A Theology of the Human Person

This paper seeks to provide a preliminary theological and biblical response to the urgent and pertinent gap in evangelical and global Christian thought on the theme of the human person. The mounting anthropological concerns of our time relating to the nature of human beings, human sexuality, racial and ethnic conflicts, and Christian leadership and their authority have necessitated fresh attention to the field of anthropology in relation to theology, biblical engagement, and the Christian tradition.

While this document is not intended to directly address all the present confusions and challenges, it seeks to lay out a biblical understanding of human personhood. Particularly, the biblical understanding of creation that has been articulated over the history of the church, needs to be reiterated for the benefit of the church in every generation. Therefore, in the following, we begin with the creation account as the starting point for this discussion.

In our quest to understand what it means to be a collective humanity and a human person in particular; it is very important to begin with the fact that humans are created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). This fundamental identity of the human person, described as the image of God in the scriptures, has been the basis by which the church throughout the ages has affirmed and advocated for the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of human persons. Where the church failed by compromising and conspiring in abusing power and becoming an instrument of oppression, prophetic voices echoed back to this fundamental doctrine that all humans are created in the ‘image of God’.

Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of humans as male and female in his image. As gendered creatures, Adam and Eve would fulfil their calling to multiply and fill the earth with their distinct and unique natures as male and female (Gen 1:28). Humans are characterized by an extraordinary dignity equally ascribed to man and woman to complement each other in reigning as vice-regents under God over his creation. That they were created with the spiritual capacity to commune with God marks their dependency upon God to reign as vice-regents. This understanding of creation entails that humans are not autonomous and cannot live self-referentially, let alone reign over the earth. 

What we see in Genesis 3 is the disobedience of Adam and Eve to God’s command and their putting of themselves in the place of God. Interestingly, there is a rhetoric of reversal at play here. Adam and Eve put themselves in God’s place and did not listen to him. Instead of ruling over the serpent they fail and follow the serpent’s leading. Therefore, the temptation involved an offer of illegitimate Godlikeness, in which human beings decided for themselves what was good and evil, thus rejecting the relational aspect of the image of God—the God and child relationship in which man and woman were created. In short, beguiled by the promise of autonomy and attainment of another kind of godlikeness, humans disobeyed God resulting in the alienation from God (Gen 3:15–19), and the corruption of God’s image in them (Gen 3:6).

Theologians describe the state of fallen nature as human depravity, which centrally affects the relationship with God, but also as a consequence, affects their affective, cognitive, and volitional capabilities (Gen 6:5), characterized by an errant heart, a darkened mind, and a rebellious will, leaving them incapable of Godward relationship. In short, humans are deprived not only of the truth of the gospel but also of the condition to receive the truth if they were to encounter it. Fallen humanity is in desperate need of redemption.

Abel’s moral character is presented as the opposite of Cain’s in the Bible. He is described as being morally like God, doing what is good or right. In fact, God tells him, ‘If you do what is good, will not your countenance be lifted up?’ (Gen 4:7, literal translation), implying that Abel’s actions are pleasing to God (Heb 11:4). Abel is accepted by God because he brings his best as an offering to God as indicated by the general description of his offering fat portions of his flock (Gen 4:4a). God approves of Abel’s offering (Gen 4:4b), but he does not accept Cain’s offering. 

The death of Abel is a foreshadow of the redemption that Christ brings. The redemption of humanity is accomplished by Jesus’ perfect obedience and sacrificial death. The incarnation presents the perfect human nature—the prototype for all humanity to imitate. Theological anthropology is fundamentally Christological in its substance and form. Jesus as the true human is both the object and subject of election and the rest of humanity is elected only by being in Christ. While work of justification is accomplished by Christ’s death on behalf of humanity, sanctification—a process by which a believer is transformed into Christlikeness, is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Being in Christ, entails a new nature, where the old is replaced by the new (2 Cor 5:17), which apostle Paul refers to as the ‘new creation in Christ.’ This new self is ontologically different from the old that is put to death (Col 3:5).

The temptation that Adam and Eve faced involved an offer of illegitimate God–likeness or God rivalry. They were tempted to decide on their own what was good and evil, rejecting the relational aspect of the image of God in which they were created. Similarly, Cain is portrayed as morally and relationally like the tempter in Genesis 3, while Abel is depicted as morally like God, indicating that he is in the image of God. The events of Genesis 4 appear to contradict the strictly functional interpretation of the image of God. The wicked offspring of Cain are seen exercising dominion over creation and fulfilling the creation mandate of Genesis 1:28. 

On the other hand, the righteous, such as Abel, who are being renewed in God’s image, demonstrate little dominion over creation. The moral decay of the world in Genesis 6 stands in sharp contrast to the state of God’s original creation in Genesis 1, implying that moral goodness was an essential aspect of God’s overall good creation. The sons of God repeat the sin of Eve by deciding for themselves on what is good and evil, thereby rejecting the relational aspect of the image of God in which they were created, which ultimately leads to universal moral corruption.

In light of Genesis 2–8, it can be concluded that the image of God mentioned in Genesis 1:26–27 is both moral and relational in nature. It involves humans’ moral likeness to God as well as a parent–child relationship between God and humankind based on trust, faith, love, dependence, and obedience. However, when they were tempted and fell into sin, both the moral and relational aspects of the image of God were corrupted. Morally, humankind is like the serpent, as seen in the case of Cain. Relationally, humankind is regarded as the offspring of the serpent and enslaved to sin, as exemplified by Cain and the wicked in general. Nevertheless, humankind is also renewed into the image of God through a creative act of God. Abel, on the other hand, represents God’s new creation, as a righteous man and a regenerate man. It is important to note that despite the corruption caused by the Fall, the image of God was not entirely defaced, and part of it still remains in humankind.

Jesus Christ, who is the true image of God (Heb 1:3), was born in the likeness of humankind (incarnation). Through Christ, we see the perfect embodiment of humanity, as John 1:14 says, ‘The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.’ By taking on human form, Christ bore the burden of sinful flesh, ultimately sacrificing himself to save humanity from sin. In other words, he became human in order to die for humanity. ‘For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people’ (Heb 2:17).

As we have seen in our study of Genesis, being created in the image of God implies a sonship relationship. In the New Testament, this father-son relationship is exemplified between God the Father and Jesus Christ (Matt 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 2:49; 3:22; 8:28; 9:35; 10:22; John 1:18, 34; 3:16–18). As God’s Son, Jesus enjoyed a close, personal fellowship with the Father, particularly through prayer. In fact, he almost exclusively addressed God in prayer as ‘Father’ (using the Aramaic Abba; cf. Mark 14:36; Matt 26:39, 42), a term of intimacy.

Unlike Cain, who is morally shown to be like the serpent, Jesus is portrayed as being morally like the Father. Jesus, like God the Father, is kind and compassionate towards the helpless, defenseless, and those in need. Like God the Father, Christ is sinless, which is in stark contrast to Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden of Eden. Jesus’ sinlessness is a testament to his true sonship and moral likeness to the Father, as well as his complete submission to the Father’s will. In contrast, as we have seen from our study of Genesis, Adam, Eve, Cain, and the sons of God all sinned and rebelled against the Lord. They did not demonstrate themselves to be true sons of God, but rather fallen ones. Morally and relationally, they were modeled after the tempter in Genesis 3.

Believers are referred to as God’s children (John 1:12; Rom 8:14; Gal 3:26; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:2). This is significant because the study of Genesis reveals that being created in God’s image implies sonship, which suggests that sonship may also imply bearing God’s image. In this section, we will explore how a believer’s sonship relates to both the relational and substantive aspects of the image of God. 

The image of God in Genesis 1:26–27 encompasses both a substantive and relational perspective, involving moral likeness to God and a relationship between God and humanity (see above). These two aspects of the image of God are also evident in the concept of Christlikeness. God’s ultimate goal in the New Testament is for believers to be conformed to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ (Rom 8:29–30). Christians are called to be like Christ, and when believers imitate Christ, it is Godlikeness ‘down to the details’ because Jesus is both God and man. In the New Testament, Christlikeness entails moral likeness to God in the details of human actions. Christ is our example in the relational aspect of the image of God, and Christlikeness is imitating Christ’s moral likeness to the Father and His sonship relationship of submission to the Father. For example, in the Old Testament, God is not literally tempted to commit adultery, murder, steal, lie, or covet. However, in the New Testament, Jesus Christ (who is both God and man) is tempted in all things but was without sin (Heb 4:15b).

God’s eternal plan is for believers to be conformed to the likeness of Christ, which is why he has predestined them for this purpose (Rom 8:29). This conformity happens through sanctification, where the believer becomes more and more like Christ in their character and actions, ultimately becoming fully conformed to his image and likeness.

Relationally, believers are called to imitate Christ’s relationship of submission to the Father. Even though Christ was God (John 1:14; Col 2:9), he humbled himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:6–8). As followers of Christ, believers are urged to adopt the same attitude or mindset as Jesus (Phil 2:5), characterized by humility and selflessness towards God and others.

It is worth highlighting that Christian ethical principles have played a notable role in shaping ethical standards across various cultures and societies, whether through direct missionary forays or indirect processes such as the secularization of cultures. The ethical requirements outlined in Scripture are not attained by simply suppressing one’s flesh or bolstering willpower but rather through the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon us (Rom 5:5). The new ontological self, as discussed by Paul, emerges from the demise of the old self and the surrender to Christ and His divine will for our lives (Gal 2:20). The Holy Spirit, who is both with us and within us (John 14:17), guides us as a resident personal counsellor in discerning the will of God and enables us to adhere to the standards that would otherwise be unattainable for humans to follow. This implies that the Holy Spirit, residing within us, is able to supplant sinful inclinations and the desires of the flesh with the discernment and execution of God’s will. 

In summary, beginning with Genesis 1–8, the image of God is both substantive and relational in perspective: it involves a moral likeness to God (see above) and a relationship between God and man like that between a parent and child (see above). The function of dominion is a consequence and not the essence of being in the image of God. Additionally, the image also carries a future orientation, a teleological focus. As seen earlier, Jesus Christ is true God and true human and stands as the perfect image bearer and the prototype for true humanness. As much as Christ’s redemption is about recovering what is lost in the Fall by the Spirit, the eschatological goal for humanity far exceeds the glory of Eden (Eph 4:30; Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 3:18). 

The theme of the image of God is also seen in the New Testament where Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the perfect expression of the image of God. Christ is equal to God in essence. Through his work on the cross, believers are adopted as God’s children and are to be morally like him. Believers are called to be like Christ. They are to imitate Christ’s moral-likeness and submission to the Father.