Defenders 3: Doctrine of Man (Part 3): Systematizing the Biblical Data

Summary

Defenders Podcast

Episode: Defenders 3: Doctrine of Man (Part 3): Systematizing the Biblical Data
Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Date: January 14, 2020

---

Episode Overview

This episode of the Defenders Podcast, led by Dr. William Lane Craig, continues his series on the Doctrine of Man, focusing on the Biblical teaching that humans are made in the "image of God" and various ways theologians have tried to systematize and interpret this concept. Dr. Craig traces scriptural references to the imago Dei (image of God), explores interpretations across Roman Catholic, Protestant, and alternative theological traditions, addresses participant questions, and considers whether aspects like relationality, function, or even physical likeness are part of humanity’s reflection of God. The class features interactive Q&A sections and concludes with a preview of further discussion in upcoming sessions.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Persistence and Range of the Image of God

• Biblical Data ([00:13]-[04:26])
  • Humanity is created in God’s image and likeness (primarily Genesis references).
  • The image of God is not indicated in scripture to be lost after the Fall; even fallen humans retain it (Genesis 9:6).
  • Dr. Craig:

    “Even fallen man retains the divine image in which he was created. So there isn’t any indication in the biblical text that this image or likeness to God is something that is lost through the human fall into sin.” ([00:41])

• Christ as the Image of God ([01:25]-[03:14])
  • Christ is described as "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), acting as the visible representation of God in a unique way that differs from Adam and Eve.
  • Believers, in Christ, are being conformed to His image (Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 3:18).
  • Dr. Craig:

    “So there is a kind of image of Christ toward which believers are destined and progressing.” ([03:10])

---

2. Systematizing the Biblical Data: Theological Perspectives

Roman Catholic View ([04:34]-[09:40])

• Distinction between Image and Likeness
  • Image: Man’s rational soul, which persists post-Fall, though disrupted.
  • Likeness: Man’s original righteousness, lost at the Fall, restored in Christ.
  • In the state of grace, both image (restored) and likeness (righteousness via Christ) return.
  • Dr. Craig:

    “On the traditional Roman Catholic view, there's a distinction drawn between the image and the likeness of God in man. The image is distorted by the fall…but the likeness of man to God, that original righteousness ... is lost in the fallen state and then restored in Christ.” ([08:18])

Protestant/Reformation View ([09:40]-[13:57])

• No Distinction between Image and Likeness
  • Both terms are essentially synonymous.
  • The image/likeness, tied to original righteousness, is lost in the Fall — but some vestige remains.
  • Luther: humanity “almost lost the image of God in the Fall.”
  • Calvin: "we can trace some remains of the divine image distinguishing the whole human race from other creatures" ([12:04])
  • Both views root the image in humanity’s ontology ("substantial view"): rational soul separates man from animals.
  • Dr. Craig:

    “Our soul or our mind makes us godlike. It is our reason that distinguishes us from mere animals.” ([13:09])

---

3. Alternative Interpretations of the Image of God ([13:57]-[17:01])

• Original Righteousness View: Image = primal innocence; lost in the Fall if limited to this meaning.
• Relational View: Image is found in humans’ ability for "I–Thou" (first-person) relationships, with God and others.
• Freedom View: Image is constituted by human free will and moral responsibility, unlike animal instinct.
• Answerability View: Being answerable to God (moral accountability) forms the image.
• Functional View: Humanity’s rule or lordship over creation is God’s image—functioning as His royal representatives.

---

4. Participant Questions & Discussions

The Meaning of 'Image' Word in Texts ([04:26]-[04:34]; [17:01]-[17:14])

• Steve inquires about the original words for "image" – Dr. Craig explains the occurrence of 'icon' in Greek (Septuagint) for Genesis 1:26,27.

  “In Genesis 1:26 and 27 it’s [Greek] 'icona.'” ([17:09])

Human Tripartite Nature and Its Connection to the Image of God ([17:14]-[20:46])

• Cash asks whether “soul” and “spirit” are distinct, and if the human trinity is a reflection of the divine Trinity.
• Dr. Craig distances this analogy from the image of God discussion, considering it more a literary device or functional distinction (“soul” refers to mind’s normal operations; “spirit” to the mind’s spiritual function).

  “I think the question would be whether or not two discussions are being run together here … I don't see that that is connected with this question of man created in God's image.” ([18:32]) “The soul, insofar as it relates to God, can be referred to as spirit.” ([19:35])

What is Damaged/Lost in the Fall? ([20:47]-[22:22])

• Steve asks about how the image is damaged.
• Dr. Craig speculates that faculties (will, reason) persist but are twisted—will bent toward self, reason distorted.

  “These different faculties would still be possessed by fallen man, but that they wouldn’t be functioning properly.” ([21:17]) “The scripture talks a lot about the darkened intellectual and as a result they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” ([22:07])

Eastern Orthodox View ([22:22]-[23:00])

• Craig: did not prepare a detailed answer, suspects similarity with the Roman Catholic distinction (original righteousness vs. rational soul).

Integration of Views ([23:00]-[24:53])

• Taewon attempts to synthesize the interpretations: design (ontology, soul with emotion/intellect/will) and function (ruling creation).
• Dr. Craig affirms the synthesis; humans retain the purpose but fail to fulfill it fully post-Fall.

  “I think you’re quite right, Taewon, … these are not mutually exclusive alternatives, but can be integrated into a sort of synoptic view.” ([24:54])

Physical Likeness? ([24:54]-[27:37])

• Participant asks if some believe God literally looks human.
• Dr. Craig notes some have advocated this, but argues the Genesis author’s transcendent concept of God excludes a physical interpretation.

Trichotomy and Restoration ([27:37]-[28:45])

• Bruce, as a "trichotomist," links loss of image to disruption of body-soul-spirit interaction; argues believers have this restored.
• Dr. Craig: cautions again about conflating the tripartite anthropology with the image of God.

---

Notable Quotes

• Dr. William Lane Craig:
  • “Even fallen man retains the divine image in which he was created.” ([00:41])
  • “Christ is said to be the visible representation of the invisible God. In a special sense, then, that is not true of Adam and Eve. Christ is God’s image.” ([02:00])
  • “The traditional Roman Catholic view differentiates between the image and the likeness of God… the image is distorted by the fall into sin and then repaired in the state of grace.” ([07:11], [08:15])
  • “Our soul or our mind makes us godlike. It is our reason that distinguishes us from mere animals.” ([13:09])
  • “We stand in an I thou relationship with God as well as with other human persons. So man is in God’s image, not in being structurally different from the beasts, but by his standing in personal relationships.” ([15:17])
  • “He [Genesis author] clearly doesn’t think of God that way [physically human], because he says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and God is portrayed as a transcendent being beyond the physical world.” ([26:18])

---

Important Timestamps

• 00:13–04:26 — Survey of scriptural data on the image/likeness of God
• 04:34–09:40 — Roman Catholic interpretation
• 09:40–13:57 — Protestant/Reformation view and ontological roots
• 13:57–17:01 — Alternative interpretations: relational, freedom, functional
• 17:01–17:14 — Greek term for ‘image’ in Genesis
• 17:14–20:47 — Discussion: spirit, soul, trichotomy; relation to the imago Dei
• 20:47–22:22 — What was damaged in the Fall?
• 22:22–23:00 — Eastern Orthodox perspective
• 23:00–24:53 — Synthesizing ontological and functional views
• 24:53–27:37 — Was the image ever thought to be physical?
• 27:37–28:45 — Trichotomist synthesis and image restoration

---

Memorable Moments

• Dr. Craig’s clear delineation between the biblical, Catholic, and Reformation views, using accessible analogies and illustrations.
• The thoughtful participant questions, especially around the tripartite nature of humanity and whether being made in God’s image could imply a physical resemblance.
• The interactive discussion where Craig invites synthesis of multiple views (ontology and function), demonstrating the potential for integrative theology.

---

Summary

This episode provides a comprehensive tour through the biblical and theological landscapes surrounding the doctrine of the "image of God" in humanity. Dr. Craig outlines scriptural affirmations, presents major ecclesiastical viewpoints (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), and surveys a range of contemporary and historical interpretations—from ontological substance to relationality and functional vocation. Listener questions spur clarifications on the nature of the soul and spirit, the effect of the Fall, and potential misunderstandings about God’s likeness. Craig navigates these exchanges with scholarly rigor, confessional seriousness, and respect for the complexities of doctrine. The episode stands as an accessible, nuanced resource for any listener seeking to understand or teach the imago Dei.

---

Transcript

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig today the Doctrine of Man Part 3 For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

reasonablefaith.org we are in our new section of the Defenders class studying the doctrine of man, and we've been looking at the notion of man as created in in the image of God. And we looked last time at a number of verses, primarily in Genesis, that indicate that man is made in God's image and likeness. Now you'll notice that there's no indication in the biblical text that this image or likeness is lost through the fall of man into sin. In fact, in the command in Genesis 9, 6, where the rationale for capital punishment is given, it says that man is created in the image of God even in his fallen state. So even fallen man retains the divine image in which he was created. So there isn't any indication in the biblical text that that this image or likeness to God is something that is lost through the human fall into sin. Let's talk briefly about Christ as the image of God. There's another use of the word image with respect to God's image. That is to say, Christ is the image of God. In colossians chapter chapter one and verse 15 it says that Christ is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Colossians 1:15 now this is quite a different use of the expression image of God. Here Christ is said to be the visible representation of of the invisible God. In a special sense, then, that is not true of Adam and Eve. Christ is God's image. Finally, let's say a word about man in Christ as the image of God. Thirdly, man in Christ is said to be conformed to Christ's image. Romans 8:29 says, for those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image icon of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. So here we as Christians are said to be destined to toward conformity with Christ's image. Similarly, in Second Corinthians 3:18 we read, and we all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness icon from one degree of glory to another, for this comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. Second Corinthians 3:18. Here we are said to be sanctified as we are brought into the image of Christ the Lord. So there is a kind of image of Christ toward which believers are destined and progressing. Such are the biblical data with respect to the image of God. Man is created in God's image, Christ is God's image, and man in Christ is brought into conformity with the image of Christ. Any comments on that biblical data before we look at attempts to systematize it? Yes, there was. Oh, Steve. Yes, I didn't see the hand.

[Steve or Participant]

Is that a different.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

Let's get it on the mic here, Steve.

[Steve or Participant]

Okay, now that's a different word for image or the same word?

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

The same word in these last passages, icon is the same one that is used for image, of course, in Hebrew, as I explained, it's different in the Old Testament, but it is this word icon from which we get our word icon. I don't know, Steve. I haven't looked at the SEPTUAGINT for Genesis 1:26,27. I think so, but I shouldn't commit myself. All right. Having looked at the biblical data, then, on the image of God, we now want to look at various attempts to systematize this data. Let's talk first about the Roman Catholic view. The traditional Roman Catholic view differentiates between the image and the likeness of God. Now, you'll remember that Genesis says that man was created in God's image according to his likeness. For Roman Catholics, these are two different things. In man, in man's original state of righteousness in which man was created, man had the likeness of God. So the likeness of God consists in man's original righteousness that he had prior to the Fall. But man in that original state was also in God's image as well. This is usually understood in terms of man's having a rational soul. But then comes the Fall, and with the Fall, that original righteousness is lost. Therefore, man in his fallen condition no longer stands in the likeness of God. The image of God, however, though impaired and disrupted by the Fall, still exists even in the fallen state, and so is not entirely lost. Finally, in the state of grace, insofar as we are in Christ, the likeness of God is restored because we now have Christ's righteousness. And the image of God is also healed and restored from the disruption of that it experienced. Now we can illustrate this difference by drawing two lines concerning the image and likeness of God. In the state of original righteousness, man exists in God's image. Then with the Fall, this image is distorted and impaired. But then, as one is in Christ in a state of grace, the image is healed and restored. The likeness of God, which is man's original righteousness, is, however, just lost in the Fall, man no longer has it. But then, insofar as one is in Christ, the original righteousness that Adam and Eve had, is restored. So on the traditional Roman Catholic view, there's a distinction drawn between the image and the likeness of God in man. The image is distorted by the fall into sin and then repaired in the state of grace. But the likeness of man to God, that original righteousness that he possessed and is lost in the fallen state and then restored in Christ. Now, by contrast to the traditional Roman Catholic view, the Protestant Reformation theologians did not distinguish between the image of God and the likeness of God. They held that the image of God just is the likeness of God. These are not two different images aspects of man. So in that original state of righteousness, man was in the image or likeness of God. It means the same thing. The key difference between the Protestant Reformers and the Catholic view emerges with respect to the question whether fallen man is still in the image of of God. The Reformers view implied that fallen man is no longer in God's image. They identified the image of God with the likeness of God, which was man's original righteousness. And since that original righteousness was lost, so was the image of God. Nevertheless, they did try to affirm some sense in which fallen sinful human beings are still in God's image by differentiating between a general image and a special image of God. They said that only the special image of God is lost and that in a sort of general sense even fallen man would still be in God's image. Luther, for example, said that man almost lost the image of God in the Fall. Calvin says that a relic of the image of God remains in this fallen condition. He says, and I quote, we can trace some remains of the divine image distinguishing the whole human race from other creatures, end quote. The question I think here is whether the Reformers are consistent in seeing the image of God as lost because of the identity of that image with the likeness of God, man's original righteousness. And yet they're still wanting to preserve some vestige of God's image in man. Now you notice that the Reformers and the Catholic theologians are united in seeing God's image as rooted in ontology or in man's constitution. Sometimes this is called a substantial view of the imago dei. Man is structurally different than other animals. Only he has or is a rational soul. God is the supremely rational being. He is the Logos of John, chapter one. In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was was God. Similarly, our being in God's image means that we too are rational creatures. This view is in line with Aristotle's view of the nature of humanity, which is that human nature is to be a rational animal. Our physical bodies are shared with the animals. We have bodies that are very similar to the great apes and other primates. But our soul or our mind makes us godlike. It is our reason that distinguishes us from mere animals. So on both the Catholic view and the Reformation view, the image of God is something that is constitutional in humanity. It is a substantial aspect of human being. Now others, as we've seen, have suggested differently that the image of God is simply the original righteousness in which Adam and Eve were created. They were created innocent and unfallen. It was that original righteousness that they had that made them in God's image. So on that view, the image of God would be lost in the Fall if it is identical simply with this original righteousness. Some modern theologians, on the other hand, have interpreted the image of God relationally. We stand in I thou relationships, or to use contemporary parlance, I you relationships. First person relationships with one another, both with other persons, other human beings, and also with God. We stand in an I thou relationship with God as well as with other human persons. So man is in God's image, not in being structurally different from the beasts, but by his standing in personal relationships. Again, it has been suggested that the image of God consists in our relative freedom. We have freedom of the will. We're not like animals, but which are guided by instinct. Rather, we have the ability to make morally significant choices and it is our freedom that constitutes the image of God in us. Another possible interpretation would be our answerability to God. This would again seem to be a relational interpretation where it is our responsibility and relationship to God that constitutes being in God's image. We have moral duties to fulfill and we are answerable and accountable to God. So the image of God would consist in our answerability to God. Yet a different view of the image of God in man is the so called functional interpretation. Rather than God's image being due to an ontological component in man's being or man's standing in relationships, the image of God is thought of functionally. It's a way in which humanity functions or exists. So, for example, some have suggested that the image of God consists in man's having lordship over the earth and its creatures. To be in God's image means to have the God given duty and role of governing the earth and its creatures. We are functioning on the earth as God's royal representatives. And this is a functional understanding of God's image rather than an ontological one. So, as you can see, there are quite a wide variety of interpretations of what it means to say that man is created in the image of God and according to his likeness. So before we look at some evaluation of these alternatives, let me ask if there's any discussion of any of these different interpretations. Bobby? Yeah. I was just following up on the

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

question earlier about the Septuagint's use of the word image. It's icona in Genesis 1:26 and 27.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

Good. Okay. So, Ikon. Good. Thank you. Cash.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

Okay. If this is the wrong place to talk about this, just tell me. And we might have talked about this before, but I don't remember. And heard other people teach on image of God and man as being some sort of a trinity of man. And there are loads and loads of verses about where heart and spirit and soul are all mentioned. And it seems to me like those are kind of literary devices of expounding on the same thing, like it's being restated. So, like when Jesus says to the Lord, love the Lord your God with all your mind and soul and heart. I don't know that those are different things. But then you get to the verse in Hebrews 4 where it talks about the power of the Word to be able to separate soul from spirit.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

Yes.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

And so I wonder, is soul and spirit a different thing? Are we somehow. Is that part of our image of God? And I've even heard people go so far as to explain that this trinity of man is like, the body is more like Jesus and the soul is more like the Holy Spirit, and Spirit is more like, is God the Father? And that seems like that's really reaching to me.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

I think so as well. I think the question would be whether or not two discussions are being run together here that need to be kept distinct. It seems to me that what you are talking about are whether or not there are reflections or vestiges or traces of the Trinity in humanity. So this would be a trinitarian discussion, whether or not Father, Son and the Holy Spirit find some sort of analogy or reflection. Humans. But I don't see that that is connected with this question of man created in God's image. Now, I suppose somebody could push it that way, but I think he would have a hard time justifying that Biblically. Let's simply point out that on that view, that would be a substantial view there. It would be an attempt to understand the image of God in terms of ontology, the structure of human being. So it would fit in with the view that I described as a substantial or ontological view of the image of God, but instead of rooting it perhaps in the rational soul, it might appeal to this tripartite division. Do I. I think that there's a functional difference in that the soul describes the mind's workings normally in this world. But insofar as the mind relates to God in its spiritual function, it could be called spirit. So I would see it not as an ontological composition in man, that man is made of soul and spirit, but I would see this more as a functional differentiation. The soul, insofar as it relates to God, can be referred to as spirit. I think we're going to talk about that later in the class when we come to these different constituents in human being. Yes, yes, Steve.

[Steve or Participant]

Okay. My question is about the image. How it was damaged in the fall, and then how both the Catholic and the Protestant agree that it gets restored to its original form. And so do they discuss anything other than the fact that the power of sin revives and keeps us alienated and once we're born again in Christ, we can live his desire? So it's only the lordship that's different in the image, right? Or is there something else they allude to being damaged by the fall?

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

This is a great question, Steve. And I wonder exactly what is meant by saying the image of God is damaged or hurt. And I could imagine that one might say that, for example, the different faculties would be disrupted, that the will would no longer naturally incline toward God, but would be bent in upon itself and will other things in God. Perhaps reason is twisted and distorted by the fall, so that fallen man doesn't reason properly. So one could imagine that these different faculties would still be possessed by fallen man, but that they wouldn't be functioning properly.

[Steve or Participant]

We'd be using them to hide because of the guilt.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

Yes. Yeah, right. You know, the scripture talks a lot about the darkened intellectual and as a result they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Romans 1. Yes.

[Steve or Participant]

What is the orthodox traditional view of the imago dei?

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

I'm sorry, repeat that.

[Steve or Participant]

What is the Eastern orthodox view on this? Ah,

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

well, I didn't have that as part of my notes, so I would have to look at that. I would suspect that it would be very similar to the Roman Catholic view that would distinguish original righteousness from the rational soul. That makes us different from the beasts. That was very, very widespread view among the early church fathers. Yes. Taewon.

[Taewon]

Yes, Dr. Craig? Of all the list that you provided, I kind of attempt to put them together and want to run it through you and see if you agree with this integration. First, God create man. For there is a design and there's a purpose. So ontological is the design, and the function is his purpose. And his purpose is for man to rule his creation by according to his will. And so ontologically, he designed us with our soul, which comprise of our emotion, our intellect, and our will. And so the fallen state is that our conscience, which is actually the conscience before fall is in agreement with God. And the devotion is the I thou relationship dominates. But after the fall, it's I you, because Satan come in and basically deceive us and broken that I Thou relationship. And so our conscience is distorted to a point that we lost the purpose of God's design. And so we try to live out the image without that, without God's will, without his purpose, and basically lost.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

All right. I think you're quite right, Taewon, in seeing that these are not mutually exclusive alternatives, but can be integrated into a sort of synoptic view. And I like very much the way you put it, I wouldn't say that the purpose was lost because it does remain God's purpose. He has placed us here for the purpose of serving as his royal representatives on this planet, but we have failed to discharge that purpose. And that's what you meant. Yes. And similarly, I think you'd want to say that there's something about the design that makes man capable of functioning in this way. And I'll say something more about that as well. But apart from those comments, I think you expressed it very nicely. Yes. So I was curious about if. I know it's probably not prominent of a belief, but my initial reaction to anything looking like the image of something, I would think that it almost like physically looks like it. Yeah. And therefore, is there any view out there that's like God has a corporeal face and looks like a human being? And there are theologians who are exegetes who would say this just means that human beings are physically like God, that God looks like a man in the sky, this sort of popular misconception of God. And they would say that was the sort of crude understanding that some people had at that time. And so the image of God should just be straightforwardly interpret it in that way that God looks like us. The difficulty with that, I think, is that whatever the background or oral traditions there might be behind Genesis 1 by the time it gets to Genesis 1. And the author of the Pentateuch, he clearly doesn't think of God that way because he says in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and God is portrayed as a transcendent being beyond the physical world who creates the entire universe. So for the final author, I don't think he could have understood the image of God in that physicalistic, anthropomorphic way, because the concept of God in Genesis 1 is so transcendent. We have time, I think, for one more.

[Steve or Participant]

I have the microphone.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

Okay, Bruce, go ahead.

[Steve or Participant]

Try to synthesize. As a trichotomist, I would synthesize what Mike and Steve said, that with the fall, you know, we have the image of God, but that after the fall, the influence of the body on the soul is much more dominant and minimizes the effect of the. The spirit on the soul. And so when you're a believer, that's restored. You can push back. The spirit can push back through the. Through the soul and then to the body. Rather than the other way around. The other direction is more dominant after the fall, and that's the loss of the image. So it's. What effects are volition, cognition, and emotion

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

in a case like this? What is the image? It seems to me that, as I said to Cash, that we're conflating two different discussions here. What is the image of God?

[Steve or Participant]

I think the image is a three part being. As you know, God is trinitarian. I think that's what we are.

[Dr. Craig or Lead Instructor]

Okay. All right, good. Well, we're out of time, so we'll close now, and then we'll turn to an evaluation of these different interpretations the next time we meet. Father, as we begin our new year, we do so with a sense of expectancy and gladness that you've promised to be with us and to accompany us in our journey. And so as we go out into this work week, we pray that you would make us mindful of you, that we would walk in your will, and that we would seek to please you in all that we do and say through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Dr. William Lane Craig]

The copyright for the preceding material is held by Dr. William Lane Craig. For more go to reasonablefaith. Org.