Introduction
All Christians believe that humanity reflects the image of God. In spite of this, the question of what represents God’s image in man remains contentious. The concept holds that human beings are formed in God’s image, and so have intrinsic worth regardless of their usefulness or purpose. Some argue that the imago dei describes the resemblance of humans to God. When applied to man, God’s image indicates the symbolic relationship between God and mankind. While the relational and functional interpretations of God’s image in man are explicitly supported in the Bible and theology, the substantive view is the most significant of these perspectives because of humans’ cognitive capacity and rationality.
Humanity’s Cognitive Capacity as the Image of God
Based on the substantive viewpoint, humans are the image of God because of their cognitive capacity. The origin of the phrase is found in Genesis 1:27, which states, “God created man in his own image.” This biblical verse does not imply that God is in human form but rather that people bear the moral, aesthetic, and cognitive characteristics of God. Thus, people reflect God’s divinity in their ability to comprehend the distinctive characteristics that set them apart from all other creatures. Humanity has logical structure, total centricity, the opportunity for self-actualization, and the self-transcending ability.
Thomas Aquinas believed that the imago dei resides in a person’s intellect, or reason, which describes humanity’s cognitive abilities. According to his beliefs, intellect is a person’s most divine characteristic. Less rational species, like animals, do not bear the image of God since they were not formed with a human-like cognitive ability. Aquinas maintains that angels’ thoughts are superior to those of humans. Therefore, Angels are more like God than humans based on their intellect.
Nuances Within the Substantive View
Theologians characterize the divine image in humans as creatures who are rational and free beings, depicting the substantive viewpoint of the image of God. Irenaeus’ concept was to distinguish between the terms selem and demut in Genesis 1:26-27. Due to the fall of man, he claimed, humans lost their resemblance to God but kept their image.
Irenaeus interpreted “image” in Genesis 1:26 to signify that humans are intelligent and free creatures. What Christ is restoring in humanity is their similarity to God because their identity through the image was never lost during the fall. Irenaeus’ claim about the restoration of humanity’s resemblance to God is mostly Christocentric. Therefore, since Christ is the expression of God, humans’ restoration increases as they grow closer to him.
Relational and Functional Viewpoints
Contrary to the substantive view are the relational interpretations, which hold that humans are God’s image because they form relationships. Since humans are created in God’s image, they are able to live in relationships with one another. In the same way as God is claimed to exist as a trinity consisting of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, man is equally allowed to share his life with a female companion.
As God develops connections with Jesus Christ, Angels, and other high spiritual creatures, so do mankind build relationships with other people. In support, Thomas argued that men and women were created with the aim of being in a relationship with one another, just as God’s Triune Life. However, Karl Barth bases his view on Genesis 1:27, which asserts that God made humans “male and female He created them.” Therefore, human beings are in a relationship with God, hence, inhis image.
Counterarguments
Furthermore, the image of God in humans is a reflection, as they are God’s ambassadors on earth, hence, relational. This is balanced in 1 Corinthians 11:7, where Paul asserts that “a man must not cover his head because he is the image of God, whereas a woman ought to cover her head because she is the image of the man.” Barth’s focus on “male and female” emphasizes the relational aspect of the imago dei. Men’s and women’s relationships with one another, as well as humans’ union with God, comprise the connection. As such, the primary relationship is with God in Jesus Christ, who, in this view, becomes the archetypal image of God.
Another counterargument to the substantive conception is the functional viewpoint that humans are the image of God. In this argument, humans are the image of God because they have functional roles to play as mandated by God. The depiction of God portrays mankind as having control over the planet.
For instance, Aquinas believes that man was exquisitely endowed with favor and honor. In this case, so long as his cognition and reason were subservient to God, the lesser energies of the soul would be subordinate to him, and so he would have authority. Therefore, God satisfies this desire by endowing humanity with the divine image.
Reinforcement of the Substantive View
In rebuttal to the claims about humans being the image of God because of relational and functional thoughts, it should be noted that human weaknesses because of sin cannot inherit the image of God. Man lost both functional and relational roles in Genesis 3:22-24, where, as retribution for disobeying his instruction, God exiled Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and stationed angels with fiery swords at the gates.
In this case, humans did not bear the image of God after losing their relationship with God, and since they were chased from the Garden of Eden, they were no longer the custodians of God’s creation. According to Ignatius, sin led man’s intellect to refuse submission to God, and as a consequence, his subordinate forces became less responsive to his authority. However, the substantive attributes do not shift when the functional and relational parts of God’s image in man disappear after the fall because the cognitive and rationality of man never vanish.
Conclusion
The substantive viewpoint that humans are the image of God is more significant than functional and relational concepts because of human cognitive ability and rationality. Human beings can lose the aspect of the image of God through the fall of the Garden of Eden, hence the loss of functional and relational concepts. However, despite the losses, humans’ cognitive capacity and rationality remain superior to those of other creatures. Hence, the substantive viewpoint is the most fundamental argument for humans being the image of God.
References
Alexander, Denis R. Cloning Humans: Distorting the Image of God? Cambridge, England: Jubilee Centre, 2001.
Berkouwer, Gerrit Cornelis. Man: The Image of God (Studies in Dogmatics). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic (2013): 740-751.
Ferraroni, Tiziano. Ignatius Conversion: From a God in His Own Image to A God Greater than Any Image, 123.
Irwin, Terence. “Reason as Servant of the Will.” The Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology, edited by Manuel Vargas and John Doris, 62-67. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
McKenzie, Mary D. “The Image of God: A Reflection of Order and Suitability in Design.” PhD diss., University of Liberty, 2022.
Slováček, Petr. “Unitary and dualistic aspects of anthropology by Thomas Aquinas in relation to a human being as imago dei.” Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny HYBRIS 50, no.1 (2020): 1-18.
Thomas, Linda E. “The Image of God Considering Holy Solidarity: Teaching Theological Intersectionality,” Journal of the Lutheran School of Theology, 49, no. 1 (2022): 39-43.