Imago Dei

For centuries, biblical scholars have debated the meaning of this simple statement from the first chapter of Genesis:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:27

What exactly does it mean for human beings to be created in God’s image? Christian theologians have traditionally referred to this doctrine as Imago Dei, Latin for “the image of God.” Three interpretive frameworks have dominated theological discussions of this concept: substantive (or ontological), relational, and functional.

The substantive (or ontological) approach holds that we are in God’s image because something in human nature is similar to Him. Augustine of Hippo, for example, wrote: “For although the human mind is not of the same nature with God, yet the image of that nature than which none is better, is to be sought and found in us, in that than which our nature also has nothing better” (De Trinitate XIV.8.11). In this carefully crafted sentence, Augustine counterposes two claims: human beings are not identical to God, yet the image of God is reflected in the best of human nature. He goes on to identify a psychological “trinity” of characteristics—memory, understanding, and love—which mirror the nature of God.

The relational approach finds the image of God in human encounter and communion, rather than primarily in human nature. Genesis 1:27 qualifies “man” specifically as “male and female,” suggesting that the passage refers to humanity collectively, not to an isolated individual. Karl Barth, an influential proponent of this interpretation, explained: “Humanity is the being of man in encounter… This encounter consists in the fact that I am as I am in relation to a Thou, and that the Thou is as it is in relation to an I. This being in encounter is the basic form of humanity, and as such it is the imago Dei” (Church Dogmatics III/1, §41). In other words, we are defined not by our intrinsic qualities but by our relationships, and it is in those relationships that we find the image of God reflected.

The functional approach takes its cue from the immediately preceding verse:

And God said, Let us make man in our 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 creepeth upon the earth.

Genesis 1:26

Just as a monarch’s face stamped on a coin signifies authority, an image doesn’t imply similarity so much as representation. Proponents of this approach emphasize humanity’s stewardship over creation as God’s representatives on the earth. One of its most prominent advocates, David J. A. Clines, explained, “The image … comes to expression not in the nature of man so much as in his activity and function. This function is to represent God’s lordship to the lower orders of creation” (“The Image of God in Man,” Tyndale Bulletin 19, 1968).

Many modern biblical scholars argue that these interpretive approaches are not mutually exclusive, but instead highlight different dimensions of the biblical text. Daniel Simango, for example, suggests that substantive, relational, and functional interpretations each emerge from genuine features of Genesis 1:26–27, and are best understood as complementary rather than in competition with one another. ( See “The Image of God (Gen 1:26–27): A History of Interpretation,” Scriptura 112 [2013].)

One powerful implication of this doctrine—especially when read relationally and functionally—is its insistence on the fundamental equality of all human beings. Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, articulated this point memorably:

Genesis 1:26-27 is not so much a metaphysical statement about the nature of the human person as it is a political protest against the very basis of hierarchical, class- or caste-based societies whether in ancient or modern times. That is what makes it the most incendiary idea in the Torah. In some fundamental sense we are all equal in dignity and ultimate worth, for we are all in God’s image regardless of colour, culture or creed.

“The Genesis of Justice,” Essays on Ethics, Bereishit, on rabbisacks.org

Did the brother of Jared grasp all of these implications when he saw the spirit body of the Savior? Perhaps not. But he stood at a point more foundational than theology: a direct encounter with the Creator of the universe, who could show him all things. His experience powerfully affirmed something that none of these interpretive approaches contemplates: that humanity is created in the literal image of a personal, embodied God. But later Book of Mormon prophets would press this doctrine further, examining its implications and drawing some of the same conclusions as the theologians listed above. Abinadi would use the principle to narrow the distance between humans and God as he prophesied of Christ. Jacob, like Rabbi Sacks, would emphasize the moral imperative to treat all people as God’s beloved sons and daughters. And Alma would pivot from inheritance to intentionality, challenging his people to receive God’s image in their countenances.

---

Today I will remember the many ways that I am created in God’s image. I will let that awareness influence my sense of identity, my relationships with others, and my stewardship over God’s creations.