The Image of God and the Contemporary Church

Introduction

            Within the contemporary world, there is a powerful trend marked by its tendency to abandon the notion that there is a single human nature by which we can all be understood and united.[1] Perpetuating this notion is the rise of the social sciences which have caused the “demise of the person.”[2] The result of these trends is men and women of the world being left in a deep sense of confusion, and uncertainty as to who and what they are and should be.[3] In diametrical opposition to this movement are the postulations of biblical anthropology, which view man, and humanity as being made in the image of God.[4] The Scriptural account of creation insists that humanity is the very height of God’s creation, situated above the rest of the animal kingdom.[5] The following excerpt provides a poignant, and hopeful reminder of the reality of our human condition.

The opening chapters of the Scriptures portray the mystery, grandeur, and tragedy of human existence. Made in the indefinable image and likeness of God, we find ourselves living in a cursed world, as fallen sinners in corrupted societies. But that is not the end of the matter; even during its sober account, Genesis offers signs of divine mercy and hope, pointing us to look forward for the full revelation of the meaning of human existence.[6]

The full revelation of the human existence culminates in Jesus Christ, the “second Adam” (1 Cor. 15:45), who created a way for mankind to “bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:49). With so much contemporary confusion surrounding the identity of man and mankind, the church is situated in a powerful position to both declare and model the image of God as the “temple of the living God” (2 Cor. 6:16).

The aim of this paper is to elucidate how the church should model the image of God in our contemporary world. To achieve this end, this paper will be divided into three sections. The first section discusses what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God. The second section delves into sin, and how humanity has lost the image of God. The final section, and denouement, will delineate how the church should embody the image of God in the contemporary world.

Made in the Image of God

Historical Perspectives

While the passages in the beginning of Genesis implicitly state that humans and humanity are imago Dei (image of God), there is no information given that describes explicitly what the “image of God” is.[7] This ambiguity has caused three sets of views to emerge throughout history which sought bring clarity to this issue. These views are the substantive view, the functional view, and the relational view.[8]

            The substantive view dominated church teaching for many centuries, with theologians defining the image in terms of the rational soul or psyche. This attribute was believed to be a mirror of one of God’s attributes[9] and was considered a distinguishing feature that separated humans from the rest of creation, thus marking them with the “image of God.” The substantialist account considered additional faculties such as intelligence, free will, rationality, freedom from necessity and capacity for self-determination as extending from the rational soul, and thus, further distinguishing humans as the image of God.[10]

            The functional view’s overarching theme is that humanity has a God given role within creation, which possesses authority and responsibility to mediate the rule, reign, and presence of God on earth while simultaneously coming under the rule of God.[11] It is this perspective that is often used to argue the necessity for humans to adopt an ecological role in stewarding the resources within creation. It is also used to support missional direction. If humanity is called to represent the Imago Dei among God’s creatures, then it is of the utmost necessity for humans to carry the presence of God into the world as God’s image bearers.[12] This view also considers creation to be God’s royal temple, or sanctuary, and humans as priests with specific “priestly roles” within God’s temple of creation.[13]

            Within the relational view, relationship is what defines the image of God. This paradigm observes the image of God as residing within the human capacity for relationship with God.[14] Within this view, both the vertical relationship with God, and the horizontal relationships with other humans are what distinguish humanity as the image of God. Therefore, in the present, fallen state of humanity, the image of God is fulfilled through participating in reconciled relationship with God, through the work of Jesus Christ.[15] A key theologian who supported this view is Karl Barth, who put forth a Christological relational model of the image of God. For Barth, the imago Dei is rooted in the person of Christ and the concepts of covenant and election. Barth also added a horizontal aspect to his view by insisting that both male and female together form the image.[16] The third section of this paper will provide further treatment of the “image of God” in the person and work of Christ.

            Each of these historical views provide reasonable explanations of what it means to be made in the image of God. With this historical foundation established, it is now useful to exposit Genesis 1:26-28, where the notion of the imago Dei first occurs.

The Image of God in Genesis 1

The statement that humans are created in the image of God, found in the majestic Genesis prologue is widely regarded as the key proposition of biblical anthropology.[17]

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. [18]

The significance of this passage’s assertion that humans are made in the image of God is magnified by its placement within the first chapter of Scripture.[19] Within the Hebrew, there are two words used for mankind in this passage, which are ṣelem (image) and dᵊmûṯ (likeness).[20] A critic may observe that these translations do not explicitly convey the phrase “image of God”. However, the phrase can be seen implicitly within the text, especially when read in conjunction with other passages such as Psalm 8.[21] This passage also communicates how God has created man and women distinctly from the rest of creation by instilling his image and likeness within them. This distinctiveness is evidenced in God bestowing the responsibility upon mankind to rule over the rest of creation. This belief is contrasted by the evolutionary idea that humanity evolved from animals,[22] which would remove the authentic uniqueness from humans bearing the image of God.[23] It is, therefore, crucial to establish the distinctiveness with which God designed mankind, to resist the diminution of the image of God that is inherent within an evolutionary worldview.

            Another important clarification within this passage is the meaning of the word 'āḏām (man). This word, when read with its accusative particle, is a collective noun meaning ‘humankind’, or ‘humanity’ as a race, rather than the proper name ‘Adam’, which first occurs in Genesis 3:17.[24] What this intricacy in the text communicates is that being made in the image of God is not simply confined to one or each distinct person, but rather points to the personal relationships within which humanity lives and functions.[25] This is also cause for reflection upon what is implicit within God’s words “let us” (v.26), which implies relationality within God, who the Scriptures reveal as being Triune. This unearths an axiom that humans are created for relationship, both with each other, but more importantly, with God. As Charles Sherlock states,

The image of God can be seen only as we live it out, both as persons in community, and as individual people, and in both respects as those who are to grow up into the life of God… It is the upward aspect, our relationship with God that is of prime concern, since without this the other relationships become distorted.[26]

The necessity of prioritizing relationship with God is communicated powerfully in the famous quote by Saint Augustine who says of God, “you stir man to pleasure in praising you, because you have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”[27] It is evident that a privilege of being made in the image of God is the capacity for relationship with God, as argued in the relational view. The prioritization of this relationship, as asserted by Augustine and Sherlock, is requisite for both internal satiation of the heart, and the potency to properly engage in relationships with other humans. Drawing water from a well is a salient illustration of this reality. The well is God, and every person must take the time to fill up their own bucket, to satisfy their own soul with the “wellspring of life” (Prov. 4:23), which then equips that person with the resources to pour out their excess into the buckets of others around them.  

            The Scriptures convey that humanity is undoubtedly made in the image of God. Formed as the pinnacle of God’s creation, distinguished from other creatures, created for relationship with God and each other, and with roles and responsibilities that are incumbent with this privilege. However, humanity no longer embodies the image of God as they were originally designed. The following section will delve into sin, and how it has distorted the image of God.

Sin

Effects of The Fall and the Distortion of the Image of God

            Genesis 1:26-28 contains the wonderful truth that mankind has been created in the image of God. However, just two chapters further is the account of the fall of mankind, as Adam and Eve disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit (Gen. 3:6). As a result of this action, the image of God in human nature has become disfigured from its origins. Since all of humanity traces its origins to Adam and Eve, it is logical to conclude that all of humanity shares in the disfiguration of the image of God.[28] One of the effects of sin can be observed immediately after the fall when Adam and Eve, “hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God.” (Genesis 3:8 ESV) This reaction reveals the breakdown of the ‘upward vertical’ relationship, between them and God. This separation was magnified when God sent Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden, and away from His presence (Gen. 3:22-24) This is the greatest tragedy of sin, the separation of mankind from God.

The act of disobedience by Adam and Eve had a larger effect than simply separating mankind from God. It can be observed that the revelation of “knowing they were naked” (Gen. 3:7 ESV), caused for a breakdown of the ‘horizontal’ relationship as they could no longer relate to one another without shame, but had to “sew fig leaves” (v.7 ESV) together to cover their nakedness.[29] The rest of Scripture, and personal experiences alike can all testify that the most blatant expression of sinfulness is the breakdown, perversion and corruption of human togetherness.[30] A salient example of this reality can be observed in the narrative of David’s sin against Uriah the Hittite.

In this narrative, King David is at home, during the time when “kings go out to battle” (2 Sam. 11:1 ESV). Late one afternoon, while he was walking on the roof of his palace, he saw a woman bathing on the rooftop. Captivated by her beauty, King David inquired about her and came to know that she was Bathsheba, the “wife of Uriah the Hittite” (v. 3 ESV). Despite this information, King David sent for Bathsheba, and lay with her, committing adultery. After some time had elapsed, Bathsheba sent word that she was pregnant. To cover up his sin, David sent for Uriah and pretended to be concerned with the war effort, while secretly attempting to get Uriah to go home and sleep with his wife to cover up the pregnancy. Uriah refused to go home the first night, so David made him get drunk the following night. However, Uriah still would not go home to Bathsheba. In a penultimate step to cover his sin, David sent Uriah back to the army with a letter for his commander, which said, “Set Uriah in the forefront of the hardest fighting, and then draw back from him, that he may be struck down, and die” (v.15 ESV). As a result of David’s actions, Uriah is killed in battle. David then sent for Bathsheba and took her to be his wife (v.27). What makes the actions of King David so much worse is that earlier in his life, he was described by God as being “a man after his own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14 ESV). It is a paradox, that King David, who is considered by God as being a man after his own heart, is still capable of performing atrocities such as dishonesty, adultery, and murder towards one of his warriors who displayed such chivalrous qualities. The paradoxical nature of this narrative provides a powerful illustration of just how broken, perverted, and corrupted human togetherness has become through the power of sin.

While the example of David and Uriah is poignant, the most supreme display of the grotesque brokenness of the vertical and horizontal axis of human relationship is the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, who is God incarnate. As already established, it is relationship with God that is one of the distinguishing marks of being made in the image of God.[31] Therefore, the rejection of God, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, can be viewed as the antithetical act to being made in the image of God. In that moment, both the vertical and horizontal axis of relationship becomes fully distorted, and yet, in a beautiful paradox, it is in this rejection of Jesus that the only modality of reconciliation for humankind is created.

Aside from the vertical and horizontal dimensions of breakdown within human relationship, the rest of creation was also severely affected by the sins of humanity as God said to Adam, “cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you” (Gen. 3:17-18 ESV). A look at the different glosses for ăḏāmâ (the ground) reveals that it can also mean “earth”,[32] which helps clarify how the effects of sin permeated all of creation. This reveals how the sins of humanity affect the rest of creation in a negative way. This reality is evident in the narrative of the worldwide flood that plagued the earth because of the wickedness of mankind (Gen. 6-8). The words of the apostle Paul seem to voice the cry of creation when he writes,

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.[33]

This passage communicates how creation is at the mercy and whim of humanity. In Charles Sherlock’s words, creation may be said to “live in fear and dread of humankind.”[34] However, there is also new hope for creation that as humanity returns to the image of God, through the finished work of Jesus, that creation too might enjoy the “freedom of the glory of the children of God” (v.21 ESV).  

It has been established how the fall of mankind caused a full distortion of the image of God, and a concomitant saturation of sin throughout the rest of creation. With this foundation laid, this paper will now shift to discuss the nature of sin within the Pelagian controversy, which was an important historical debate in the fifth century between Saint Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius.[35]

The Pelagian Controversy

            On the nature of sin, Saint Augustine and Pelagius had very different views of how humans experience sin. Pelagius considered humanity as being born sinless, and, therefore, every sin is committed as a deliberate action. This view insists that humans are under obligation to be sinless, and there is no excuse for failure.[36] Augustine viewed sin differently, as he considered humanity as having no control over its sinfulness and believed humans to be born with an innately sinful disposition.[37] To further illustrate this point, Augustine put forth an analogy of scales with two balance pans. The scale represented the human heart, and the one pan represented the human disposition toward good, and the other pan disposition toward evil. Pelagius would view the two scales as being perfectly balanced. However, Augustine considered that humanity has had several weights placed on the “evil” scale, which allows the scale to still function, but it is ultimately biased towards evil.[38]

            This argument is pivotal to the third section of this paper on how the contemporary church can model the image of God. If humanity truly does have “equally balanced” scales, as in Pelagius’ perspective, then the need for empowering grace is diminished, and human ability and works are of greater concern in modelling the image of God. However, if Augustine’s perspective is true, then humanity is completely dependent on the supernatural grace of God to empower an individual to embody the image of God as they were originally intended to. This is fundamentally an argument of grace and merit.[39]

            The failures of King David with Uriah, and his assertion that “there is none who does good, not even one” (Ps. 53:3) support Augustine’s view on this issue. The apostle Paul’s words in Romans also have an Augustinian flavour,

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.[40]

Historically, the Augustinian perspective is what prevailed on this issue within the western theological tradition.[41]Therefore, this paper will assume an Augustinian perspective on this controversy as it shifts into a discussion on the restoration of the image of God, and the contemporary church.

Restoration of the Image of God and the Contemporary Church

            It has been established that human beings were created in the image of God, however, sin has severely distorted the image. Within relationships with one another, and in relationship with God, humans live as those who were made in the image, but are constantly misusing and abusing those relationships.[42] The Bible exposes just how dissimilar the “holy, holy, holy” (Rev. 4:8) God is from sinful humanity.[43] However, the Bible also says that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17 ESV). Therefore, while it is true that humanity is incredibly dissimilar from God because of sin, it is also true that restoration of the likeness of God is possible through the work of Christ and the renewing activity of the Holy Spirit.[44]

The Work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit

            The worst effect of the fall was the severance of the relationship between humanity and God.[45]    The entirety of Scripture is filled with references to the cross, the Old Testament prophets speak of it on numerous occasions, as this is the moment where God reconciles humanity back to himself, restoring the relationship that was once severed. It is beneficial to examine the interaction of Jesus and the thieves on the cross, to understand the restoration of this relationship between God and humanity, which, as the relational view would support,[46] is the most fundamental component of the image of God.

One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence and condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”[47]

Another way of defining the word “paradise”, which in Greek is paradeisos is “Eden.” This word was thought to be of Persian origins, which would have described a grand enclosure or preserve, a hunting-ground or park.[48] In addition to this passage, scholars have considered the Gospel of John as being “Edenic” in many ways.[49] In other words, Jesus was describing how a sinful, fallen human, was about to return with him to the garden, to “Eden.” The magnitude of this moment is ineffable. For centuries, humanity had been separated from the garden as God placed a “cherubim and a flaming sword” (Gen. 3:24) between humanity and the garden. However, through the cross, Jesus has reconciled the relationship between humans and God, creating a way for the vertical relationship to be restored to its previous glory. Through this reconciliation of relationship, God simultaneously paved a way for the image to be restored. Although, it can be argued that this full restoration will not take place until after death, as humanity currently only “sees as in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12 ESV).

To further understand the work of Jesus on the cross, and the necessity of the Holy Spirit in restoring the image, a brief exposition of 1 Cor. 15:45-49 will prove useful;

Thus, it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.[50]

What this passage reveals, first and foremost, is that those who are in Christ, who had previously “borne the image of the man of dust” (v.49), can receive the promise of bearing the “image of the heavenly one” (v. 49).[51] It should also be noted that the phrase “as was the man of dust” (v.48) can be translated as “original humankind.” The same can be said of the phrase “as is the man of heaven” (v.48), which can be translated “the second humankind.”[52] The ramifications of this translation are enormous, as this implies that Jesus was able to represent all of humanity on the cross. This makes it possible for all of humanity, to bear the “image of the man of heaven” (v.49). A closer inspection must also be given to verse 45 which says, “the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit”. When read in conjunction with John 6:63, where Jesus says, “it is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh is of no help at all,” it can be logically concluded that the verse in Corinthians is speaking of how through Jesus, the Holy Spirit would be poured out into the world. It is possible, therefore, to view the crucifixion of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost as conjointly fulfilling the work of restoring the image of God to humanity.

            It is necessary to backtrack to creation, where it was the breath of God that allowed for man to become a living creature (Gen. 2:7). It could be postulated that it was the breath of God within humanity that distinguished them from other creatures as bearing the image of God. With this original act of breathing life into humanity in mind, the account of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost may take on a whole new meaning.[53]

When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.[54]

The description of the Holy Spirit coming upon the believers as a “mighty rushing wind” is reminiscent of how the breath of God was originally breathed into Adam.[55] Just as it was the breath of God that raised Adam from the dust in Genesis, perhaps, in the same way, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit, breathed out through the finished work of Christ, that causes restoration and recreation of the image of God to those who had previously “borne the image of the man of dust” (1 Cor. 15:49 ESV).

            This is not to diminish the work of Christ on the cross whatsoever, for reconciliation to God can only occur through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:12-20).[56] In his work on atonement theology, Steve Studebaker argued that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is the climactic moment of the atonement. His definition of the atonement viewed it as being, “the reconciliation of God and the world which is the heart of Christian teaching.”[57] This view is contrasted by an evangelical view which focusses on Christocentrism, crucicentrism and penal substitutionary atonement, which views the cross as being the climactic moment of the atonement.[58] Perhaps neither of these perspectives are wrong. Within the work of reconciliation, the cross is undeniably essential, but is the outpouring of the Spirit not equally as essential in restoring the image of God to a fallen humanity? While Christ’s justification on the cross paves the way for humanity to once again be with God in “paradise”, is it not the Holy Spirit that empowers believers to properly model the imago Dei to a broken and hopeless world?

How can the church embody the image of God to the world?

            Within the functional view of the imago Dei, the urgency of a missional directedness is stressed for believers to “to carry the presence of God into the world as God’s image.”[59] For the church to properly accomplish this end, the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is of the utmost importance. The Augustinian view on the Pelagian controversy would support the necessity for supernatural empowerment.[60] A deeper understanding of Jesus final directions to his disciples before His ascension further elucidates this point. After His death and resurrection, Jesus declared that “repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all nations” (Lk. 24:47 ESV). The disciples are called to be “witnesses” (v.48) or “ambassadors for Christ” (2 Cor. 5:20 ESV). As witnesses or ambassadors, the disciples are essentially being called to represent Christ to the world. In a sense they are being called to “image” Christ to the world. It is important to note how the reconciliation of humanity through the death and resurrection of Jesus had already occurred. The disciples were, therefore, able to “bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor. 15:49 ESV). However, despite this reality, Jesus commands the disciples to wait until they are “clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:49 ESV). This empowering was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). It is of the utmost importance that Jesus commanded his disciples to “wait” for the empowerment of the Holy Spirit before going out to embody His image to the world. If the disciples, who walked with Jesus during his ministry, were required to wait to receive the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, then how much more must the contemporary church “wait” to receive the empowerment of the Holy Spirit to properly represent the image of God to this broken and sinful world.

Conclusion

            Humanity was created in the image of God, receiving the breath of life from God Himself. Because of the fall, the image of God has become severely distorted, and the effects of sin have contaminated human capacity for relationship with each other, and God. The rest of creation has also borne the harmful effects of human sin. Through Jesus Christ and his finished work on the cross, humanity has been reconciled to God with the capacity for relationship with the divine being fully restored. In the relational view of the imago Dei, relationship with God is the most defining aspect of being made in the image of God. However, the cross was not the end of the work of reconciliation, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost can be seen as God “breathing” new life into his creation once more. It is only through a combination of the finished work of Christ, and the reception of the Holy Spirit that the contemporary church can properly model the image of God to the rest of the world.

Notes

[1] Allen, Paul (Paul Laurence). “Evolutionary Psychology and Romans 5-7: The ‘Slavery to Sin’ in Human Nature.” Ex Auditu 32, 2016, 50.

[2] Evans, C Stephen. “Christian Perspectives on the Sciences of Man.” Christian Scholar’s Review6, no. 2–3, 1976, 98.

[3] William A. Dyrness, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Juan F. Martinez, and Simon Chan. Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008, 42.

[4] Sherlock, Charles. The Doctrine of Humanity, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Illinois, 1996, 44.

[5] McGrath, E. Alister. Christian Theology Blackwell Publishers, West Sussex, 2016, 327.

[6] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 44.

[7]  Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 31.

[8] Coleman, Roche. “The Imago Dei: The Distinctiveness of Humanity.” Old Testament Essays (New Series) 36, no. 3 2023, 649.

[9] Lucy Peppiatt. The Imago Dei: Humanity Made in the Image of God. Cascade Companions. EUGENE: Cascade Books, 2022, 11.

[10] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 11.

[11] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 18.

[12] See previous note.

[13] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 21.

[14] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 26.

[15] See previous note.

[16] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 29.

[17] Dyrness, Global Dictionary of Theology, 43.

[18] Genesis 1:26-28, ESV.

[19] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 29.

[20] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 8.

[21] Dyrness, Global Dictionary of Theology, 43.

[22] Coleman, “The Imago Dei”, 652.

[23] Coleman, “The Imago Dei”, 654.

[24] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 35.

[25] See previous note.

[26] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 41.

[27] Saint Augustine, Confessions. Oxford University Press, 1992, 3.

[28] McGrath, Christian Theology, 329.

[29] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 42.

[30] Dyrness, Dictionary of Theology, 46.

[31] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 41.

[32] "H127 - 'ăḏāmâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 25 Nov, 2024. 

[33] Romans 8:20-21, ESV.

[34] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 43.

[35] McGrath, Christian Theology, 330.

[36] McGrath, Christian Theology, 332.

[37] McGrath, Christian Theology, 331

[38] McGrath, Christian Theology, 330-331.

[39] McGrath, Christian Theology, 334.

[40] Romans 3:10-12, ESV.

[41] McGrath, Christian Theology, 334.

[42] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 49.

[43] Dyrness, Dictionary of Theology, 45.

[44] McGrath, Christian Theology, 328.

[45] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 41.

[46] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 26.

[47] Luke 23:39-43, ESV.

[48] "G3857 - paradeisos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 25 Nov 2024. 

[49] Van Deventer, Cornelia, and William Domeris. “Spiritual Birth, Living Water, and New Creation: Mapping Life-Giving Metaphors in the Fourth Gospel.” Conspectus 32, 2021, 144.

[50] 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, ESV.

[51] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 57.

[52] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 55.

[53] Deventer, “Spiritual Birth, Living Water, and New Creation”, 144.

[54] Acts 2:1-4, ESV.

[55] Taylor, Barbara Brown. “God’s Breath.” Journal for Preachers 26, no. 4, 2003, 38.  

[56] Sherlock, Doctrine of Humanity, 61-62.

[57] Studebaker M. Steven. The Spirit of Atonement: Pentecostal Contributions and Challenges to the Christian Traditions. T & T Clark Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2021, 8.

[58] Studebaker, The Spirit of Atonement, 7.

[59] Peppiatt, The Imago Dei, 18

[60] McGrath, Christian Theology, 334

References

Allen, Paul (Paul Laurence). “Evolutionary Psychology and Romans 5-7: The ‘Slavery to Sin’ in Human Nature.” Ex Auditu 32, 2016.

Coleman, Roche. “The Imago Dei: The Distinctiveness of Humanity.” Old Testament Essays (New Series) 36, no. 3, 2023.

Evans, C Stephen. “Christian Perspectives on the Sciences of Man.” Christian Scholar’s Review6, no. 2–3, 1976.

G3857 - paradeisos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 25 Nov 2024. 

"H127 - 'ăḏāmâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)." Blue Letter Bible. Accessed 25 Nov 2024. 

McGrath, E. Alister. Christian Theology Blackwell Publishers, West Sussex, 2016.

Lucy Peppiatt. The Imago Dei: Humanity Made in the Image of God. Cascade Companions. EUGENE: Cascade Books, 2022.

Saint Augustine, Confessions. Oxford University Press, 1992.

Sherlock, Charles. The Doctrine of Humanity, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Illinois, 1996.

Studebaker, M. Steven. The Spirit of Atonement: Pentecostal Contributions and Challenges to the Christian Traditions. T & T Clark Systematic Pentecostal and Charismatic Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2021.

Taylor, Barbara Brown. “God’s Breath.” Journal for Preachers 26, no. 4 (Pentecost 2003): 37–40. 

Van Deventer, Cornelia, and William Domeris. “Spiritual Birth, Living Water, and New Creation: Mapping Life-Giving Metaphors in the Fourth Gospel.” Conspectus 32, 2021.

William A. Dyrness, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Juan F. Martinez, and Simon Chan. Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2008.