God's Perspective on Self-Image and Identity Formation

The concept of humanity's self-image and identity formation is deeply rooted in the biblical declaration that God created humanity "in his own image" (Genesis 1:27) ^[1]. This foundational statement, often referred to as the imago Dei, signifies a unique relationship between God and humankind, distinguishing humans from all other created beings.

The phrase "image of God" (Hebrew: tselem Elohim) and "likeness" (Hebrew: demuth) are used interchangeably in Genesis 1:26-27, suggesting a profound connection between humanity and the Divine ^[1]. While some traditions have sought to differentiate between "image" and "likeness," the general understanding is that they refer to the same concept ^[5]. The imago Dei is not merely an external resemblance but points to an intrinsic quality of human nature.

The Nature of the Imago Dei

Theological traditions have explored various aspects of what constitutes this divine image. Thomas Aquinas, a prominent scholastic theologian, understood the image of God primarily in terms of humanity's intellectual nature ^[7]. He argued that the image of God is more perfect in angels than in humans because their intellectual nature is more perfect ^[7]. For Aquinas, the image of God involves a similitude, but not just any kind; it requires a similitude of species or a specific sign, much like a depicted figure on a wall is an image because of its form, not just its color ^[8]. He also posited that God knows things other than Himself, and this perfect self-understanding implies knowledge of His power, which extends to other things, including humanity ^[4].

John Calvin, a leading figure in the Reformed tradition, emphasized that the image of God extends to "everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals" ^[10]. He specifically highlighted the "integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellences to God" ^[10]. Calvin also noted that while the soul is central to this image, the concept encompasses the whole person ^[10]. He cautioned against overly subtle distinctions regarding the faculties of the soul, preferring a simpler, more scripturally grounded understanding ^[12].

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown commentary on Genesis 1:26 similarly states that the image of God does not consist in man's physical form or even his intellect alone, but in a deeper, more comprehensive sense ^[15]. This distinction underscores that the imago Dei is not about physical appearance, as God is spirit and cannot be represented by physical likenesses or images ^{[6, 13]}. Lactantius, an early Christian author, argued that because God's spirit is diffused everywhere, a physical image is always superfluous ^[13].

Identity Formation in Light of the Imago Dei

The understanding of humanity as created in God's image profoundly shapes Christian perspectives on self-image and identity. It establishes an inherent dignity and value for every individual, regardless of their physical attributes, social status, or personal achievements. This dignity is not earned but is a given by virtue of creation.

The imago Dei implies certain capacities and responsibilities. The Genesis account immediately follows the creation of humanity with the command to "fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" ^[1]. This suggests that being made in God's image includes a capacity for stewardship, creativity, and rational thought, reflecting God's own attributes ^[15]. Humans are intended to be God's representatives, exercising authority and rule over creation ^[15].

However, the imago Dei has been affected by the fall into sin. While the image is not entirely lost, it is marred and distorted. Augustine of Hippo, a significant patristic theologian, discussed the renewal of the image of God, implying that it can be obscured or damaged ^[9]. The process of sanctification in Christian theology is often understood as the restoration of this image, a journey towards conformity with Christ, who is the perfect image of God.

God's Perspective on Humanity

God's perspective on self-image is intrinsically tied to His own nature and knowledge. Aquinas argued that God perfectly understands Himself, and this perfect knowledge extends to all things He has created, including humanity ^[4]. God's knowledge is not like human knowledge, which relies on similitudes or images to understand objects ^[11]. Instead, God knows things directly through His own essence ^[11]. This means God's understanding of humanity is complete and unmediated, seeing individuals not just as they appear but as they are in their deepest essence, created in His image.

The concept of God's name further illuminates His perspective. The Hebrew names for God, such as El (meaning "to be strong") and Elohim (a plural form often used for the Divine Being), convey His power and majesty ^[2]. The name Jehovah (or YHWH), often rendered "LORD," emphasizes His covenantal relationship and self-existence ^[2]. These names underscore that God is the ultimate source of being and identity, and His perspective is one of absolute truth and perfect understanding.

The idea of identity is not merely a human construct but is rooted in God's creative act and His ongoing knowledge of His creation. Charles Hodge, a prominent Old Princeton theologian, discussed the concept of identity, noting that while images may seem to remain the same, they are constantly renewed ^[3]. This analogy, though used in a different context, can be applied to the dynamic nature of human identity, which is continually shaped and renewed, ideally in conformity to God's original design. Hodge also explored the unity of God and humanity, suggesting that the "ideal or perfect man" is God, implying that humanity's true identity is found in its relationship with the Divine ^[14].

Sources

Genesis “God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. -- Genesis 1:27”
Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: God — (A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El, from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim. The singular form, Eloah, is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argume”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 49: the brightness of the moon, he says, must be true also of its solidity, and of everything 218 else belonging to its substance. Again, images of things placed before a mirror seem to remain precisely the same, with a continuing perfect identity. But it is known to be otherwise. These images are constantly renewed by the impression and reflection of new rays of light. The image which exists this moment is not at all derived from the image which existed the last preceding moment. It is no more numerically the same, than if painted anew by an”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), Of God's Knowledge, Art. 5: Article: Whether God knows things other than Himself? I answer that, God necessarily knows things other than Himself. For it is manifest that He perfectly understands Himself; otherwise His existence would not be perfect, since His existence is His act of understanding. Now if anything is perfectly known, it follows of necessity that its power is perfectly known. But the power of anything can be perfectly known only by knowing to what its power extends. Since therefore the divine power extends to other things by th”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. LXIII. (part 1): Celsus, not observing the difference between "after the image of God" and "God's image," next asserts that the "first-born of every creature" is the image of God,--the very word and truth, and also the very wisdom, being the image of His goodness, while man has been created after the image of God; moreover, that every man whose head is Christ is the image and glory of God;--and further, not observing to which of the characteristics of humanity the expression "after the image of God" belongs, and that it consis”
CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Isaiah, Vol. 3, section 8.30: in guarding the Jews against distrust, at the same time condemns the superstitions of the Gentiles, and declares that it is inconsistent with the nature of God to be represented by painting or by any kind of likeness. This shews clearly that Paul’s doctrine fully agrees with it; for the Prophet, after having shewn that the power of God is infinite, since he holds all things in his fist, at length concludes, “To whom then will ye liken me? for no image that is formed will have any likeness or resemblance to me.” Or, what resemblance will you a”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), The End or Term of the Production of Man, Art. 3: Article: Whether the angels are more to the image of God than man is? I answer that, We may speak of God's image in two ways. First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (Question [58], Article [3]; Question [79], Article [8]). Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as rega”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), Of the Image, Art. 1: Article: Whether image in God is said personally? I answer that, Image includes the idea of similitude. Still, not any kind of similitude suffices for the notion of image, but only similitude of species, or at least of some specific sign. In corporeal things the specific sign consists chiefly in the figure. For we see that the species of different animals are of different figures; but not of different colors. Hence if the color of anything is depicted on a wall, this is not called an image unless the figure is likewise d”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 5: Augustine — Anti-Pelagian — CHAP. 20 [XIV.]--THE BODY DOES NOT RECEIVE (part 2): man. But you must decide which it is you would have to be renewed after the image of God. How is he to receive this, who has already got the image of the outer man? For if the inner man has run throughout the limbs of the outward one, and congealed (for this is the term you have used; as if a molten shape were formed out of soft clay, which was thickened out of the dust), how, if this same figure which has been impressed upon it, or rather expressed out of a body, is to retain its place, could it be r”
CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 31: the body. Hence, although the soul is not the man, there is no absurdity in holding that he is called the image of God in respect of the soul; though I retain the principle which I lately laid down, that the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals. Accordingly, by this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excell”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part (Prima Pars), How God Is Known by Us, Art. 9: Article: Whether what is seen in God by those who see the Divine essence, is seen through any similitude? I answer that, Those who see the divine essence see what they see in God not by any likeness, but by the divine essence itself united to their intellect. For each thing is known in so far as its likeness is in the one who knows. Now this takes place in two ways. For as things which are like one and the same thing are like to each other, the cognitive faculty can be assimilated to any knowable object in two ”
CCEL (Reformed) “Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1 (Gen 1-23), section 5.31: and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Father and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 7: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius — CHAP. II.--WHAT WAS THE FIRST CAUSE OF MAKING IMAGES; OF THE TRUE LIKENESS OF GOD, AND THE TRUE WORSHIP OF HIM. (part 2): himself? Assuredly not. For the likeness of a man appears to be necessary at that time when he is far away; and it will become superfluous when he is at hand. But in the case of God, whose spirit and influence are diffused everywhere, and can never be absent, it is plain that an image is always superfluous. But they fear lest their religion should be altogether vain and empty if they should see nothing pres”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 28: the three mentioned amount to nothing; namely, the unity of God and man. Man in his highest form; the ideal or perfect man; He in whom the idea of humanity is fully realized, is God. What does it amount to, if we admit that “organic law” constitutes identity, as in the case of man; or that personality includes the idea of “one indivisible life;” that in man there is not one life of the body and another of the soul, that these are only different manifestations of one and the same life; that the soul can no more be without the body than the”
Genesis (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Genesis 1:26: The last stage in the progress of creation being now reached--God said, Let us make man--words which show the peculiar importance of the work to be done, the formation of a creature, who was to be God's representative, clothed with authority and rule as visible head and monarch of the world. In our image, after our likeness--This was a peculiar distinction, the value attached to which appears in the words being twice mentioned. And in what did this image of God consist? Not in the erect form or features of man, not in his intellect, for the devil a”

Ask Your Own Question