The Created Image: Why a Sound Doctrine of the Imago Dei Demands a Rejection of Theistic Evolution

Christian theology has ubiquitously held from its inception that man is created in the image of God. The Latin term imago Dei is widely used to refer to this doctrine, emphasizing primarily “the state in which Adam and Eve were originally created and which was… so vitiated in the fall that only [vestiges] now remain.” (1) Man in his innocence contained the imago Dei unstained and unaltered. A study of created man reveals that any conception of Darwinian or theistic evolution is wholly unacceptable to the Christian faith. Because man is now fallen into sin, he may be more easily viewed in a macroevolutionary framework, as the processes of natural selection require death, pain, and suffering. (2) It is therefore appropriate to study man in his innocence for a more complete understanding of the imago Dei. Two portions of the imago Dei doctrine are particularly helpful in interpreting evolutionary theology. First, the qualities with which man was created show that he was indeed created directly by God and did not descend from animals, for these qualities are distinctly human. Animals cannot possess them and they are given distinctly by God. Second, man as a created person highlights both his dependence upon a creating God and his independence as a thinking, willing person. The realities of creatureliness and personhood held in proper tension lead only to a being that could not possibly have evolved but must have come directly from the hand of God. When the premises of the qualities of innocent man and his status as both a creature and a person are both considered in light of relevant scripture, it becomes clear that he did not evolve. Although some seek to harmonize evolution with the Genesis account of creation, a robust theology of the imago Dei ultimately demands a rejection of evolution.

True Knowledge, Righteousness, and Holiness

Among reformed writers, it is largely agreed upon that the image of God in man consists chiefly and fundamentally in the three qualities of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. (3) While there are other things that qualify man as being made in the image of God, they can mostly be traced back to these three things. Calvin’s classic observation of this from Ephesians 4:24 has been formative for the reformed tradition: “In the first place, [Paul] mentions knowledge, and in the second, true righteousness and holiness.” (4) This becomes the biblical foundation for understanding what and who man is and determining how he came to be. As such, it demands a rejection of theistic evolution, for evolutionary science is based on claims fundamentally at odds with imago Dei theology.

Ephesians 4:23–24 connects the idea of knowledge with being created in God’s image. Paul writes, “be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God…” The regenerate man is one being conformed to the image of God as it was in creation, and this involves the mind. In terms of the content of this knowledge, Thomas Boston writes, “He was created wise… he was ignorant of nothing that he was obliged to know; he had all the knowledge that was necessary for life and godliness.” (5) Adam was made with a full ability to carry out all God had given him to do on earth. Nothing he needed lacked from his mind. In addition, his intellectual apprehension of God was not obstructed as ours is today, for “The intellect was pure and transparent, immediately beholding God in His essence and manner of existence in the Holy Trinity.” (6) Although this apprehension was not to the degree of glorified saints, it was far beyond our current capacity. Adam was also equipped with knowledge of things such as how God formed Eve, the capacity and understanding to logically name all the animals, and an apprehension of governing the affairs of men as he and Eve took dominion over the earth. (7) His knowledge of things is indicative of his being made in the image of God.

Colossians 3:10 is a key text for understanding the knowledge with which man was created and helps connect knowledge with the image of God. Paul writes that believers “have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” The root of the Greek word for knowledge that Paul uses here (επιγινωσκω, epiginosko) carries the meaning “to become fully acquainted with” or “to perceive.” (8) This knowledge is not superficial, but thorough. Commenting on this verse, Wilson writes, “Unlike the speculative knowledge of false teachers, a true knowledge of God is always intensely practical, since it includes ‘the knowledge of His will in all the relations of life.’” (9) This was the type of knowledge Adam possessed as someone made in the unadulterated image of God. He was created with it fully intact.

Righteousness is also an essential component of core imago Dei theology, for although man has fallen into sin, he was not created that way. Ephesians 4:24 highlights this when it says that the image of God consists in part of “true righteousness.” Relying again on this passage, Boston writes of man in his innocence that “there was a perfect conformity in his will to the will of God.” (10) Man was made to desire and will those things which God does. Ecclesiastes 7:29 states that “God made man upright,” for there was not any sin in him when he was formed. In respect of the righteousness of created man, Boston continues, “Natural it was, in so far as it was concreated with him, and was necessary to the perfection of man as he came out of the creating hands of God.” (11) Mankind would not be mankind if he were created anything less than purely righteous before God.

The word for “righteousness” used in Ephesians 4:24 (δικαιοσυνη, dikaiosunē) is a derivative of the same word used in Romans 1:17 that denotes the kind of righteousness that comes from faith in Christ and pleases God. It carries the idea of innocence and holiness. (12) It is precisely this concept that ought to shape a proper understanding of the state of Adam in the garden. There was no enmity between him and God. Instead, there was perfect fellowship made possible by the utter absence of covenant-breaking sin.

After true knowledge and righteousness, the concept of holiness rounds out a threefold understanding of what innocent man was when he was created. Ephesians 4:24 again evidences this in saying that just as “the likeness of God” consists of “righteousness,” so does it consist of “holiness.” Seeing man as having been created holy has two aspects. First, there is a sense in which holiness speaks to moral purity, sinlessness, and being without any blemish. To show this fact, David writes, “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you” (Psalm 5:4). In another sense, holiness speaks to the idea of cutting and separation. Peter describes the people of God this way when he writes that they “are a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9), separated from the world for God. When these ideas are both considered in relation to the creation of man, they illuminate what it means that man was created in holiness. Man had a purity and spotlessness about him that markedly resembled the stamp of his God, for nothing that God made could have been anything but spotless. (13) Further, man was pronounced distinct and separate from the rest of creation by the phrase “very good” in Genesis 1:31, something that will be explored in more detail below. Both of these things highlight his holiness.

Evolutionary science, whether naturalistic or theistic, has at its root a Darwinian claim that is at odds with this threefold core of imago Dei theology. Haught writes “that all living beings share a common ancestry and are therefore historically and organically interconnected.” (14) This claim, he argues, adds a beauty to the understanding believers have of creation; it highlights the commonality and unity of all things and keeps humankind in touch with a larger sense of community. Although that concept may sound attractive, it is intensely problematic to the notion that man was created possessing true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. If man and animals share a common ancestry, either animals must also have possessed these qualities or humans never had them in the first place. To assert anything otherwise is a logical contradiction. There is a clear distinction in scripture between animals and mankind evidenced by passages such as Genesis 9:3, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” The dominion of mankind over other creatures, founded upon the knowledge God gave man, gives him not only a different status than animals but the right to eat them for food. The entire Levitical system of sacrifices is predicated on this fact, for almost every sacrifice includes animals. Further, animals are given to man to kill and eat at will, but taking the life of innocent humans is forbidden throughout scripture. (15) Beeke and Smalley summarize this sentiment well: “Man is sacred, and to take away his life without just cause is to assault the glory of God. People are not animals. Christ taught his disciples that their heavenly Father cares for the plants and animals, but regards people as far more valuable.” (16)

The substantive and created difference between humankind and animals is emphasized in the creation narrative. In Genesis 1, after each day’s work, God pronounced the creation good. The Hebrew word used for “good” (טוֹב, tov) has the connotation of being good “in the widest sense” and having “beauty, gladness,” and “welfare.” (17) The animals are included in this pronouncement. In 1:31, mankind is given the distinction of being “very good” (מְאֹד טוֹב, me’oth tov), putting “good” in the Hebrew superlative and adding the connotations of “vehemently… wholly… diligently, especially, exceedingly…mightily,” and “utterly.” (18) The Hebrew lacks no extreme when describing the goodness of man; man was, in essence, created perfectly good. In using this terminology, Moses distances mankind from the rest of creation by a significant margin, showing that there is a difference not just in appearance, but in substance. Mankind could not possibly have the same ancestor as animals, for he is qualitatively different than animals. Biblically, there is no possible way for the two to share a parent.

The Created Person

Orthodox Christian teaching has universally held that man is a person created by God. God created all things, and then Adam was fashioned in a moment from mere dust into the fully grown and capable man Genesis records him to be. The Westminster Confession of Faith unambiguously affirms this in saying that the Trinity did “create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein… in the space of six days,” and that “he created man, male and female." (19) Consequently, the fact of man being created in maturity and directly by the hands of God is a core component of imago Dei theology, for “God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). In direct opposition to this, macroevolutionary theology rejects this notion, instead affirming that man evolved over long periods of time and slowly came out of an animalistic state into his human one. This is incompatible with a sound understanding of biblical imago Dei doctrine and must be rejected in favor of the orthodox teaching.

Hokema observes that being a created person made in the image of God consists of two somewhat paradoxical truths: creatureliness and personhood. (20) Creatureliness, the idea of being created, implies dependence upon the creator. In Acts 17:25, Luke writes that God, the creator of everything, cannot be “served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.” Commenting on this passage, Hokema continues, “We owe, Paul is saying, our very breath to God; we exist only in him; in every move we make we are dependent on him. We cannot lift a finger apart from God’s will.” (21) The utter dependence of the creature on the creator is a core fact of his existence, for “now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand” (Isaiah 64:8).

In contrast to creatureliness stands personhood. Unlike total dependence, personhood implies independence. It implicates the ideas of relative freedom, exercising a will that is one’s own, and being able to think for oneself. (22) The Bible is full of commands to people that they are to obey. There would be no need for these commands if people were merely robotic, but people have wills, desires, and rational souls. Further, scripture gives warnings based on the fact that consequences have actions. Paul writes, “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Galatians 2:7).

Although the whole of the Bible supports the notion of created personhood, the account of the creation of man in Genesis 1–2 is especially helpful in seeing this distinction. The Latin term ex nihilo rightly exhibits the idea that God created “not of preexistent and therefore eternal materials but out of nothing.” (23) Although the Hebrew in Genesis 1 can signify either a creating or a fashioning and forming (בָרָא, bara’), passages such as Hebrews 11:3 clarify that Genesis does not refer to anything preexisting, for “the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” Mankind is said to be created in just the same way as every bird, fish, and creeping thing. As such, man the creature is dependent on God for his very existence and breath. On the other side, man is shown to be an independent person when “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15). The command to work and keep signifies a person, one with a capable mind and full of power to reason.

In differentiation to created personhood, a core tenet of theistic or naturalistic evolutionary thinking is natural selection, the process whereby the beings with more favorable traits for survival outlive and overcome those with less favorable traits and thus evolve over long periods of time. (24) Charles Darwin pioneered this theory in relation to macroevolution. Evolutionary theologians have attempted to reconcile natural selection in a macroevolutionary framework with God being the creator of all things, but all attempts to do so end up violating the basic terms of Genesis 1–2 and other parts of scripture referring to creation. Haught proposes that a greater focus on creatio continua, the idea of continuing creation, helps reconcile evolution and God, noting that “evolution implicitly liberates the notion of creation from confinement to cosmic origins.” (25) In other words, creation is not just about God originating things—it is about God continuing to create over cosmic ages.

Multiple problems immediately become apparent when examining the compatibility of the claims Haught makes with the notion of created personhood. First, if man evolved, and even if God were over that process in some way, his status as a creature would be changed. As we have seen, the idea of creatureliness implies total dependence on God for a life that was given, not earned. Adding macroevolutionary natural selection to theology takes dependence on God out of the equation and replaces it with sheer will and a chaotic, animalistic fight for survival. (26) Contrary to the theistic evolutionist, there are no “tragic” aspects to creation. (27) The Bible does not imply any fight for survival, but instead calls creation “very good” and “pleasant” (Genesis 1:31, 2:8). The goodness and care of God is seen in that there is order and beauty in the Genesis account of creation, for every creature had a pair, and even the affections of man “were regular and orderly, free from all disorder and distemper.” (28) God has placed all the stars “by number, calling them all by name” (Isaiah 40:26) and “even the hairs of your head are all numbered” (Matthew 10:30). Creatures did not come about on their own with struggle, but were created by the hand of God with purpose, and as such they depend fully on him.

If the status of man as creature is harmed by evolutionary beliefs, then the idea of man as a person is affected even more. Genesis makes clear that there is a hierarchy to the created beings, with man being at the top. As has been previously noted, all created beings were named “good,” but man was named “very good,” good in the superlative sense, placing him in a category of his own. If mankind descended from the same ancestor as crickets, how can there be said to be any differentiation between him and the animals? Donald captures this sentiment well when he writes,

“One significant difficulty in trying to reconcile evolution and the Bible is that Darwinian evolution does not allow that there is a hierarchy of life within the natural world. Natural selection ensures that each species is best adapted to survive and thrive within its own environment but it cannot ascribe a special significance to humanity. The Bible on the other hand describes man and woman as the pinnacle of God’s creative work. Humankind is seen as both special and different to the other life forms and is given dominion over them.” (29)

Charles Darwin did not embrace this view, and the consequences of that necessarily seep into reconciling evolution and the biblical doctrine of the created person. One cannot embrace both a sound understanding of personhood and the process of natural selection.

Finally, the central Christian belief of Christ as the God-man, the ultimate created person and the express image of God, is also harmed by embracing an evolutionary framework. The paradox of created personhood is expressed most beautifully in the life of Jesus Christ, “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). As a creature, he lived a life completely dependent on the Spirit of God. This is exemplified by his continual practice of private prayer for his own ministry (Matthew 14:23, Hebrews 5:7). Further, his dependence is seen in scenes like raising Lazarus from the dead, where he prays before performing the miracle (John 11:41–44). On the other hand, Jesus was a man with a will and affections, for he was at times indignant (John 2:13–16), sad (John 11:35), compassionate (Mark 6:24), and filled with agony (Luke 22:44). Evolutionary theology would necessarily affect the created personhood of Jesus. If Christ was of a race that was descended from animals, what is the nature of those for whom he died? If he died for anyone alive multiple millions of years ago, were they even human yet? Answers to these questions are difficult from an evolutionary framework. In contrast to this, orthodox Christian theology teaches that as one who is fully man (1 Timothy 2:5), Jesus could not have been said to have descended from animals, but necessarily came as a person to discharge the sin of other persons (Romans 5:17).

The truths of man’s creatureliness and personhood are difficult and mysterious to hold simultaneously, but when they are held in proper tension, the result is a more complete and sound understanding of the doctrine of the imago Dei and a rejection of evolution. The creature who is the clay to his potter (Isaiah 64:8) is also told to choose with his own mind to serve the Lord (Joshua 24:15). Accepting evolution and natural selection forces one to get the creaturely and personal aspects to man wrong turn him into a mere animal. Either one of these leads to a deficiency in the imago Dei doctrine of created personhood.

Conclusion

In summary, evolution must be rejected by any who hold to a traditionally orthodox and reformed understanding of the imago Dei. A study of Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 tells us that man was created possessing the qualities of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. These enabled him to please God in a way the animals could not and differentiated him from the animals fundamentally. No being capable of possessing these qualities could possibly be organically connected to the animal kingdom, for animals to not have knowledge of God, righteousness before him, or a holiness that separates them from other beings. God has granted man dominion over the animals and given them to him for food, not made him equal with them. In addition to this, understanding that man is both a creature and a person is essential to imago Dei theology. When creatureliness and personhood of man are held in proper tension with one another, theistic or naturalistic natural selection becomes impossible. To accept such a view is to do violence to the notion of man as a creature, man as a person, and ultimately a biblical understanding of who Jesus Christ is as the perfect, sinless man. To embrace evolution is to diminish man, take away core components of who he is as a human being, and ultimately put the gospel at risk, but to reject it preserves the integrity of his status as one made in the image of God.

__________________

Endnotes

1. Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1985), 158.

2. Throughout this paper, the terms “macroevolution” and “evolution” will be used interchangeably. If specificity is needed, it will be provided in context.

3. See Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), 4.2; Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC), Q. 10; Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 6.

4. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Translated by Henry Beveridge. 1536, repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 1:15:4.

5. Thomas Boston, The Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Comprising a Complete Body of Divinity, Part 1, found in The Works of Thomas Boston, Vol. I (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2023), 181.

6. Wilhelmus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. I (Translated by Bartel Elshout. 1700, repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992), 324.

7. Boston, Works, 1:182.

8. Greek Strong’s Dictionary in Accordance Bible Software (Orlando, FL: Oak Tree Software, v. 13.3.3), entry 1921.

9. Geoffrey B. Wilson, New Testament Commentaries, vol. 2: Philippians to Hebrews and Revelation (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 110.

10. Boston, Works, 1:182.

11. Boston, Works, 1:183.

12. Greek Strong’s Dictionary, entry 1342.

13. Stephen Charnock, A Discourse on the Holiness of God, found in The Works of Stephen Charnock, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 204.

14. John F Haught, God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (2nd. ed.) (Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge Publishing, 2007), 25–26.

15. On animals and humans taking human life, see Genesis 9:5–6; Exodus 20:13, 21:12; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:30. On humans taking animal life, see Leviticus 3:2, 11:1–23; Ezekiel 44:11.

16. Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology, Vol. 2: Man and Christ (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 200.

17. Hebrew Strong’s Dictionary in Accordance Bible Software (Orlando, FL: Oak Tree Software, v. 13.3.3), entry 2898.

18. Hebrew Strong’s Dictionary, entry 3966.

19. WCF 4.1–4.2. See also Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC), Q. 15, 17; Belgic Confession, Article 14.

20. Anthony Hokema, Created In God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 6.

21. Hokema, Created In God’s Image, 5.

22. Hokema, Created In God’s Image, 5–6.

23. Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 112.

24. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: 150th Anniversary Edition (New York: Signet Classics, 1958), 76, Kindle for Mac.

25. Haught, God After Darwin, 40.

26. Darwin, The Origin of Species, 62.

27. Haught, God After Darwin, 5.

28. Boston, Works, 1:182.

29. Alistair Donald, “Evolution and the Church,” in Should Christians Embrace Evolution? Biblical and Scientific Responses, edited by Norman C. Nevin, 15–26 (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 2011), 20.

_________

Image source: Crosswalk

Submitted to Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in 2023.