Skip to content

Theology

An academic approach to the imago dei

Man is the sovereign creation of God. In the biblical creation story, God breathes the breath of life into man and makes him distinct from animals. God imbues man with the likeness of himself, the imago dei, and establishes man’s dominion over the earth. Creationism finds opposition in arguments and ideologies that have impacted society for centuries. The Theory of Evolution boasted scientific observation of how the world, and more importantly, man, came into existence. Social Darwinism found its genesis in the ideas presented by Charles Darwin and profoundly impacted society by diminishing specific people groups. Evolution removed God from creation and ushered in ideologies such as Humanism which eliminate God and elevate man. Even from within the church, the exclusion of the imago dei from women and the disabled contradicts the biblical assertion that God’s image is engraved on all humanity. Evolution, Social Darwinism, the exclusion of the imago dei from vulnerable people groups, and Humanism posit themselves against a masterful creator. The Baptist Doctrine of Man as God’s crowning work of creation will confront these ideologies and rightly attest to the image of God on all humanity.

The Baptist Faith and Message affirms “Man is the special creation of God, made in his own image. He created them male and female as the crowning work of his creation.”1 Citing Genesis 1:26-27 and 2:7, the Baptist Doctrine of Man contends that creation is the divine work of God. “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:26-7). “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7).

In stark contrast to the biblical account of creation, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859 which proposes the development of humans from extinct primates known as hominid. Darwin’s theory of natural selection omits God as sovereign creator and, therefore, rejects the notion of a primordial couple made from the dust of the ground.2 Evolution suggests a natural sequence of events; molecules and atoms randomly arranged in the right way to spontaneously create life. Over time, mutations follow, as organisms struggle to survive and only the strongest emerge victorious. Humans evolved from primates, superior traits emerging until the right set of genes established humanity as the winning organism. According to God, Atheism, and The Origins Debate, “there are two problems with this neo- Darwinian story of how species evolve. First, natural selection can only act upon already existing organisms, and thus has no power to invent new species. Rather, selection can only preserve innovations within existing species.” This presents an aperture in the theory of evolution. The power of creation must lie elsewhere. Evolution can only explain processes which occur after creation, it cannot explain the act of creation. Nevertheless, recent advancements in sequencing the human genome and the discovery of DNA and RNA, reveal a remarkable similarity between the genes of apes and humans. The discovery of human like fossils has also been used as some of the most compelling physical evidence for the theory of evolution.3

The Baptist Faith and Message response to scientific findings does not deny man as a created being made in close approximation to animals. However, while we are closely related to animals, God made a distinction that man is a moral creature with a spiritual capacity to know Him. “Human beings, as the only creatures made in God's image, are made to know God. Image of God refers to our spiritual capacity and ability to fellowship with God.”4 It was Tertullian who focused on the plural form of Genesis 1:26- 27, “Let us make man in our own image." There is a presupposition that creation is an act of the Divine Trinity because the language is plural. The same presupposition is made for Genesis 3:22, "Behold the man is become as one of us.” Tertullian concludes that God spoke in plural terms because he is at the same time the Father, Son and Spirit. So when the Father said "Let us make man,” he had the Son by his side, and the Spirit was also present. He made man in the image of his Son, who was in time to take on the nature of man, and it was the function of the spirit to Sanctify man.”5 Therefore, unlike animals, we are both incarnate beings and spiritual beings, set apart by the creator for relationship, salvation, and sanctification.

Darwin’s theory of evolution was not problematic merely because of its challenge to creation as a divine work. It was instead what became known as Social Darwinism, which applied Darwin’s evolutionary theories to social constructs, that proved the gravest danger to society. “Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, concocted the program of eugenics, which sought to speed up evolution by engineering inheritance through selective human breeding. Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’, used Darwin’s science as a naturalistic justification for laissez-faire capitalism and the removal of governmental services for the poor and indigent. Darwin and science could not be extricated from a social philosophy that provided naturalistic justification for elitism, ethnocentrism, racism, jingoism, and in the case of Nazi Germany, genocide.6

“Darwin's evolutionary theory hypothesizes that selected races possess superior intellect over lesser races. Darwin's evolutionary theory was, in part, an attempt to establish the superiority of a particular race, whites, at the expense of what he called the “savage” race, Blacks. Acknowledging a singular pair as humanity’s origin invalidates evolutionary theory; it eliminates the concept of a preferred race and elevates the dignity of all races.”7 Pervasive evil was borne on the shoulders of Social Darwinism. Yet, survival of the fittest, superior races, and eugenics find their nemesis in the pages of Scripture. Revelation 5:9 says, “and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.” The Baptist Faith and Message affirms that the saving work of Christ is for men and women of every tribe, race, language and people group. “This incredible fact should eliminate the possibility of racism or ethnic prejudice from God's people.”8 Russell Moore provides unflinching clarity about why, as Christians, we cannot be tempted to accept Darwinism as mere science. “Jesus’ teachings simply don't make sense on evolutionary terms. From the perspective of social Darwinism, loving your kin and hating your enemy seems logical – yet Jesus calls us to follow him in doing the opposite… This inversion of worldly wisdom is not peripheral – it's the marrow of the gospel. In a world conditioned by evolutionary advantage and our sinful nature, which desires power at the expense of pushing others down, the gospel causes us to cruciform weakness. The gospel shows us that focusing on the “losers,” as defined by the standards of this present age, is how we model and become like Jesus (Luke 9:48), how we gain eternal treasures (14:12-14), and how we worship God in Spirit and in truth (Acts 10:4).”9

 Eugenics was a response to perceived weakness and inferior genes, which targeted not only African Americans, but people from any race who possessed a malady or disability. Eradication of weakness for advancement of a select group deemed worthy is at the heart of evolutionary theory. When held up against the light of scripture, it is clear that Darwinism, in all its forms, rejects biblical truth. Unfortunately, a formidable yet regrettable foe was found not only in Darwinism, but in the ecumenical church itself in regard to the disabled and the imago dei. Second century theologian Origen, believed that “souls preexist bodies and are only grudgingly forced into disabled bodies.” Even Martin Luther was convinced that the derelict or intellectually disabled were possessed by Satan. Many Christians and denominations supported the eugenics movement and more specifically the American Eugenics Society.10

Even so, it is a question deserving of thoughtful response; if Adam and Eve were made perfect beings bearing the imago dei, and The Fall consequently introduced disease and disability, do those with disabilities represent the fallen state and therefore fail to bear the image of God? In “Kings and Queens on Mission: The Image of God in God's Plan for Disability” David Deuel and Nathan Grills state “Human beings have dignity deriving from God's image. The Fall did not change the image. But sin marred or harmed people who bore that image. Dignity is in our connection with God.”11 The Baptist Faith and Message emphasizes image bearers as those who have a spiritual capacity to know and worship God. Dignity and worth as image bearers is never dependent on who we are, but rather on who He is. In accordance with the Baptist Doctrine of Man, I labor to underscore the posture of God as crucial to understanding how someone with intellectual impairment could bear his image. Gracious accommodation is made by God to his creation, in that he understands the capacity of each person and reaches them proportionately. Physical and mental impairment makes more of God because he meets them within their ability. Psalm 139 reveals that God saw our unformed shape, sees into time and knows each day of our lives before one is written (Psalm 139:13-16). Disability is not a surprise to God and in His infinite power he can remove it. Instead God accommodates each capacityand reflects himself in all of His creation because the spiritual is never constrained by the physical.

In the Bible, disability did not disqualify people from service to God; Moses would have been unqualified for slowness of speech and Paul unmerited due to a thorn in his flesh, which scholars suspect was a physical affliction. If disability did not disqualify one for the work of God, it seems unlikely the imago dei was stricken from God’s most devout and useful men. In John 9:1 even Jesus’ disciples echo the cultural beliefs of their time, that disability was the result of sin. "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him (John 9:1-3). Jesus introduces a radical idea, that God ordained this man's affliction in order to bring himself glory. As such, The Baptist Faith and Message states unequivocally that “Christians must see every human being as made in God's image and as worthy of full respect and love.”12

More challenging still is whether women, in equality with men, bear the image of God. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says “A man… is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). Does this assume St. Paul meant the image of God belongs to men but not women? “Almost unanimously in the early Church and Middle Ages, the view is that only the male is in the image of God.” The theologian Augustine wrote “that as made from man, the woman could not be in the image; however, as for him the image lay in the mind, it resides in both sexes.” In Augustine’s view, woman bore the image of God through rational mind but only when joined with a man. Luther did not deny woman the image of God but considered them inferior; “still she was a woman’.”13

Was it not Paul who said in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28)? The Baptist Faith and Message positions “human beings – both male and female – were created in God's image.” God created male and female with distinct roles that are to be celebrated and thus male and female are part of God’s good design.14 “Distinction between the sexes must then surely relate back to Genesis 2, where the man is described as being formed from the dust and given life from the breath of God, while the woman is formed from the rib of the man, so shares his life. In this case, the image resides in the direct gift of life from God.”15 Only Christ bears the image of God as intended for creation. Colossians 1 says "The Son is the image of the invisible God…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things.” (Colossians 1:15,19). Jesus redeems men and women and therefore we see the image was imbued on both sexes and will be restored through faith in Christ. This is the sanctifying work Tertullian spoke of.

In the absence of a divine creator, man must determine their place in the universe. Humanism relies on qualities of reason, logic and science. Everything about the world must be determined from what can be understood in the physical realm. Morality is present in the secular humanist, but justice is determined only by a man’s will to act. Value is determined by the observer. A person who is disabled is only valued by what can be observed or understood about their capacity. In Blessed Are the Merciful: The Church’s Mission in an Age of Humanism “The human being’s distinction from the animals is reduced to mere function; human value is found in volition and performance. For secular humanism, the ideal human being is an activist whose value is commensurate with his capacity to effect, change, and control the world around him.”16

Protagoras declared “Man is the measure of all things.” This philosophy makes much of man’s ability to determine justice, truth, reality, and value which are subjective to the individual. Humanism elevates the role of man and removes God, seeking self-realization and control over one’s own fate. The Baptist Faith and Message rejects the notion that man is the measure of all things, “for we are not even able to understand ourselves without God's revelation.”17 Divine revelation is a gift from the Spirit according to Ephesians 1:8-9 that says “With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will…to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ” (Ephesians 1:8-9).

God knows the temptation of man to focus on appearance, capacity, and accomplishment; the iniquitous desire not just to become like God, but to become God, as Lucifer did in heaven. Such is the danger of evolution, Social Darwinism, rejection of the imago dei on the vulnerable, and Humanism. We are not to be God but to represent God. In the Old Testament God warned man not to make tselem, carved images or idols, as temptation to worship something other than Him is ever present.

As God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit have relationship with one another, man was made to be in relationship with God and with His creation. Man was given dominion with purpose— to care for what God had made. Adam and Eve were the only two people to bear the imago dei as it was intended. Adam and Eve removed both communion and covenant with God as they had known it in the garden, and destroyed the holiness and righteousness with which they had been endowed. Jesus, however, came to reconcile all things to himself.

One is tempted to think Jesus was handsome, bearing the “image” of a perfect God. Yet Isaiah 53:2 says “He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him” (Isaiah 53:2). God understood something about the human condition; the tendency of man to elevate what he sees. Man mistakes earthly splendor for heavenly worth because man uses the wrong tool to measure what only God can know. As 2 Corinthians 5:16 reminds us, we ought not to regard people from a worldly point of view. Jesus lived a life marked by sacrifice, service, generous elevation of the disabled and women, and ultimately death on a cross for all people. And for those without the capacity to understand? God will not withhold fairness from those who have no capacity to receive it. Harmful ideologies that set themselves up against God as the author of life and man as his crowning work of creation give no thought to the imago dei. The Baptist Doctrine of Man, however, would say all men and women from every tribe, race, language and people group bear the image of God. In other words, all humanity. I happen to agree.18

Bibliography

Arnould, Jacques. Darwin and Evolution: Interfaith Perspectives. Vol. 12. London: ATF Press, 2010. Accessed via EBSCOhost.

Bushur, James G. “Blessed Are the Merciful: The Church’s Mission in an Age of Humanism.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 89, no. 4 (2025): 347–65. Accessed via

Christensen, Pamela. “Wholeness: Recognizing the Imago Dei in Disability.” The Covenant Quarterly (Online) 81, no. 1 (2023): 31–40. Accessed via EBSCOhost.

Coleman, Roche. “The Imago Dei: The Distinctiveness of Humanity.” Old Testament Essays (New Series) 36, no. 3 (2023): 649–82. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2023/v36n3a7.

Deuel, David, and Nathan Grills. “Kings and Queens on Mission: The Image of God in God’s Plan for Disability.” Christian Journal for Global Health 10, no. 2 (2023): 74–79. Accessed via EBSCOhost.

Gould, Paul M. “God, Atheism, and the Origins Debate.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 60, no. 2 (2018): 137–54. Accessed via EBSCOhost.

Kelley, Charles S., Jr., Richard Land, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., eds. The Baptist Faith and Message. Nashville: Lifeway Press, 2007.

McCasland, S. Vernon. “‘The Image of God’ According to Paul.” Journal of Biblical Literature 69, no. 2 (1950): 85–100. Accessed via EBSCOhost.

Moore, Russel D. “A Different Kind of Darwinism Is Winning.” Christianity Today 69, no. 5 (2025): 25-27. EBSCOhost.

Williams, David T. “‘He Is the Image and Glory of God, but Woman...’ (1 Cor 11:7): ‘Unveiling’ the Understanding of the Imago Dei.” Scriptura 108 (December 2011): 314–25. Accessed via EBSCOhost.

Footnotes

  1. Charles S. Kelley Jr., Richard Land, and R. Albert Mohler Jr., eds., The Baptist Faith and Message (Nashville: Lifeway Press, 2007), 59. ↩

  2. Roche Coleman, “The Imago Dei: The Distinctiveness of Humanity,” Old Testament Essays (New Series) 36, no. 3 (2023): 649–82, https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2023/v36n3a7. ↩

  3. Paul M. Gould, “God, Atheism, and the Origins Debate,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 60, no. 2 (2018): 137–54, accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  4. Kelley, Land, and Mohler, The Baptist Faith and Message, 61. ↩

  5. S. Vernon McCasland, “‘The Image of God’ According to Paul,” Journal of Biblical Literature 69, no. 2 (1950): 85–100, accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  6. Jacques Arnould, Darwin and Evolution: Interfaith Perspectives, vol. 12 (London: ATF Press, 2010), accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  7. Coleman, “Imago Dei,” 655. ↩

  8. Kelley, Land, and Mohler, The Baptist Faith and Message, 63. ↩

  9. Russell D. Moore, “A Different Kind of Darwinism Is Winning,” Christianity Today 69, no. 5 (2025): 27, EBSCOhost. ↩

  10. Pamela Christensen, “Wholeness: Recognizing the Imago Dei in Disability,” The Covenant Quarterly (Online) 81, no. 1 (2023): 31–40, accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  11. David Deuel and Nathan Grills, “Kings and Queens on Mission: The Image of God in God’s Plan for Disability,” Christian Journal for Global Health 10, no. 2 (2023): 74–79, accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  12. Kelley, Land, and Mohler, The Baptist Faith and Message, 64. ↩

  13. David T. Williams, “‘He Is the Image and Glory of God, but Woman...’ (1 Cor 11:7): ‘Unveiling’ the Understanding of the Imago Dei,” Scriptura 108 (December 2011): 314–25, accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  14. Kelley, Land, and Mohler, The Baptist Faith and Message, 62. ↩

  15. Williams, Imago Dei, 318. ↩

  16. James G. Bushur, “Blessed Are the Merciful: The Church’s Mission in an Age of Humanism,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 89, no. 4 (2025): 347–65, accessed via EBSCOhost. ↩

  17. Kelley, Land, and Mohler, The Baptist Faith and Message, 60. ↩

  18. Ibid., 63. ↩