Whose Image and Likeness is This?: The Imago Dei


William McPherson

Dr. Peter Kendrick

THEO 525- Spring B02

March 11, 2011




WHOSE IMAGE AND LIKENESS IS THIS?……………………………………………………………….2

WHAT IS THE IMAGE HISTORICALLY?………………………………………………………………….3

WHAT IS THE IMAGE REALLY?………………………………………………………………………………8

HOW HAS THE FALL AND REDEMPTION AFFECTED THE IMAGE?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14




            In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin gives one of the most enlightening statements concerning understanding oneself, “It is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself.”[1] Why is it that Calvin would make such a statement? How is man, especially in his current state, anything like God? Can one trust any of what man actually does to reflect the glory of his Creator? Does not the whole of humanity live without the contemplation of God and are they seeming to get along just fine? Is it an archaic claim to be able understand man only by looking at the One whose image he was created in: God?

A cursory look at the world will erase any delusion concerning man “getting along just fine.” There are more self help books, more renown psychologist, and more scientific explanations than ever before and yet man, for the most part, still seems irrevocably lost. Yet, the Scriptures claim that man was made in the image of God and that in some way man still holds on to this image. What is one to make of that claim when one switches on the nightly news or surfs the internet? If man is made in the image of God, something has gone seriously wrong. If the doctors, scientists, and psychiatrists cannot seem to identify it, then perhaps it might be wise for man to return to the contemplation of God to see how he is made in the Creator’s image.

But that leads to another question, what exactly is the imago dei, or the image of God in man? There are many theories and many suggestions; one can easily become lost in the entanglement of ideas on theological anthropology. However, it is the writer’s contention that image involves a substance that man is, that is not quite definable and is warped by the Fall; but at the same time it continues to function in a way that is tainted by its current structure, this includes physical, mental, relational, spiritual, and volitional aspects. But to prove this thesis, one must consider the theological history of the image, the theological arguments concerning the image, and how the image relates to the Fall and the redemption that is offered through Jesus Christ. It is only through this arduous and sometimes confusing journey that one can truly see the writer’s thesis concerning the image of God.


            Historically, the image of God has been an issue of scholarly theological interest. Charles Sherlock wisely comments, “Perspectives on being human cannot be understood in isolation from those who reflect upon them; the ‘double focus’ of theological truth and life experience cannot be avoided.”[2] Anthony Hoekema writes, “Throughout the history of the church there have been various answers…By reflecting upon and evaluating these answers, we should arrive at a better way of understanding of what the image of God in man means.”[3] Regardless of that interpretation, the significance historically cannot be overlooked as Alister McGrath affirms, “The Christian tradition, basing itself largely upon the accounts of creation found in the book of Genesis, has insisted that humanity is the height of God’s creation, set over and above the animal kingdom. The theological justification of this rests largely upon the doctrine of creation in the image of God.”[4] Yet, Carl F.H. Henry is also right when he states that, “The importance of a proper understanding of the imago dei can hardly be overstated. The answer given to the imago-inquiry soon becomes determinative for the entire gamut of doctrinal affirmation.”[5]

It is beyond the scope of this treatise to explore all of the major contributors in church history, but it is necessary to take a small detour to glean from theologians before us; starting with the Patristic fathers. Until the Reformation, the dominant view was that held by the third century bishop Irenaeus, famous for his Against Heresies. According to Hoekema, “Irenaeus taught, God created man in his image and after his likeness. Man’s likeness to God, however, was lost after the Fall, whereas the image of God still remained. However, the likeness to God is being restored to believers in the process of redemption.”[6] McGrath indicates that Tertullian also believed in this distinction.[7] The Patristic father Origen also set a distinction between “image” and “likeness” but this view was slightly different. R.R. Reno writes, “By his reading, the two accounts [in Genesis 1-2] signify…[the] dual structure of human existence,” Reno continues, “Origen reads the two creation accounts accordingly. The direct creation of man and woman in the image of God and likeness of God points toward our rational nature, which is permanent and unchanging, while the account in 2:7 of Adam created out of the dust of the earth  signifies our bodies existence, which is full of time and change.”[8] Athanasius departed from both Irenaeus and Origen and proposed his own doctrine of the image. As Anatolios describes it, “Athanasius understands humanity’s being ‘in the image,’ as derivative from the Word’s being the Image of the Father. He reserves the term, ‘image’ to the Son alone, as a perfect reflection of the Father,” he continues, “Humanity, therefore, is the ‘image of the image.” Its similarity to God is thus fundamentally articulated as a participation in the Son’s archetypal relationship…to the Father.”[9]

Things begin to change and somewhat solidify when Augustine of Hippo comes on the scene; it is he who will set the stage for most Catholic and Protestant theology until after the Reformation. McGrath writes, “The ‘image of God is understood to be the human rational faculty, which here mirrors the wisdom of God. Augustine argues that it is this faculty which distinguishes humanity from the animal kind,” he finishes, “Augustine’s point is that the central distinctive element of human nature is its God-given ability to relate to God.”[10] Both Thomas Aquinas and the Reformers would build on this hypothesis. Aquinas believed in a rational view of the image, but he believed that the image can be more present in the godly than the ungodly; Hoekema points out, “Thomas, therefore,  finds the image of God in some sense in all people, in a richer or higher sense in only in believers, and the highest sense in those who have been glorified.”[11] He also is the first to depart from Irenaus’ emphasis on the distinction of “likeness” and “image;” the Reformers would all follow his lead in that regard. Luther’s view of the image, and that of most Lutherans following him, is the complete loss or obliteration of the image by the Fall. William C. Weinrich describes Luther’s view, “Man is from God; man is for life with God (immortality). Moreover, it is in view of this claim that Luther also interprets the ‘image of God’ in which man was made,” he continues, “The ‘image of God’  indicates that we were created by God for a better life, namely, for a life with God…with sin came the loss of the image, that is, with sin came death.”[12] Calvin on the other hand, did not reject the image of God after Fall. Calvin observes, “It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God. Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that anything which remains is fearful deformity.”[13]

After the Reformation there were various developments of the aforementioned doctrines. The Reformers eventually had to give in to a split image doctrine of their own (wider and narrow sense of the image) though not based on Irenaeus’ exegesis. It wasn’t until the twentieth century that new ideas concerning the image really took hold. Three individuals especially stick out: Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and G.C. Berkouwer. Barth, according to Charles Sherlock, makes three contributions: 1) he helps one to understand that the Scripture is not clear on what the image is, 2) he reminds one that God is triune and therefore the image must be relational, and 3) that the image is to be ultimately understood through Jesus Christ who is the ground of our relation to God. [14] However, in his early years Barth did not believe the image of God still existed in man. Emil Brunner’s view of the image is also in two divisions : the formal and the material; the material was lost in the Fall, but the formal continues to be in place. Brunner writes in response to Barth, “The formal sense of the concept is the human, i.e. that which distinguishes man from all the rest of creation, whether he be a sinner or not,” he continues, “If the formal side of the imago Dei is thus conceived, it does not in any way result in an encroachment upon the material concept of justitia originalis, nor in a lessening of the weight…that this justitia originalis is completely lost.[15] G.C. Berkouwer’s view of the image of God is eschatological; meaning that it is in view of future restoration of the image of God in Christ. He writes, “The image of God stands before us in the contexts of guilt and restoration, of being lost and being found. The image of God is something which concerns the whole man, his place in this world and his future, his likeness is in his being a child of a Father, of this Father in heaven,” he concludes, “No erroneous speculation, no matter how serious the error, on man as ‘microtheos’ or ‘deified,’ may hold us back from letting the message of Scripture on this point have effect and resonance in our lives.”[16]

Some of these ideas will likely be critiqued in the next section; they certainly form the foundation for most theological thought on the imago dei. However, it would be impossible in a treatise of this scope to truly do the discussion justice. The writer encourages the reader to do one’s own research into the theological laboratories from which these ideas sprang. It is now time to discuss 1) the biblical passages concerning the image and 2) how those passages can be arranged to give as systematic picture of the image from the proposed thesis.



            The creation of man in God’s image is truly the pinnacle of God’s creative activity. Gerhard Von Rad affirms this,

The creation of man is introduced more impressively than any preceding work by the announcement of a divine resolution…God participates more intimately and intensively in this man than his earlier works…the use of the verb bara…[makes] clear that the high point and goal has been reached toward which all God’s creative activity… has been directed.[17]

Man is God’s glorious and beautiful achievement; man’s creation is celebrated by God with a seventh day of rest. John Sailhamer goes into this description further; man is separate from the rest of the creation because 1) a change in God’s language, 2) man is not created after a kind but after God’s likeness, 3) male and female genders are introduced, and 4) man is the only one given dominion over the creation.[18] Since man is so important in the eyes of God, it is no wonder that the attacks of naturalism and secular humanism have caused no unjust indignation from orthodox Christians. J.P. Moreland notes that, “The Bible teaches that human beings are made in the image of God. This implies that there are things about our make-up that are like God is,” he goes on, “As image bearers, human beings have all those endowments necessary to re-present and be representative of God.”[19] If God is the place where man has to start to understand himself, then it is right that orthodox Christians should defend a theological anthropology of man at all costs.

To truly understand what the image is and whether some of the other views are acceptable for someone wishing to have an accurate picture of the image, one needs to first examine the biblical evidence. The most infamous passage, Genesis 1:26-27 states that, “Then 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 birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Now, a preliminary look at verse twenty six seems to affirm Irenaeus’ view that image and likeness are different. However, Gordon Wenham dismisses this idea, “While those distinctions may be usefully homiletically, they evidently do not express the original meaning. The interchangeability of  ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ shows that this distinction is foreign to Genesis,” he continues, “and that probably ‘likeness’ is simply added to indicate the precise nuance of ‘image’ in this context.”[20] Phillip Hughes does caution one not to judge Irenaeus’ exegesis too harshly, “His exegesis of Genesis 1:26 may be questionable, but the theology inherent in his interpretation is governed by a sound scriptural instinct,” he continues, “We refer especially to his perception that man as created was not what he finally would be, that his destiny was to advance from glory to glory, and that even had there been no fall, the end was designed to be even more splendid than the beginning.”[21]

So then, the image seems to be one nature and not two. But what about the theory that the image is relational? Karl Barth was the pioneer in setting this view but he is not the only one who holds to it. Jurgen Moltmman seemed to agree, “Likeness to God means God’s relationship to human beings first of all, and only then, and as a consequence of that, the human being’s relationship to God. God puts himself in a particular relationship to human beings–a relationship in which human beings become his image and his glory on earth.”[22] Is it possible that the image could be man’s ability to personally relate to God and one another? Millard Erickson warns the reader that the presuppositions of existentialism are being read into the biblical text, “All of this is consistent with Brunner and Barth’s view of revelation, according to which the Bible is not inherently the Word of God, but becomes the Word of God when God meets a human person through it or in it,” he continues, “Similarly, existentialism underlies their view of the image of God. This is not an entity that a human possess so much as the experience that is present when a relationship is active.”[23] In other words, the image exists where the relationship exist, not in some inherent ability to potentially have a relationship. Wenham also corrects another proponent, Westermann, by saying, “If attention is limited to the passages discussing the creation of man in God’s image, [his] view is tenable…However, passages like 5:3 and Exodus 25:40 suggest that ‘in the image’ describes the product of creation rather than the process.”[24] Hughes indicates “Contrary to Karl Barth…we conclude that male and female duality does not provide the key to the understanding of the divine image in which man was formed. Man’s person-to-person relationship with his Maker, itself undoubtedly an indicator of that ‘image,’ is not determined by the fact of human sexuality.”[25]

Then there is the functional view, could the image have something to do with what man does? There are three main proponents of the functional view; mostly attributing the image to be man’s dominion and headship over the creation: Walter Brueggmann, J. Richard Middleton, and James McKeown. Middleton gives the most thorough defense, dedicating a whole book to the outworking of his understanding of the image. He writes, “careful exegesis of Genesis 1:26-28, in conjunction with an intertextual reading of the symbolic world of Genesis 1, does indeed suggest that the imago Dei refers to human rule, that is, the exercise of power on God’s behalf in creation,” he continues, “This may be articulated in two different, but complementary, ways. Said one way, humans are like God in exercising royal power on earth. Said in another way, the divine ruler delegated to humans a share in his rule of the earth. Both are important ways of expressing the meaning of the imago Dei.”[26] Brueggmann assumes consensus, “It is now generally agreed that the image of God reflected in human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statues for himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present,” he goes on, “The image of God in the human person is a mandate of power and responsibility.”[27] McKeown is not as confident, “Although it is difficult to ascertain the meaning of the ‘image,’ it is closely associated with the special status given to human beings over the rest of creation.”[28] There are dangers to this view though, not just specifically dominion but function in general, as Hoekema points out, “More recent theologians…have affirmed the functioning of man…constitutes the essence of the image of God. The danger involved in [this] view is the temptation to think of the image only in terms of function–a conception just as one-sided as that which sees the image only in terms of structure.”[29] C. John Collins sees a mistake, “To appeal to the sentence in Genesis 1:26, ‘and let them have dominion,’ as defining the image is to mistake the grammatical function of the sentence.”[30]

But what is the image really? As the thesis proposes, the image is found structurally or substantively (it is a part of the essence of what it means to be human) and it is expressed in its function, whether that is in physiology (design and order), spirituality(reason, emotion, creativity), or relation (moral and dynamic relationships between God, others, and ourselves). This best matches the biblical data that is considered outside of Genesis 1:26-28. Erickson points out that, “In Genesis 9:6 murder is prohibited on the basis that the human was created in God’s image…While the passage does not say that that humans still bore the image of God…it is clear that what God had done earlier still had some bearing or effect, even at the post fall point.”[31] One has to ask how the other two theories line up with this emphasis; if the image is relational then what does that have to do with killing if the other person had never met another soul or known God in their entire life? If one says that it is the potential for relationship, is not one getting more toward a structural understanding? Remember, Barth and Brunner believed that the image of God was only present where relationship was occurring, if one was brain dead in a coma then one would not be covered by the image. Similar logic works with works with the functional view as relates to dominion; does a fetus exercise dominion over anything? If not, then a fetus would not be considered to have the image of God and therefore it would be just to terminate it. It is important to realize the implications that such theories of the image propose to inform and shape one’s worldview.

Erickson agrees with the thesis stating that, “The image should be thought of as primarily substantive or structural. The image is something in the very nature of humans, in the way in which they were made. It refers to something a human is rather than something a human has or does,” he continues, “By contrast the focus of the relational and functional views is  actually on consequences or applications of the image rather than on the image itself.”[32] Hoekema also shares this view, “The image of God involves both structure and function. Various terms have been used to describe these two aspects: broader and narrower image, formal and material image, substance and relationships, endowment and creativity. But both are essential facets of the image of God.”[33] But what exactly is the image, the structural part? Perhaps William Lasor’s admonition should be heeded, “We need to avoid connecting the “image” too exclusively to the ‘spiritual’ or moral capacity of mankind. The point of these terms (‘image’ and ‘likeness’) is far more functional than conceptual. It touches what the likeness entails rather than its precise nature.”[34] It is likely that one can only begin to study the outward functions rather than the precise inward structure of the image and one must be content with this. But what does this mean in regards to the fall of man into sin and the redemption through Jesus Christ?


            Bruce Waltke sums up the bridge between these subjects perfectly, “The image is not erased after the Fall but continues seminally to every individual. However, after the Fall the first Adam (and all of humanity) can only partially fulfill the cultural mandate: procreating and subduing in sorrowful toil,” he continues, “Only Christ, the Second Adam, can completely fulfill the regent function of the image…He brings salvation to fallen humanity. He completes perfectly humanity’s twofold function.”[35] If the image is substantive but is expressed in function, then how does the Fall and the redemption found in Christ affect the image? It is the contention of the writer, that after the Fall the image still continues to exist and function, but it functions awry. The substantive part (whatever that is) is no longer recognizable, even though the function continues but in a twisted warped fashion. Romans chapter one may be the key to understanding the state man is currently in; man is depraved, twisted, and given over to his desires. All of the functions of God’s image are still active but they no longer point to God because the substantive part is deformed and warped. Thus, Christ is the answer to restoring the substantive part so that the functions once again point to the glory of God. Christ lived, died, and lives again to ensure that all of humanity who repent and ally themselves with him will be restored in his image.

But is this reality or is the writer just being fanciful? Mark Talbot talks about humanity’s dire situation,”[the] Scriptures speak of humanity as the imago dei. And so…we will not achieve an accurate knowledge of ourselves, of what has gone wrong with us, and what we were meant to be, unless we lift our eyes to ponder God’s ‘nature,’ he concludes, “We also know that…we never ‘internalize’ God’s word and its norms and standards as accurately as we should; and we know that, even if we were to internalize it perfectly, we would never, in this life, regulate our lives by it as perfectly as we should.”[36] So, sin is very grave and will ultimately lead one to his grave; but does this mean that the image is totally destroyed as Luther proposes? James Estep denies this, “Following the creation and fall narrative, the biblical authors continue to affirm humanity’s worth and dignity as those who are bearers of God’s image. Whatever was lost to sin in the fall of Adam and Eve, the imago Dei seems to have been left intact.”[37] It might help to understand the Fall mostly as a moral event that changed our positional standing with God. McKeown is quick to show the distinction between the image and morality, “When God created human beings in his image, he did not permit them to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest they would become like God, knowing good and evil,” he continues, “So the image of God is not linked to the moral distinction between right and wrong, but it is related to the ontological relationship between God and humanity that renders them on the same wavelength and makes them compatible beings.”[38] Thus the substantive part of the image may lie in its position in regards to it being found in the likeness of God. The presence of the image may be more pronounced by man’s clear rejection of it; Hughes writes, “There has been a failure, or an unwillingness, to acknowledge that the true heart of man is not his reason or his emotion or his will but his constitution in the image of God…It is not the mind but man that reasons, not the breast but man that is moved, not the will but man that decides,” he concludes, “The deep disharmony of man’s being is due not to his constitution but to the sin of his ungodliness, which is the denial of his being in the image of God and therefore the rejection of the true heart of humanity.”[39]

Thus, the Fall seems to have affected the shape of the structure and twisted the function to flow from that warped deformity. The image is still present but it must be redeemed in order to be able to once again both structurally represent God and to be able to make trustworthy the functions as the outworking of that structure to the glory of God. Nonna Harrison writes about the accomplishment of this redemption in Christ,

The process of recapitulation has three aspects, and Christ accomplishes all of them at once. First, it is a repetition of the creation of humankind-a new beginning in which Christ is the new Adam. Second, it is a reversal of what went wrong in the fall. Adam messed up the first time, but Christ does it right this time and establishes a new pattern, a new kind of existence for people to follow. Third, it is a summation of all of human history throughout the world so that all people can be united with Christ in a new humankind.[40]

The views just expressed were derived especially from Irenaeus as he contemplated the mystery and revelation of Christ. How does this repetition, reversal, and summation point to a restoration and redemption of the image? Sherlock comments, “The New Testament proclaims Christ brought, and through the Spirit, continues to bring, a new reality: the reconciliation of human beings with one another, and the expectation of the ‘reconciliation of all things, whether in heaven or earth.'”[41] John Lennox captures the magnitude of Christ’s incarnation, “For the Christian, another consideration bears on this question of the uniqueness of human beings. The central claim of Christianity is, ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ God coded himself into humanity. He became a man,” he concludes,  “There is no question as to this being the central supernatural event in history–a direct action of God of unfathomable significance.”[42] Jurgen Moltmman perhaps rightly conjectures that, “The true likeness to God is be found, not at the beginning of God’s history with mankind, but at its end…the concept of the likeness to God…Jesus, the raised and transfigured Messiah, as God’s true image.”[43] Jesus is the ultimate display of what the  image of God looks like both in structure and function. Estep agrees with this, “The Scriptures affirm the core essence of humanity is the imago Dei. It is the centerpiece of a biblical anthropology. However, the imagery also is applied to the person of Christ Jesus and to those who follow Him as new creations, those who continue to pattern themselves after the image of their Creator.”[44] Erickson will sum it up for the reader, “We should pattern ourselves after Jesus, the complete revelation of the image of God. He is the full image of God and the one person whose humanity was never spoiled by sinning. The outworking of the image of God can be seen in Jesus.”[45]

To bring it all this information together, the image was affected but not destroyed by the Fall. The structural part of the image no longer resembles God visibly, though its constitution remains the same. The functions of the image flow from the structure, thus, while the functions are still carried out they are corrupted and tainted by the image pointing toward man without God rather than God. Jesus Christ lived a sinless life in man’s image and then through his death and resurrection paved a way for all men to be remade in his image. It is only through the salvation that comes through Jesus Christ that man can be restored to the look like the image that he already intrinsically is.


            In his commentary on Genesis, Howard Vos writes, “To leave no doubt that man was a special creation, verse 27 three times states that God created man and uses the verb bara, indicating a special creation. It is almost as if He anticipated a later denial of that position by modern naturalists.”[46] There is indeed a serious concern that naturalism and secular humanism are rewriting what it means to be a human being. What are human rights in a society that cannot base those rights on anything but their own transitory whims? The image of God in man, the imago dei, most be defended at all costs. However, it can only be defended when it is rightly understood; an improper understanding is just dangerous and plays into the hands of the naturalists as much as a denial of the image. The relational and functional views in of themselves are improper understandings of the image; they observe the extrinsic worth of the human being at the expense of their intrinsic worth. It is also important however, not to deny that function and relationship are part of the image; they have a role to play and when directed by a remade image of Christ, they can truly bring glory to God and transform lives. It is also important not to think of the image as destroyed, since that opens all sorts of ugly applications and interpretations that even Luther and his progeny would not approve. The image of God is in every single human being; it is not something humans do or have; it is something that they are. Humanity is called to turn to Christ and to be remade into the image of God in his person, work, and mission; only in Christ can a full understanding of the image of God in man be found.



Anatolios, Khaled. Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (Routledge Early Church Monographs). New York: Routledge, 2004.


Barth, Karl. and Emil Brunner. Natural Theology. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002.

Berkouwer, G. C. Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The Image of God. Grand Rapids: MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962.


Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Atlanta: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986.


Calvin, John. God the Creator, God the Redeemer. Gainesville, Fla.: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 2005.


Collins, C. John. Genesis 1-4: a Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2006.


Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007.


Estep, James R., and Jonathan H. Kim, eds. Christian Formation: Integrating Theology & Human Development. Nashville, TN.: B&H Academic, 2010.

Elwell, Walter A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001.


Harrison, Nonna Verna. God’s Many-Splendored Image: Theological Anthropology For Christian Formation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010.


Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.


Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. The True Image. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001.


LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.


Lennox, John C. Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011. Kindle Edition.


Lints, Richard, Michael S. Horton, and Mark R. Talbot, eds. Personal Identity in Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006.


McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: an Introduction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.

McKeown, James. Genesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

Middleton, J. Richard. The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005.

Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: a New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. 1st Fortress Press ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993. Kindle Edition.


Moreland, J.P. The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism (Veritas). London: SCM Press, 2009.


Rad, Gerhard Von. Genesis: a Commentary. Rev. ed. Philadelphia,: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.

Reno, R.R. Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI.: Brazos Press, 2010.


Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 1995.


Sherlock, Charles. The Doctrine of Humanity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1997.


Vos, Howard F. Genesis. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999.


Waltke, Bruce K.with Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: a Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011.


Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1-15. Vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Texas: Thomas Nelson, 1987.


            [1] John Calvin, God the Creator, God the Redeemer (Gainesville, Fla.: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 2005), 6.

                [2] Charles Sherlock, The Doctrine of Humanity (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1997), 73.


       [3] Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 33.

                [4] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: an Introduction, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001), 440.


[5] Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2001), 592.

[6] Hoekema, 33.


[7] McGrath, 441.

[8] R.R. Reno, Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI.: Brazos Press, 2010), 51.

[9] Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius: The Coherence of His Thought (Routledge Early Church Monographs) (New York: Routledge, 2004), 56.


[10] McGrath, 441.

[11] Hoekema, 36.

                [12] Richard Lints, Michael S. Horton, and Mark R. Talbot, eds., Personal Identity in Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2006), 34-35.

[13] Calvin, 153.

[14] Sherlock, 89.

            [15] Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, Natural Theology: Comprising (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002), 23-24.


[16] G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids: MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), 117.

            [17] Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: a Commentary., rev. ed. (Philadelphia,: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 57.


[18] John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), 94-95.


[19] J.P. Moreland, The Recalcitrant Imago Dei: Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism (Veritas) (London: SCM Press, 2009), 4.

            [20] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 30.


[21] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001), 9.

                [22] Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: a New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, 1st Fortress Press ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 220, Kindle Edition.


[23] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2007), 527.


[24] Wenham, 31.


[25] Hughes, 20.

                [26] J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: the Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2005), 88.


[27] Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Atlanta: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986), 32.


[28] James McKeown, Genesis (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 279.


                [29] Hoekema, 69.


[30] C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: a Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2006), 66.


[31] Erickson, 519.

            [32] Ibid., 532.


[33] Hoekema, 69-70.


[34] William Sanford LaSor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush, Old Testament Survey: the Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 24.

                [35] Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: a Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011), 70.

            [36] Lints et. all, 176.

[37] James R. Estep and Jonathan H. Kim, eds., Christian Formation: Integrating Theology & Human Development (Nashville, TN.: B&H Academic, 2010), 37.

[38] McKeown, 283.

                [39] Hughes, 200.

[40] Nonna Verna Harrison, God’s Many-Splendored Image: Theological Anthropology For Christian Formation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2010), 41.


[41] Sherlock, 69.

                [42] John C. Lennox, Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2011), 73, Kindle Edition.


[43] Moltmann, 225.


[44] Estep, 17.


[45] Erickson, 534.

[46] Howard F. Vos, Genesis (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999), 21.


2 thoughts on “Whose Image and Likeness is This?: The Imago Dei

  1. Have you ever considered publishing an e-book or guest authoring on other blogs?
    I have a blog based on the same topics you discuss and would really
    like to have you share some stories/information. I know my readers would value your work.
    If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot
    me an e-mail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s