Different Views To How We Image God

In the ancient world, kings would make idols of themselves to signify their rule and dominion over a nation. Similarly, God created humans to illustrate his sovereignty over the created world. However, the difference between the image of kings and the image of God was that his image was a living creature known as man.[1] In Genesis 1:26 God says, "Let us make man in our image." Other translations read "in our image, after our likeness."[2] The Hebrew term for "image" carries the idea of "copy" or "representation." In Wayne Grudem's volume Systematic Theology, he writes, "The fact that man is in the image of God means that man is like God and represents God."[3] This, however, does not suggest that human beings are divine, but rather they contain significant characteristics that reflect a likeness of God. In this post, I will discuss the three different views to the image of God.

1. Functional view

2. Relational view

3. Structural view

Functional View

The German Protestant theologian, Hans Walter Wolff, says, "It is precisely in his function as ruler that he [man] is God's image."[4] The functional view, also referred to as the dominion view, is the belief that the image of God is in man's rule over God's creation.[5] This position argues that the image of God is the outward activities that humans perform. The physical and metaphysical traits of man are nonessential, and nor does this view take into account the relational aspects of God and man.[6]

The biblical passage used to support the functional view is Genesis 1:26–28, whereby God says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." The verse is immediately followed by the commission to exercise dominion over the earth. When reading this passage, it is apparent that God created man to be a reflection of himself in the created world. According to Erickson, author of Christian Theology, "the image of God is actually an image of God as Lord."[7] Meaning that man is God's representative ruler. This draws parallels to the lordship attributes of king, prophet, and priest.[8]

Genesis 1:26, 28 contains the Hebrew words kavash and radah, which signify the idea of ruling for the good of one's subjects and not for one's own sake. This ruling concept was applied to Hebrew kings as well. The command of Genesis 1:26–28 allowed man to use his abilities to gain knowledge about the world and then bring it into subjection under him. This was not an optional task, but it was entrusted to man to fulfill God's vision.[9]

Furthermore, God says for the sun and moon to rule over the night and day (Genesis 1:16). The same word is used in Psalm 8:6 as it refers to man's rule. God appointed the sun to govern the day and the moon to govern the night. Likewise, the same principle applies to human dominion over the earth. Swindoll says, "this observation suggests the intriguing possibility that people were created to share a particular ruling quality with the sun and the moon, namely, the divine glory."[10]

Relational View

Modern theologians do not consider the nature of man, nor do they bother to question what man is? Instead, they find it inconceivable to believe that the image of God is in man and in how he performs.[11] In the relational view, the image of God is found exclusively in relationship.[12] This view is based on Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them." This interpretation suggests that since God is closely related to the creation of man and woman, therefore relationship is foundational to man's existence as God's image bearer.[13] The image of God entails not only the relations between male and female but humanity as a whole. Although proponents such as Barth would emphasize less on the significance of community and more so on the individual.[14]

According to Emil Brunner, a staunch supporter of the relational view, claims that "God created all the creatures in their final or finished state . . . man, on the other hand, remains within God's workshop, within his hands. God did not make man in a finished state. Rather, God is producing in man the "material realization" of the freedom, responsibility, and answerability which man has received from God."[15] Brunner argues that because man is responsible before God, the image of God is, therefore, relational.

The principle beliefs of the relational view is: (1) the study of Jesus provides insight into the image of God and the nature of man, (2) the image of God is obtained from divine revelation, (3) the image of God is not structural, (4) the image of God is relational because of the relationship between God and man, (5) the image of God is found at all times in humans, (6) no conclusion is provided as to what comprises man's nature that allows for relations.[16] This view is further supported by the idea that since the Trinity is a relationship, therefore humans are to reflect it as well.[17]

Structural View

In Jewish thought, the image of God is seen in the totality of man. A man’s natural and spiritual functions are encapsulated in this idea.[18] Christians hold a similar view. However, they refer to this as the structural or substantive view. Throughout church history, this has been the dominant position regarding the image of God. In MacArthur’s volume Biblical Theology, he suggests not to define structure according to a particular quality or trait that man possesses but to see the image of God as that which makes up the entirety of man. This includes man’s condition of being an individual person and his ability to perform and relate. Therefore, God's image permeates man's entire structure and function. It is through God’s endowments that man is able to fulfill his calling. In the structural view, there are six distinct characteristics that identify man as God’s image.[19]

1. Man's ontological nature

2. Man's volitional characteristics

3. Man's intellectual capabilities

4. Man's emotional characteristics

5. Man's relational characteristics

6. Man's functional characteristics

Conclusion

After Adam and Eve sinned, human beings continued to retain the imago dei (divine image),[20] although it did deface his original design. Sin caused reputable harm to the way man images God, in that man is in a permanent state of rebellion against the Creator. However, Scripture does not declare the erasure of God’s image in man but rather the need for restoration. Thus, it would be erroneous to suggest that the image was lost in the Fall; on the contrary, it is the image that was marred by the result of the Fall.[21] With this background knowledge, Scripture addresses the restoration of God’s image in Romans 8:29 and Colossians 3:9–10, further supporting the view that man images God through his entire being.

---

Footnotes:

[1] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton: Crossway, 2017), 410.

[2] John C. Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist: Who They Were And Why You Should Care (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011), 93.

[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 567.

[4] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 412-413.

[5] Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist, 94.

[6] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. Unabridged, 1 Vol. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 508.

[7] Erickson, Christian Theology, 509.

[8] John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2013), 786.

[9] Erickson, Christian Theology, 510.

[10] Robert Gromacki, Earl Radmacher, John Walvoord, Robert Saucy, JohnWitmer, and others, Understanding Christian Theology, ed. by Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 677.

[11] Erickson, Christian Theology, 502.

[12] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 413.

[13] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 413.

[14] Erickson, Christian Theology, 507.

[15] Erickson, Christian Theology, 503.

[16] Erickson, Christian Theology, 507.

[17] Gromacki, Understanding Christian Theology, 674-675.

[18] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to

[19] MacArthur and Mayhue, Biblical Doctrine, 414-415.

[20] Kenneth Samples, “What Does It Mean To Be Made In the Image of God,” last modified September 5, 2017, https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/what-does-it-mean-to-be-made-in-the-image-of-god.

[21] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 72.

---

Bao Vang is a wife and mom of two amazing daughters. When Bao's not serving her local church, she likes to write and spend time with her family. Bao received her MA in Theological Studies from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and she is currently working on a PhD in Bible Exposition at John W. Rawlings School of Divinity at Liberty University. Bao is also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society of Biblical Literature.