Image-Bearing and Sonship: Are They Really the Same Thing?

The key issue that patternists have with the trinity is that it views Jesus’ sonship toward God as a property of his divine nature, rather than his human nature. While agreeing with trinitarians that Jesus is truly God and truly man, we maintain that the title “son of God” is a reference to his human nature, that he is a son of God in the same kind of way that Christians are sons of God, as creatures who bear the image and likeness of God. A key verse that ties image-bearing and sonship together is found in Genesis.

This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. (Gen 5:1-3)

Here we see image-bearing and sonship correlated, such that to have a child is to create someone in your own image and likeness. Thus in the case of Christ, a natural understanding would be that he is a son of God because he is a creature, created in the image of God. While he truly is God incarnate, he isn’t the son of God because of his divinity; rather, he is a son because of his humanity.

In response to this point, trinitarians will sometimes point out (rightly) that image-bearing and sonship cannot be the same thing because unbelievers are considered children of Satan, yet they still bear the image of God. Genesis 9:6 for example puts forward a prohibition against murdering any human being, not just against murdering those in a right relationship with God. The rationale is that it is wrong to murder a human (believer or unbeliever), because all humans are created in the image of God.

And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Gen 9:5-6)

Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (Jhn 8:43-44)

For the sake of brevity, the main articles on this site simply acknowledge that there is a difference between image-bearing and sonship, but don’t do much to further elaborate on the problem and its natural solution. This article is therefore provided to help clarify the issue, and to demonstrate that pattern christology stands regardless.

The relationship between image-bearing and sonship is most precisely defined as a “creates-a” relationship. They are not the same thing; rather one creates the other. As we saw in the case of Seth, Adam slept with Eve, and this produced a new, distinct organism, created in the image and likeness of Adam (and Eve). Seth was then given the relationship and title “son of Adam” because of his natural descent (Luk 3:38). In the same way, every child created by two parents is, by default, given this immediate relationship with his parents, by which he naturally calls them father/mother. Under normal circumstances, these two parents will then nurture and care for the child, until he reaches adulthood.

Unfortunately, because of sin, that relationship is often broken. A man may sleep with his girlfriend, impregnate her, then leave before the child is ever born. In such a case, the child is created in the image of that man, but he doesn’t share a father/son relationship with him. If the child is lucky, another man may marry the woman, and fill the role of a father. Or, the child may grow up without a father. Here then we see a distinction between someone’s biological vs legal parents, between image-bearing and sonship.

A good example of this breaking of relationship can be seen in Abraham’s relationship with Ishmael. Because of his wife Sarai’s barrenness, Abram took a concubine named Hagar, and had a child with her, to serve as his heir. When the Lord fulfilled his promise to give Sarai a child however, she no longer wanted Hagar’s child Ishmael to be part of the family.

So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” (Gen 21:10-13)

Abraham thus disowned Ishmael, sending him and his mother away from the family. This led to a situation where he had two biological children, but only one recognized, legal son and heir. We see this recognition of Isaac alone in the following chapter.

After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Gen 22:1-2)

Prior to the rejection of Ishmael, Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Through natural descent, they were both given a father/son relationship with Abraham. Yet because of his rejection of Ishmael, Abraham was brought into a phase of life where God now recognized only Isaac. Only Isaac had a continuing relationship with his father, and only Isaac served as his legal heir.

Thus we see that in a biblical understanding of parentage, image-bearing creates a natural father/son relationship between parent and child. The effects of sin however can break that relationship, while the natural descent of image-bearing remains intact. So when we try to understand God’s view of unregenerate man, we can simultaneously affirm that we all bear the image of God (through natural descent), but apart from Christ, Satan is our father, the one from which we learn, the one who we imitate.

The other side of this coin is the creation of father/son relationships without biological descent. Image-bearing creates a relationship of sonship, but it is not the only thing that creates it. Adoption is the process by which a parent accepts a child into his family as a recognized, legal son and heir. It establishes a real father-son relationship, even when the son may bear the image of a different biological father.

We see this exemplified very simply in the life of Joseph, who adopted Jesus, and raised Him, regardless of not being Jesus’ natural father. Jacob offers a more complex example, where he adopted two of his grandchildren. In this case, Ephraim and Manassah actually bore the image of Jacob, being his natural descendants. But his adoption of them elevated their legal status such that they were given the same legal standing as his immediate children, rather than being a generation removed.

God’s adoption of us is another interesting case, because it’s an adoption back into the family from which we originally descend. Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, and thus he initially had a father/son relationship with Him. But that relationship was broken when he rebelled and accepted Satan’s implanted word, rather than the word of God. We as Adam’s descendants therefore begin in the foreign family of Satan, but when we accept Christ’s offer of salvation, we’re adopted back into the family from which we naturally descend, namely the family of God (cf. Luk 3:38, Rom 8:14-17).

So it’s true that image-bearing and sonship do not always go hand-in-hand. Image-bearing creates a father/son relationship, but the rejection and adoption of sons (and daughters) can cause a family to deviate from natural, biological descent. This raises a question of boundaries in the area of adoption. Can anyone be lawfully adopted into a family? Or are there limits that God would enforce on the institution?

For example, can a dog be adopted as the son and legal heir of a husband and wife? Most people would probably say ‘no’, although writing pets into wills has become more common in recent years. Some might look to sentience as the determining factor for inheritance, but then you run into a similar problem with angels. Could someone adopt the angel Gabriel, and make him a son and legal heir?

Considerations like this lead us to a second relationship that image-bearing and sonship seem to share. Not only does image-bearing create a father/son relationship, it also defines the boundaries of legitimate relationships created through adoption. In a word, biblical adoption is adoption within a kind.

Genesis tells us that God created distinct “kinds” of creatures, which reproduce within that kind. When mating, giraffes produce more giraffes, storks produce more storks, and humans produce more humans. For example,

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds–livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

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.” (Gen 1:24-26)

This natural descent of creatures within a kind is effectively the same thing as image-bearing. Just as all humans bear the image of Adam (1Co 15:49), so all giraffes bear the image of the first giraffe, etc.  So when it comes to the issue of adoption, is it legitimate for a human being to adopt a giraffe, or for wolves to raise a human, etc.?

This passage would raise some problems with cross-kind adoption, because God grants dominion over the earth to human beings. Biblical sonship is importantly tied to inheritance; sons are legal heirs of the dominion (land, animals, other property etc.) of their fathers. If humans are to have dominion over all other creatures, then a human father leaving his house and land to a giraffe son would grant dominion to the animals, which goes against God’s design for the earth.

In a sense however, cross-kind adoption is what happened when Adam heeded the voice of the serpent, rather than the word of God. The dominion that Adam inherited from God was now exercised under the authority of a beast, namely the serpent, rather than his natural father God. This may be why God views redemption as a process of transferring the kingdoms of man from the control of beasts to that of the son of man (Daniel 7). So while cross-kind adoption may not be supported by God, it may still be a recognized form of adoption resulting from the fall.

In any case, when rightly performed, adoption seems to be limited to parents and children within a kind. This is why Jesus had to become man in order to redeem, inherit and reclaim the earth from Satan.

Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. (Heb 2:14-17)

Here we see that Jesus could not redeem the earth as an angel (or a dog, or a giraffe etc.). He had to be a man, because dominion over the earth is granted to mankind, who was currently enslaved to the devil. The previous chapter specifically situates this in the context of inheritance. So for humans at least, and likely for all of creation, adoption and inheritance have to occur within a kind.

Image-bearing and sonship are therefore related in two ways. First, image-bearing creates a father/son relationship. Second, legitimate sonship can only occur when both parent and child share the same ultimate ancestor / image.

In this final section, I’ll tie together the concepts discussed thus far, and work to then answer the question of how Jesus’ sonship relates to that of the everyday Christian.

First, it’s important to fully elaborate on what the above understanding of kinds implies about our relationship with God, our first parent. Luke’s genealogy makes it clear that God is the first parent of our race, that he had/has a true father/son relationship with Adam, with Christ, and with all of his adopted children. In a word, this implies that humans are of the same “kind” as God. Allow me to explain what that means.

The first parents of all the kinds described in Genesis came to be in the first week of creation. In the case of mankind, we also had parents who began at that point, namely Adam and Eve. However our ancestry goes back one step further, because Adam was the son of God. He was created in the image and likeness of God. This means that God is the first ancestor in our lineage (Luk 3:38). God is the first of our “kind.” That is why he is able to reject and adopt children of man, generally behaving as a father to us, etc. A question then naturally arises — What does this mean in terms of the nature of man? Are we little gods?

Trinitarian discussions on the nature of God will rightly point out that we do not have the same “substance” as God. He is transcendent, dwelling before and outside of time; we are made of the dust of the earth (Gen 3:19). Additionally, we know that the substance of man changes in the resurrection, yet we are still of the same family; we still bear the image of God (granted, through a different Adam, 1Co 15:39-49). On the other hand, humans share the same basic substance (elements of the earth etc.) as any plant or animal. However we do not share the same information, the same kind, the same common line of descent (despite what Darwinists may claim).

So when we talk about being of the same “kind” as God, it’s important to recognize that this has nothing to do with the substance of God vs man; we are not little gods. It is simply a description of the shared information that forms our image of God, the design that allows us to think and act like him (notwithstanding sin and finitude). It’s the implanted word of God spoken during creation that distinguishes one kind from another, not the substance out of which it is formed.

I write this because some trinitarians will claim that Jesus’ sonship toward God implies that he has the same substance as God, and I want to be sure that we’re thinking clearly and biblically about this claim. While patternists would agree with the conclusion — that Jesus has the same substance as God according to his divine nature; he is truly God — we would disagree that this has anything to do with Jesus’ sonship. he is not the son of God through his divinity; rather, he is the son of God through his humanity, being created in the image of God.

That statement of course is imprecise, bringing us back to the original purpose of this article. Trinitarians object that not all image-bearers are sons of God, thus the patternist’s insistence on a human source for Jesus’ sonship is problematic. With the backdrop of this article in place however, we can now further nuance the patternist claim to address this objection.

When we say that Jesus’ sonship comes from his image-bearing, this appeals to the natural relationship that a child has with his natural father. Jesus’ human nature was a direct creation of God (Luk 1:35), making him a direct descendant of God — the first that the world had seen since Adam. As with any other instance of image-bearing, this naturally created (or more precisely, continued) a father/son relationship between Jesus and God, that in his case was never broken. So while it’s true that not all image-bearers are sons of God, due to the broken relationships produced by sin, in Jesus’ case the father/son relationship was a natural result of his image-bearing, not the result of adoption, or any other mechanism.

In the case of Christians, who are adopted into the family of God, it is also imprecise to claim that we are sons of God because we bear the image of God. While it’s true that we all bear the image of God, it’s equally true that non-Christians also bear the image of God, yet are not regarded as sons of God. So a more precise statement would be that image-bearing is required to be in the family of God (he does not adopt giraffes or other creatures outside of his kind), but it is not sufficient. Both image-bearing and adoption are required to join our brother Jesus in the family as sons and heirs of God.

Nevertheless, in both cases it is precisely because we are creatures, of the same kind as God, that we are eligible to be called his sons. Jesus is a direct son and creation, while we are adopted descendants of God. But in both cases, it is our image-bearing as creatures that enables us to be God’s children.

Here it could be objected that I haven’t proven the patternist point, that Jesus’ sonship flows from his humanity. Rather, I’ve simply allowed it as another possible interpretation alongside the trinitarian conception of Christ’s sonship as a property of his divinity. However, the purpose of this article isn’t to prove the patternist point; it’s simply to answer the trinitarian objection. Arguing in favor of the position is left to other articles.

But the basic argument is that image-bearing provides us with a well-established doctrinal basis for understanding the sonship of Jesus. When we come to New Testament claims that Jesus is the son of God, we already have tremendous amounts of old testament scripture that develops the context of what means to the Jewish mind. To bear someone’s image is to be that person’s biological descendent — and barring any broken relationships, to be that person’s son and heir. So if the New Testament teaches us that Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15), that he is truly human (Heb 2:5-17), that he is the “son of God” (Heb 26:63-64) and “co-heirs” with God’s other children (Rom 8:17), then why would we interpret his sonship outside of that rich context, as something entirely unrelated to God’s image in mankind? The trinitarian conception of the Son generates a lot of new doctrine, and new interpretations of old terminology, that seems very foreign to a natural, in-context reading of scripture. Certainly this is done from good intentions, to address various problems that come from a natural reading (e.g. the preincarnate sonship problem). But perhaps it’s worth stepping back and seeing if there are other ways to deal with these problems. without having to entirely separate the sonship of Christ from that of his brethren.