The Image of God and its Implications

7 minutes

After a few weeks break from posting, I’m back at it!

In the history of Christianity, the doctrine of the image of God has been viewed in a variety of ways. Of this variety, four main views emerge: the substantive, relational, functional, and royal.

Four Views

First, the substantive view is that the image of God is found within the makeup of the human being itself, such as a specific attribute. Throughout most of church history, various human attributes have been linked to the substance of God’s image, most common of which was the human faculty of reason, or rationality. Many believed that because we are the only intellectual beings in creation, the intellect must be the attribute containing, or the substance of, the image of God in humans.

Second, the relational view identifies God’s image not within an attribute, but within the human ability to relate to God and each other in a spiritual way. This view supposes that while God is in relationship with all creation, humans are the only ones with a special spiritual relationship with God. Therefore, being in relationship is what it means to be the image of God, because God is essentially relational (think Trinity).

Third, the functional view states that the image of God is not found in what a human is or possesses, but rather in what a human does. The image of God was given to Adam and Eve, and by token to all humans, with God’s command to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and rule over it (Gen 1:26-28). The functional view connects the (1) creation in God’s image and the (2) command to create to conclude that humans are in the image of God because they carry the same creational capacity, or at least when they mirror this role in creation.

And finally, the royal view, while similar to the functional view, is focused on the ruling aspect of humanity’s role in creation. Humans are in the image of God because they, like God, rule creation. God’s image is something we possess because of our position, not just our function. The nature of this rulership, of course, is understood in various ways.

An Eclectic View

Most Christian theologians recognize the value each view brings to the table. As a result, most well-reasoned views of the image of God are a combination and/or ordering of these views. The views synthesized through this approach are called eclectic views. I share this approach to the image of God. Far from a cop-out, the eclectic approach is an attempt to promote the fruits and minimize the insufficiencies from each view, much like someone would with atonement theories.

The positive of the substantive view is that it locates the image of God in something that is inherent in humanity’s composition. This means that the image can never be lost. The negative of the substantive view is that it tends to be too restrictive when describing which attribute(s) within humanity are part of the image of God. Additionally, those who praise human reason as the center of God’s image don’t align with the science that rationality is a spectrum, and fail to recognize the varying capability of reasoning that exists in other animals as well. Is the image of God, then, something possessed in degrees?

The positive of the relational view is that it locates the image of God in who God is rather than in who we are. Because the triune God is essentially relational, so are we, especially as we relate to God in a way that no other creature does. As you might guess, this view depends largely on a trinitarian conception of God. The negative of the relational view is its tendency to value those who feel ‘closer to God’ as having more fully realized the image. It may also mean to some that those who are not in proper relationship with God do not bear God’s image.

The positive of the functional view is that it links the creation of humans with the immediately proceeding command to be fruitful, multiply, fill, and rule. It is the most immediate application of the Genesis 1 creation mandate. The negative is that the functional view necessitates the actual fulfillment of humanity’s role in creation in order to preserve or fulfill the image of God.

The positive of the royal view is that it links both substantive and functional aspects of the image of God; human’s bear God’s image because of our position as royalty and because of the function inherent in that position. The status comes with a job description. The negative is that the royal view can sometimes be used to justify any actions on God’s creation that humans deem good, whether or not it is.

Below, I order my own view by priority: which take priority in my eclectic view.

1. The Royal view is primary. This makes the most sense from what I know of the history of the ancient Near East. The ancients understood that their national sovereigns were in some way image-bearers of their national deity(ies). The beauty of the Genesis creation narratives is that they apply this image-bearing status to all humanity, not just an elite group of people (Gen 1:26-28). All humans completely possess the image of God, and as a result have equal value. Moreover, this universal status gives all humans the equal right to rule God’s creation. The royal view places value on the image of God not as a function, but as a position. Therefore, ruling is not just a human imperative, but it is inherent in human being and doing.

2. The Substantive and Relational views are secondary. Based on my openness to biological evolution and the possibility that God bestowed God’s image on two evolved hominids, I tend to minimize views that locate the image of God in any human attribute, including reason or rationality. Because of this openness, I may not say that God’s image is found primarily in human intellect or emotion, since these attributes are shared by other creatures to varying degrees, and not even by all humans. However, I still value the substantive assertion that humans are intellectually and emotionally capable of ‘beholding’ God.

I find an equal value in the relational view as well. Humanity has the capacity for relationship with God because God created us with such a capacity. However, I do not think humanity’s relational proximity to God is a complete marker of our being made in God’s image. Scripture seems to indicate that all of creation has some relational capacity with God (Ps 19:1; 66:4 Is 55:12; Rev 5:13, etc.), not just humans. So, it may be more accurate to say that humans have the capacity to perceive and judge their relation to God. God may desire varying degrees of love from creation, with humans at the top of the list because of their ability to perceive and make judgements about their relationship with their Creator.

3. The Functional view is tertiary. Humanity’s function on the earth seems to be connected to the bestowal of the image of God, but more likely as a consequence of the bestowal rather than the content of the bestowal itself. We are fruitful, multiply, fill, and rule because we are made in God’s image. It is not something that determines our image-bearing status, but something that proceeds from it. The major weakness of the functional view, as mentioned before, is that it places too much importance on the necessity of living out this function, making some humans fuller ‘imagers’ than others. This can too easily be used as justification for judgementalism, ostracity, and elitism within the church in specific and among humanity in general. Once again, the functional view of the image of God is not bad; its simply incomplete without the others.

In my next post, I will apply this prioritization of God’s image to the autobiography of Fredrick Douglas.