of the ‘Image of God’ in Christian Theology.” Journal of
Theological Studies, 61 (2), 33. In Derek Thompson, “The Theological Implications of
Being Made in the Image of God;” September, 2014.

Sailhamer John, EBC. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol 2 Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1990.

Sohngen Gottlieb, "Die biblische Lehre von der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen,"
Festgabe
ErzbischoJ Jager, BischoJStahlin (Munster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1963),26, as cited in Westennann, 149.

Spurgeon, C.H. “The Park Street Pulpit: vol. 4, 1858.

Stott John, The Contemporary Christian. Leicester, U.K.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1992, p. 35-36.
Read the book by Keith Thomas titled: Man and the Natural World: Changing
Attitudes in England 1500-1806. (1983, Penguin, 1984).

Aquinas Thomas, “Summa Theologica” (translated by Fathers of the English Dominican

Province, 1920)

T. Aquinas, Summa Theologica (vol. 1, Q. 93. Translated by Fathers of the English

Dominican
Province. (1947). New York: Benziger Brothers.

Tertullian Quintus, On the Soul: “The Soul’s Vitality and Intelligence. Its Character and Seat
in Man,” The Complete Works of Tertullian (33 Books with Active Table of Contents),
Edited by Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson, and Arthur C. Coxe, Kindle ed.
(2011), Kindle Location: 25953.

The Oxford Handbook of Human Identity, 2018.

Thomas Jefferson. “Writings” edited by Merrill D. Peterson (1984), Library of America.

33
Thompson Derek, “The Theological Implications of Being Made in the Image of God.
September, 2014.

W. Gordon, The Book of Genesis (vol. 1, Chapters 1-15). (1987). Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans.

Walton John, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament.

Wobber, V., Herrmann, E., Hare, B., Wrangham, R., and Tomasello, M. (2013). “Differences
in the early cognitive development of children and great apes.” Developmental
Psychobiology. doi: 10.1002/dev.21125.

V. Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Verdianto Yohanes, Created in the Image and Likeness of God: An Exposition of Relationship
in Human Creation, January 2022. Budapest International Research and Critics
Institute
(BIRCI-Journal) Humanities and Social Sciences 5(1) DOI:10.33258/birci.v5i1.4058

Internet Materials

Bardsley Rosemary, Principle 5: The Sanctity of Life, 2016. swordforyou.com

Divine Narrative Team, The Image of God: Biblical Basis, Interpretations, and Implications,
July 28, 2024. https://divinenarratives.org

Easton’s Bibel Dictionary -Man biblestudytools.com

https://www.google.com/search?q=human+identity+meaning&rlz. Accessed on 20th

October 2024.

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-
9780195396577-0086.xml. Accessed on 29th October 2024.

Nix Luke, Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value? Saturday, September 28, 2019.
ossexamined. org

Penner Melinda, Intrinsic Human Value Is the Same for All and Can Never Be Lost,
25 October, 2024. Str.org/w/intrinsic

T. Keller “Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just, 2010. Dutton, p. 74.

34
35