The Difference Between God Making Man in His “Image” and Christian Marriage Being “Like” Christ and His Church

The Bible teaches two different but connected ideas: people are made in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:26–27), and marriage is “like” the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:22–33). Being made in God’s image is an ontological reality, meaning it is built into what it means to be human. Every person, simply by being human, reflects God in a unique way and has dignity, purpose, and responsibility. This image was damaged by sin but is restored through Christ. Marriage, on the other hand, is an analogy, not a literal reflection of God’s being. Paul uses marriage as a way to illustrate how Christ loves the Church and how the Church responds to Him. This does not mean marriage and the Christ-Church relationship are the same, but that marriage serves as a living example of sacrificial love, mutual respect, and unity. Put simply, the image of God describes who all people are, while marriage points beyond itself to the gospel and the ultimate union of Christ and His people.

The distinction between God creating humanity in His “image” (Genesis 1:26–27) and the Christian marriage being “like” Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:22–33) is foundational for biblical anthropology, ecclesiology, and Christian ethics. This analysis, informed by the authority of Scripture and the ordering of God’s commandments, explores the ontological and analogical dimensions of these two concepts, drawing on biblical exegesis and peer-reviewed theological scholarship.

1. Ontological Reality: The Imago Dei

1.1. The Meaning of “Image” (Tselem) in Genesis 1:26–27

The Hebrew term tselem (“image”) in Genesis 1:26–27 signifies that humanity is created as a real, though finite, reflection of God’s being. Scholarly consensus affirms that “image” here denotes a representative function—humans are appointed as God’s vice-regents, reflecting His character and exercising stewardship over creation (Middleton 2005, 27; Clines 1968, 53). The image is not a physical likeness but a status and vocation: to represent God’s rule, to relate to Him and others, and to exercise moral and rational capacities (Wenham 1987, 30; Westermann 1984, 146).

1.2. Ontological Distinction

The imago Dei is ontological: it is a reality of human existence, grounded in the act of creation. All humans, by virtue of being human, bear the image of God. This image is intrinsic, not merely functional or relational, though it is expressed in relationship and vocation (Hoekema 1986, 69; Barth 1960, 187). The image is not lost in the Fall, though it is marred; it is restored and perfected in Christ (Colossians 1:15; Ephesians 4:24).

1.3. Theological Significance

The imago Dei grounds human dignity, equality, and moral responsibility. It is the ontological basis for the command to love God and neighbor (Matthew 22:37–40), and for the ethical imperative to treat all people with respect and justice (Middleton 2005, 27; Hoekema 1986, 69).

2. Analogical Relationship: Marriage as “Like” Christ and the Church

2.1. The Analogy in Ephesians 5:22–33

In Ephesians 5:22–33, Paul employs the Greek comparative terms hōs (“as”) and kathōs (“just as”) to draw an analogy between the marital relationship and the relationship between Christ and the Church. This analogy is not ontological but analogical: marriage is not the same as the Christ-Church union, but it is patterned after it (Lincoln 1990, 373; Barth 1974, 613).

2.2. Analogical, Not Identical

Scholars emphasize that the analogy is meant to illuminate the character and quality of marriage by reference to the Christ-Church relationship, but not to equate the two in substance or essence (Lincoln 1990, 373; Witherington 2007, 337). The use of “as” and “just as” signals that the marital relationship is a reflection, a sign, or a type of the greater reality of Christ’s sacrificial love and the Church’s responsive devotion (O’Brien 1999, 425).

2.3. Theological and Ethical Implications

The analogy serves as an ethical paradigm: husbands are called to love sacrificially, as Christ loved the Church; wives are called to respect and respond, as the Church does to Christ. The analogy transforms Greco-Roman household codes by rooting marital roles in Christlike love and mutual submission (Eph. 5:21; Lincoln 1990, 373). The relationship is mutual, self-giving, and oriented toward sanctification and unity (Witherington 2007, 337).

3. Ontological vs. Analogical: The Core Difference

3.1. Ontological (Imago Dei)

• Nature: Real, intrinsic, and universal to all humanity.
• Ground: God’s creative act; humanity’s very being.
• Function: Representation, relationship, and vocation as God’s image-bearers.
• Theological Implication: Human dignity, equality, and moral responsibility are grounded in being made in God’s image (Middleton 2005, 27; Hoekema 1986, 69).

3.2. Analogical (Marriage as “Like” Christ and the Church)

• Nature: Analogical, illustrative, and typological.
• Ground: Patterned after the redemptive relationship between Christ and the Church.
• Function: Ethical paradigm for Christian marriage; a sign pointing to a greater spiritual reality.
• Theological Implication: Marriage is a living parable of the gospel, calling spouses to embody Christlike love and mutual submission (Lincoln 1990, 373; O’Brien 1999, 425).

3.3. Covenant Theology Perspective

Covenant theology further clarifies the distinction: the imago Dei is rooted in the covenant of creation, establishing humanity’s status and vocation before God. The marriage analogy, by contrast, is rooted in the new covenant, where marriage becomes a sign of the union between Christ and His redeemed people (Robertson 1980, 93; Witsius 1822, 1:27). The former is ontological and universal; the latter is analogical and redemptive-historical.

4. Exegetical Narrative: Genesis 1:26–27 and Ephesians 5:22–33

The contrast between ontology and analogy comes into sharper focus when we turn to the biblical texts themselves. Genesis 1 narrates humanity’s creation in God’s image, while Ephesians 5 reframes the household code in light of the Christ-Church relationship. Together, these passages illustrate how Scripture grounds both anthropology and ecclesiology in complementary yet distinct ways.

4.1. Genesis 1:26–27

Genre and Context: Genesis is narrative, recounting the creation of the world and humanity. The context is the inauguration of humanity’s unique role in creation.

Textual Analysis:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.’”

• The repetition of “image” and “likeness” underscores the representative and relational nature of humanity’s creation.
• The plural “let us” hints at the relationality within God, echoed in the creation of humanity as male and female (Barth 1960, 187).
• The image is not a physical resemblance but a status and vocation: to represent God, exercise dominion, and live in relationship (Middleton 2005, 27).

4.2. Ephesians 5:22–33

Genre and Context: Ephesians is an epistle, addressing the ethical and theological life of the church. The immediate context is the “household code,” reinterpreted in light of the gospel.

Textual Analysis:
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord… Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her… This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

• The repeated use of “as” and “just as” (hōs, kathōs) signals analogy, not identity (Lincoln 1990, 373).
• The passage is structured around mutual submission (Eph. 5:21) and sacrificial love, transforming ancient household norms (Witherington 2007, 337).
• The “mystery” (mystērion) is the revelation that marriage points beyond itself to the union of Christ and the Church (O’Brien 1999, 425).

Conclusion

The difference between God making man in His “image” and Christian marriage being “like” Christ and His Church is fundamentally the difference between ontological reality and analogical relationship. The imago Dei is an intrinsic, ontological status bestowed on all humanity by God’s creative act, grounding human dignity, vocation, and moral responsibility. In contrast, the analogy of marriage to Christ and the Church is a typological and ethical paradigm, calling Christian spouses to embody the gospel in their relationship. The former is universal and foundational to human identity; the latter is particular, redemptive-historical, and points beyond itself to the ultimate eschatological union of Christ and His people (Rev. 19:7–9).

References

Barth, Karl. 1960. Church Dogmatics, Vol. III/1: The Doctrine of Creation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Clines, David J. A. 1968. “The Image of God in Man.” Tyndale Bulletin 19: 53–103.

Hoekema, Anthony A. 1986. Created in God’s Image. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Lincoln, Andrew T. 1990. Ephesians. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 42. Dallas: Word Books.

Middleton, J. Richard. 2005. The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1. Grand Rapids: Brazos.

O’Brien, Peter T. 1999. The Letter to the Ephesians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Robertson, O. Palmer. 1980. The Christ of the Covenants. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed.

Westermann, Claus. 1984. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg.

Wenham, Gordon J. 1987. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 1. Dallas: Word Books.

Witherington, Ben, III. 2007. The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Witsius, Herman. 1822. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Doig and Stirling.