What Does It Mean to Be Made in God's Image?

00:00 - James Spencer (Host)
We've got capacities and as we depend on God, we start to understand when do I exercise those capacities and when do I restrain myself from acting on those capacities? And so there is a sense in which we have to develop that sort of discernment and trust with God, recognizing that even if I can do something, that doesn't mean that God wants me to do something.

00:20 - Speaker 2 (None)
Welcome to PREPPED, the podcast that equips you to live out God's story, not the world's story. Hosted by James Spencer, phd, each episode bridges the gap between academic insights and everyday life, preparing you to understand the Word of God and put it into practice. Whether you're diving into biblical studies, looking for ministry guidance or aiming to deepen your faith, PREPPED empowers you to think biblically and theologically in a world that encourages you not to Ready to get PREPPED. Subscribe now and transform the way you bring God's story into the world.

00:54 - James Spencer (Host)
Hey everyone, welcome to PREPPED, the podcast where we explore biblical, theological and ministry topics to help you think more deeply about God's word. I'm your host, James Spencer, and today we're diving into one of the more interesting ideas in the Bible the image of God. What does it mean that humans are made in the image of God? Is it about our appearance, our abilities, or is it something deeper? And I think scholars have wrestled with this question for centuries and they've offered several key interpretations. I don't think we're going to solve the interpretive problem in this episode, but we are going to review it, and so there's these major views that we're gonna go through. We're gonna look at the substantive view the image refers to unique human qualities like rationality or morality. We're gonna look at the functional view that the image points to humanity's role in exercising dominion over creation. We'll look at the relational view, and that's that the image highlights our capacity for relationship with God and one another. And then what I'm calling the filial view that the image reflects humanity as God's children, and it really draws from Genesis 5.3, where Seth is in Adam's likeness and image. So today we're going to try to unpack these views, discuss how they can complement each other and explore the creation of man in God's image and the potential connections to the prohibition of idols and images later in the Old Testament. Notice I say potential because I don't know that. I am ready to say that the prohibition against idols is really related to the image of God in man, but we'll discuss that a little further. We're also going to consider just what the image of God means for our dignity, purpose and responsibility in this life, and then, finally, we'll consider a relatively recent use of image of God, language and the way our activation of the image of God in modern discourse often represents a distortion of the truth of God in modern discourse often represents a distortion of the truth. We accept what we find convenient and we set aside the more constraining aspects of the phrase. So let's dive in.

02:54
So the first major view we want to look at is the substantive view. One of the oldest interpretations of the image of God is the substantive view, and this idea holds that the image is tied to something intrinsic about humans, qualities like reason, morality or spirituality. Augustine and Aquinas seem to argue for this, and you know they suggest that the ability to think rationally or commune with God sets us apart from the rest of creation. And the strengths of this view are pretty clear. I mean, it acknowledges the remarkable capacities humans have, the like, you know, creative and moral reasoning, and these are understood to reflect God's character. They really do nail down, this view really does nail down the difference, the sort of physical or ontological difference, between humans and other creatures. But I think it also raises some questions. You know, does this reduce the image to like a checklist of traits? What about people with disabilities or those who can't express these traits in conventional ways? Like, what do we do with that understanding of the image? And those are questions that theologians have wrestled with throughout the ages, and so, again, we're not really going to dive too deep into those and trying to answer those questions. But what I will say is I do think that there is something to the substantive view, in the sense that I think the image of God is intrinsic, it's something that we have that other creatures simply don't Okay.

04:24
So let's move to the functional view. This view is really focused on what humans do, the role we play in God's order and creation, and I will say, as an Old Testament guy, I gravitate a little bit toward this view. I think the functional view accords with a lot of the image of God language that we see in ancient Near Eastern literature. In particular, the image of God is often applied to ancient Near Eastern kings, and their role in exercising dominion and rule in the ancient Near Eastern context is often referred to in terms of their image of God status. Some are even called sons of God, which again, once we get to the filial view, we're gonna see that maybe that plays itself out. So just full disclosure.

05:13
I'm more predisposed to the functional view, and so I think what this perspective, this view really is is that it argues that the image of God is tied to humanity's role as the stewards of creation, as the people who are to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, to exercise dominion, to have this authority on earth and to serve as God's vice regents. So if God is the regent or the king, we are sort of the vice regents or princes, we might say. And so Genesis 128 immediately follows the declaration of the Imago Dei giving humanity the mandate to fill the earth and subdue it and to have dominion over all things. And so when we think about that and we think about how this sort of commission, this divine statement of what humanity is supposed to do, the fact that it does pull in right after the image of God. I think it's pretty strong suggestion that these two concepts could very well be connected. I would also say that when we see this image of God's language referred to again in Genesis 9, 6, I think that context also sort of strengthens this view, where God is setting a constraint on what is to happen, because the blood of humanity is so sacred and because you know that this, being made in God's image, is going to prohibit certain behaviors. And so I just think that this view has a lot going for it, not that the other ones don't. And I would say again, you know, as we go through these views, ultimately what I'll probably argue is that there are components of each of these views that we can sort of cobble together and come up with a little bit more of a composite view, although we shouldn't assume that we could just sort of puzzle all these together and that that makes it right. So I'll leave it there.

07:04
But I think in this view you know, the functional view being in God's image is really less about what we are and more about how we act as representatives of God's rule on earth. It's practical, but I think it can feel a little transactional, almost like the image is only valuable if we fulfill our responsibilities. Now what I would say is that, you know, this idea of the image of God being intrinsic that I talked about, with the substantive view, combined with this functional view, and you can start to see that that transactional nature of the functional view that it has a tendency for some to sort of roll into, tends to go away. And so if the image of God is something that we just are, it's not something that we exercise or do, it's just what we are. We are the image of God and we can image God better or worse depending on what we're doing at a given time. But I think that when we think about what it means to be that image of God, you know have that sort of intrinsic, substantive image within us that part of what we are supposed to do is to fulfill the destiny of humankind, which is to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. So now the relational view.

08:18
This is the next one, and it really sees the image of God as being rooted in these relationships. Genesis 127 says God created man in his own image, male and female. He created them, and this suggests that being made in God's image has something to do with living in relationships with God, with each other and even, I think, with creation. Again, you can see sort of how these views might flow together, because if we go from Genesis 127 to 128, we start to see that relationship within creation and what that relationship is supposed to look like. And so, as we think about this dominion that humanity is supposed to exercise, what we need to realize is that that dominion is to be exercised in dependence on God, in other words under his overarching authority. This is not something where we are determining how to dominate the world. It's not us deciding what goes where. This is us responding to God's authority. Imaging that into creation and having appropriate relationships that reflect God within the world.

09:26
Now, this relational view, I think really Karl Barth championed this idea and he points to the Trinity as the ultimate relational model. And just as God exists in eternal relationship Father, son and Spirit so humans reflect that relational dynamic in our lives, and it's a compelling view, but I think on its own it does risk reducing the image of God to the idea of relationships alone, without really accounting for other dimensions, like our role in creation or even our unique capacities and how they might add to those relationships. Ultimately, this is a little bit of a straw man approach. You know, treating these views in separation, I think, is really challenging because, you know, karl Barth's view was not simply that man was relational and that was it. He had a much more nuanced and compelling way of dealing with this.

10:17
But in the context of a podcast trying to give you just a series of these views, I think it's important for me to provide just some of these broad ideas, and I'm not trying to give them harsh critiques. What I'm really trying to do is sort of draw these together. Finally, what I'll say is the filial view, and that's this view that ties the image of God to more of a parent-child relationship. This is really, I think, compelling, because Genesis 5.3 tells us that Adam fathered Seth in his own likeness, after his image. That likeness and that image, those are the same Hebrew words that we find in Genesis 127 and 128. And so what seems to be suggested here is that, you know, this child, seth, is going to be in the image and likeness of his father, adam, and so it stands to reason that because these two are used you're using the same Hebrew words in the same closer proximity that probably what's going on is that this is gesturing back to the image of God language in Genesis 126 and 127 and suggesting this filial or child parent relationship between God and man.

11:36
And so it suggests that being made in God's image is like being a child who resembles their parent, and I think this view emphasizes that sonship, that childhood. Humans were created to be God's children, reflecting his character, living in covenant relationship with him. It's a deeply relational and covenantal idea and, I think, one that echoes throughout scripture. So in Christ you know, for instance, we are adopted into God's family and called to live as his children. And so I think, if we just think about those four views, you can kind of see the different ways that they can come together, at least on a surface level, and I think what I would, what I would tend to argue, is that anyone in isolation doesn't quite do justice to the context, whether that's the near context of the biblical text or the little broader context, like if we go out to Genesis 5, or even the broader context of the ancient Near Eastern literature that we have available to us. I think there are components of each of these views that we have to sort of take into account and understand that probably the image of God is a far more robust concept than we normally think of.

12:41
Now. I think you know there is also a while I didn't list it, you know in my top four views there's also a Christological view and I tend not to think of this, as you know strictly a view about what the image of God means in Genesis, because it's more of a biblical and theological view that sort of incorporates what the New Testament talks about in, like Galatians 115 and Hebrews 1.3, they're going to declare that Jesus is the perfect image of God. This perspective sees that image of God as both a reality and a promise. Humanity was created in God's image. That's real, but through sin this image is sort of marred, or we can think of it in terms of it being sort of blocked, it dims. Let's say, jesus, the perfect son of God, restores that image through his life, death and resurrection, and we are then to conform to the image of Christ, we are to imitate Christ, we are to become like Christ, and so all of this sort of circles back to say that because the image of God was in some way damaged, marred, hindered within us at the fall. Now Jesus, in all of his redemptive work, has also allowed us the privilege of pursuing being the image of God again, sort of rehabbing ourselves through the process of sanctification and starting to imitate Jesus. And so I think this view really does emphasize the redemption and sanctification. It reminds us that our identity as image bearers finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. I think it's powerful, and I would just not want it to overshadow the original context of Genesis.

14:44
I don't think that the image of God in Genesis is well explained through the Christological view, in other words, not in its near context at the very least, but from a biblical and theological perspective. It's impossible, I think, to deny the fact that God is the perfect image of God and that we are to imitate him. And so we can ask ourselves, you know, which one of these views is correct, and I think the answer might be all of them, or at least components of all of them. I think the image of God is likely a very multifaceted concept, and it encompasses the substantive, the relational, the functional and the filial and the Christological views. So, for example, you think about our substantive qualities like reason and creativity and morality, and these equip us, maybe, to fill a functional role. These equip us, maybe, to fill a functional role.

15:39
These are attributes that we have, that we recognize. These are not listed in the biblical text. These are attributes that we recognize that help us to fulfill the role of being fruitful, multiplying, filling the earth. So doing it, it helps us to be the vice regents of God. There are certain characteristics, in other words, that we recognize within ourselves, certain capacities that God has given us that help us to do what God has asked us to do. At the same time, what I want to say there is that we are created to be independents on God Again, not independent from, but independence on God. And so we shouldn't think that, just because we have these capacities, that now we sort of run on our own. What we've got are we've got capacities, and as we depend on God, we start to understand when do I exercise those capacities and when do I restrain myself from acting on those capacities? And so there is a sense in which we have to develop that sort of discernment and trust with God, recognizing that even if I can do something, that doesn't mean that God wants me to do something. And so we should be careful, with the substantive view, not to assume that just because we have the ability to do something, that that means we have the autonomy to do something.

17:01
Now, when we think about our relational nature you know we live in community with God and others. This seems very clear and I think it flows from the fact that we're made to reflect that relational God. I do think there's something to that and I appreciate Bart's emphasis on the Trinity here. I think that the image of God is intended to convey not just something I am in myself apart from everyone else, but I do think that when God creates man and male and female in the image of God, that this is gesturing toward this idea that the two together are image of God. It's not that you have to be married to exercise the image of God, it's that both male and female are created in the image of God. But because they're referenced together, it suggests that the relationship which we'll talk about actually in the next episode, this relationship of the ezer the woman as helper, of the ezer, the woman as helper is actually drawing these together into a relational mode.

18:05
And then, obviously, our function, as I talked about earlier. Our function within the created order is, I think, really to what's happening in this and this is a much broader conversation I talked about a little bit in the last episode when I talked about sacred space and the expansion of the precincts, then tied, you know, second Chronicles to the Great Commission. But I think the functional view is that we are to be people who are responding to God's holiness, that we are responding obediently and faithfully to God's holiness. We're to be allowing God to be our reference point for how we act in the world. And so this talks about obedience, this talks about holy living, this talks about living along and truing ourselves to God's order. And so as we do that, then what we're also trying to do is sort of expand the precincts of the garden. We're trying to enlarge the space where humankind can experience God's presence. And so I think, if we think about the function there, not just, as you know, be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. I think part of what we're seeing there is that we are to be the sort of people who are ever expanding the presence of God to other human beings.

19:23
With Adam and Eve, obviously, that was, at least in part, done through biological processes. They needed to have children, and so we'll talk a little bit about the Cain and Abel narrative as well in an upcoming episode. But as they have have children, now they're filling the earth, they're subduing it. That subduing, which normally has a context of war and and sort of subjugation that we would normally think of in a military sort of context, I think, in in the context of creation, what we're seeing there is this subduing, almost has to take on something a little different. That this subduing is really about drawing people under the authority of God is sort of the way I would tend to go with it.

20:03
So then you know, obviously we have the filial and the Christological. I've kind of already talked about how I see those fitting in. I think these go to issues of identity that we are children of God, we are back, we're adopted into God's family, and that Christ is the image now that we've seen, that has been revealed to us, this perfect expression of what it means to be a human. He is now the image that we are to emulate and follow. So, ultimately, I think the image of God, or the Imago Dei you'll often hear it finds its fullest expression in Christ. He perfectly embodies the substantive, relational, the functional, the filial aspects of that image, and through him we're being transformed to reflect God's glory more fully.

20:49
So, having reviewed these various views, let's just now turn our attention a little bit to the potential connection between being made in God's image and the prohibition against idols and images. I think that we see this later in Old Testament law, and I would say again, this, I think, is a potential connection, because it's not necessarily clear that the prohibitions against idols, images and likenesses are explicitly related to being made in the image of God. I think, intuitively, we know that constructing an image of God and putting it in the temple can skew and narrow a vision of God. Just how being made in the image of God is related to those prohibition of images, though, is the real question. So, for instance, in the second commandment, in Exodus 24 through five, we read this you shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness or anything that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath, or that it is in the water under the earth.

21:47
This prohibition doesn't just avoid, it doesn't just speak about avoiding pagan practices. It's really about protecting the unique and infinite nature of God. Any physical representation of God diminishes his transcendence, particularly when it's frozen in time. These are inanimate, they have no voice, they have no hearing, they don't have the senses of anything that God would have given, and so there is sort of this compelling notion that in are dumb and deaf and incapable of doing anything because they're essentially just man-made creations. Now it is tempting as we read through that, you know, we see the language's image and likeness and those words, but I don't think that we can necessarily equate what's going on here with what we see in Genesis 1, 27 and 28.

23:00
So let me just make a couple of comments regarding this command and then we'll talk a little bit more about that. So I would say that we can note that God cannot be contained or captured by human art or imagination. I think we see that in Isaiah 40, 18 through 25. So when I talk about skewing or narrowing our vision of God, this is what I mean. God is a dynamic, multifaceted, infinitely complex, but also has this simplicity about him where we can understand God, but we can't really capture God in our imagination.

23:35
And so when we create something that we say, ah, this represents God, what we're doing is we're oversimplifying God, we're making it too easy. We're only drawing in certain aspects of who God is and what God is, and I think that is part of the challenge with these images and these idols. It isn't just that they may represent other gods. That's a problem in and of itself. Right, these are issues that the Israelites have. When they draw their gods in, they create idols for them.

24:06
But I think, when we're talking about creating an image of God for the temple, that this is the problem that it's skewing and narrowing who God is. It's not a sufficient representation of who God is, and what God wants is for the people to look around them and recognize all that God is, all that God made, all the different aspects of God that are also available to them. That's what we're looking at, and so to create an image of God is really to distort his nature, and while worshiping an image of God is really to distort his nature. And while worshiping in the temple, the Israelites were to relate to God directly, not through intermediaries like idols. So we see in Deuteronomy 4, 15 through 18, that you're going to have an emphasis on God revealing himself at Sinai and that there was no form, that God didn't come in a form, and I think that reinforces the prohibition against creating a form to worship God.

25:02
Now, the difficulty with these passages and connecting them back to the image of God language in early chapters of Genesis is that, you know, we need to recognize that while most English texts translate likeness, in both Genesis 126 and Deuteronomy 4, 15 through 18, the underlying Hebrew terms are actually different. Similarly, the English image is used in both verses, both sets of verses, but it's different Hebrew words in these specific texts, and so while it's possible to draw some conceptual linkages, the lexical support isn't as strong as it could be. So if we contrast that with the use of similar language between, let's say, genesis 126 and Genesis 5.1 and 3, where an explicit connection is being made, not only does 5.1 reference the creation of Adam, but the same Hebrew vocabulary is used in all three texts Likeness is used in 126 and 5.1 and in verse 3, and then image is used in 126 and 5.3. So I think it's just important to recognize that the image of God language largely disappears after Genesis 9.6. It isn't that the concept goes away completely. I don't think this makes it a trivial idea or something like that, but we do see this idea of the image sort of go dormant after Genesis 9-6. And so it would be odd for the laws to be gesturing back toward it and not use, I think, the same lexical vocabulary that was already used in Genesis, to make sure that when we're hearing these terms in the Hebrew, that we're going back to these earlier texts. Now, obviously, the idea reemerges in the New Testament. We see it in Colossians 1.15 and 3.10. So it isn't that the image of God sort of disappears after Genesis 9.6, and so why are we doing a whole episode on it? This seems unimportant, right, but it just suggests that maybe this very important theological concept isn't jumping out of the bushes at us when we're reading some of these laws. So I don't think that any of this sort of precludes the line of interpretation that says hey, being made in the image of God is one of the reasons that God prohibits the use of images in the temple.

27:30
I think there's something about it that makes sense on a broad level. I just don't always find the very specific sort of evidence that I would like to have if I were going to be firm in saying yes, 100%, I'm like 99% sure that the image of God language is connected to the prohibition of images in the temple. I just don't find that so I'd say I put myself more in like the 60-40 category, right, it's just a different sort of beast where this goes, and so I like the idea. I often think in those terms. I find it to be a compelling thought, but if I'm going to preach on a Sunday I'm probably going to go a different way.

28:21
I do think that, given the broader temple imagery in Genesis 1 through 3, again that we addressed in the previous episode some of the ancient Near Eastern parallels, like I'd mentioned before, the ancient Near Eastern kings were often called the image of God and they used that sort of language, the image, as part of their liturgy and psalms and different references to their kings. I do think those factors do make it seem a little bit more plausible to suggest that in prohibiting idols and images, god is seeking to ensure appropriate worship and that appropriate worship would involve humans maintaining this status as the image of God. So, ultimately, what I think we can say here is that, you know, idols often become objects of worship in themselves. They distract us from the true God, and idolatry was considered this act of unfaithfulness and betrayal and it was an act of disloyalty that allowed an idol to share in God's glory in some way or to become the focus of one's worship in a way that would blind the worshiper from all that God was. And so we should also just take a note that at creation, god had already placed his image in the world.

29:34
Human beings. To create idols undermines that reality. I think again I think I'm 60-40 on that. I think that, as we look at this, what we're trying to get at is do we really need another image to worship? Or, when we're in the temple, are we supposed to be communing with God directly? You know, again, if we think back to the lecture we had on the previous episode and you look at Revelation 21, there is no temple, because God is the temple. He's filling the world now. His presence is the temple, and my tendency is to think that, yeah, maybe the image of God in Genesis has something to do with this, but it almost seems more likely to me to say that, in mediating the presence of God through an idol, we're missing the point of that temple worship altogether.

30:27
So I think we can say that, unlike lifeless idols, humans are obviously dynamic and relational. We have a task that we are to complete. We are created by God and are uniquely God's children. We are not made by human hands, but we are made by God. I think, unlike idols, human beings are called to reflect God's image in their living, growing relationship with him and others, and we are meant to point to God's dynamic and personal nature. But being made in the image of God is this profound privilege? And so I want to step away from thinking about the image of God and whether the prohibition of idols is appropriate, and I want to think a little bit about this idea of what being made in the image of God is really all about. And so, before I do this, I want to say and I mentioned sort of the top of the podcast I wanted to talk about an instance in which the image of God language was used, and I think you know my last book, serpents and Doves.

31:24
One of the things that I deal with is the use of biblical language and political discourse. Deal with is the use of biblical language and political discourse, and really I would say public discourse, and so one of the instances I cite was Joe Biden's speech about the transgender day of visibility, and toward the end of that speech he's talking about transgender people, and he gestures toward the image of God. He actually says you know, all people are made in the image of God, suggesting that they're all worthy of dignity, and I think that's something we can all agree with All people are worthy of dignity. We don't want to be just going around disrespecting people because they have a different, you know, take on life than we do, right. And so as we look at that language, though, right, what we have to understand is that it's not just about getting other people to respect someone's dignity. It's also about recognizing our own dignity and living along or, as I like to say, truing ourselves to the reality of the way we've been created.

32:33
So, as we think about the image of God, right, we often will say well, I'm made in the image of God and I am deserving of dignity and respect, and so people shouldn't disrespect me. True, all of that's true. But I think we also miss the idea that the image of God comes with a deep responsibility. It comes with a profound obligation Because we are the image of God, comes with a deep responsibility. It comes with a profound obligation Because we are the image of God. We have to embody the world as such.

32:57
And so when we think about something like the use of image of God in political discourse or public discourse, what we're often doing is we're saying we're sort of cutting off the responsibility portion and we're saying let's be the image of God and promote the dignity of all people. That is a worthy exercise and that's an appropriate thing for us to think through. But what we're missing is also really crucial and something that we shouldn't let go of quickly as Christians, because the image of God isn't just about giving other people dignity. It's also about living up to that image. It's about living along that image or truing ourselves to that image, and so the image of God implies dignity and responsibility. So, as the image of God, it's the foundation for human worth really, and equality. We see this in a lot of human rights discourses, particularly from an older age, where they were really based on Christian ideas. There's a whole actual history of this, you know, human rights and Christian human rights and universal rights. That's very complex and interesting.

34:02
All I'm trying to make the point is here is that the image of God, as we look at it in scripture, we do see that it conveys a dignity to humankind, that it implies a worth, the worth of humankind in a way that it doesn't imply that worth to other creatures, for instance. And so every person, regardless of their race or gender or age or ability, bears God's image and is therefore inherently valuable, and that truth should transform how we view ourselves and others. When we encounter another person, we're seeing someone who reflects the creator, and it challenges us to treat every human with respect and care. So I think that aspect is true, and when we hear that part of it in our public discourse, we need to recognize that is true and we need to affirm that is true. But then we also need to keep the big and in mind, and that and is the responsibility.

34:56
Reflecting God's image means living in alignment or truing ourselves to his character. It calls us to holiness justice and love. It also means fulfilling our role as stewards of creation, and when I say that I do not mean that we go out and we champion environmental causes I don't have any problem with environmental causes but the basic function of stewarding the creation. If you think about what a steward is, a steward doesn't own. A steward lives in a dependent relationship to someone who does own, and they are given charge over a particular aspect of something that they don't own, which means that as we're stewarding creation, we are to do that under the authority of God. This is what we start to learn in discipleship that as we come to be disciples, be and make disciples. Part of what we're learning is to live under the authority of Christ, and so this isn't just about environmental care, though that certainly could be part of it. It's about cultivating the world, our relationships, our community, our work in ways that point to and glorify the triune God. And so, as Christians, we're called to participate in the restoration of the image through Christ, and we're to help others discover their identity as image bearers and invite them into that, into God's family, into becoming more that image, into imitating Christ. And so it takes both of those right.

36:19
When we hear that image of God language in the political and the public discourse, we need to automatically recognize that often what's being talked about is they're in the image of God. These people are made in the image of God. They have an inherent dignity. We should respect them and allow them to determine their own course. And it's that latter half and allow them to determine their own course that sits in tension really contradicts almost the I wouldn't even say almost. It contradicts the responsibility that comes with being made in the image of God.

36:51
So, end of the day, what does it mean to be made in the image of God? It's about substance, reflecting God's character. It's about relationships, living in communion with him and others. It's about function, fulfilling our role as his representatives and, ultimately, it's about being his children, created to live in his likeness and adopted into his family through Christ. It's also about Jesus. We are to be made in the image of Jesus, we are to imitate Jesus, and so that's sort of a summary of what I think we mean when we talk about being made in the image of God.

37:23
Being made in the image of God does imply dignity, and that dignity is not simply something we should expect from or give to others. It is also something that we live into as men and women dependent on the Lord. We have to sort of recognize our own dignity and put ourselves in situations where we are living up to that dignity, where we are respecting that dignity for ourselves. If we put it differently, being made in God's image does not mean that we determine who we are, but that we allow ourselves to be determined by God. As you reflect on that. I would encourage you to consider how it shapes the way you live. How does the dignity of the Imago Dei affect the way you see yourself and others? How does the responsibility of bearing God's image challenge the way you engage with the world? Hey, thanks for listening to PREPPED. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe, share, leave a review. I'm Dr James Spencer and I'll see you next time as we continue preparing our hearts and minds for God's mission. Take care everybody.

38:20 - Speaker 2 (None)
Thanks for tuning in to PREPPED. If today's episode helped you view the world through a God-centered lens, be sure to hit subscribe so you're always prepared for what comes next. Don't forget to rate and review us on your preferred podcast platform. Your feedback helps us reach more believers eager to live out God's story. Share this episode with a friend, family member or loved one, and together let's keep challenging the world's narratives. Until next time, stay grounded, stay inspired and continue living out God's plan. See you soon on our next episode of PREPPED.