Bible Study: Made in the Image of God — Part 1: Distortions

For years, disabled and neurodivergent people have been told—directly or indirectly—that their bodies sit uneasily within the doctrine of the Image of God. At a recent disability conference, I explored why these distortions persist, and why Scripture itself tells a very different story. Below is the first movement of that study. 

Movement One: Distortion

I'm Martyn. A perpetual theological student, specialising in disability theology, a powerchair user, and neurodivergent. Today we're exploring being made in the image of God.

We will explore what Scripture teaches about the Image of God, but we need to name the ways this doctrine has been distorted. These distortions shape how many Christians read the Bible, and they affect disabled and neurodivergent people deeply. While this has happened throughout history, these distortions still impact lives today. So we begin by clearing away what the Image of God does not mean.

In the Ancient Near Eastern world, only kings were called this, as they, with their statues, embodied divine presence and guidance. Scripture, like Genesis, breaks that pattern, declaring every human bears God’s image. No power, class, or body hierarchy.

As divine bearers, our embodied reflects God’s creative intention.

Disabled people, however, for millennia have been treated as the exceptions, disruptions, and spiritual and physical defects. The problem isn’t Scripture itself, but how it’s been read, preached, and weaponised.

Leviticus 21:17–23 has caused damage. Priests with “blemishes and defects”—blindness, lameness, limb differences—are barred from altar service. This distorts Disabled bodies are unfit for God.

Leviticus operates within an ancient purity system. The altar symbolised ritual purity and perfection, not human worth.

There’s something even more damaging here. Leviticus also says that defective animal offerings displease God. Over time, interpreters blurred the line between those animals and disabled people. If a blemished animal was unfit for the altar, then a blemished priest must also be unfit for God. Disabled bodies were treated like defective sacrifices instead of human beings made in God’s image. The focus shifted from the person to the defect.

For centuries, that distinction has been ignored, and disabled people have been told—explicitly or implicitly—their bodies were less holy or welcome.

Deuteronomy 28:28–29, "the Lord will strike you with madness, blindness, and confusion of mind," presents disability as a covenant curse and the consequences of Israel’s collective disobedience.

Across history, "mental disorientation" and similar language was wrongly applied to neurodivergent people. No longer are we gifted images of God. Instead, this has turned into a theology where disabilities and neurodivergence are results of divine judgement.

Instead of being seen as image‑bearers, they were treated as warnings. That distortion still lingers today in the way people talk about anxiety, depression, psychosis, autism, ADHD — as if these are spiritual failures rather than human realities.

Once these distortions take root, they don’t stay in one passage. They spread. They shape how people read everything else. We actually see this distortion alive in the New Testament. In John 9, the disciples look at a blind man and ask Jesus whether he was cursed or whether his parents sinned. That’s Deuteronomy‑style thinking — absorbed into culture, repeated for generations, over 300 – 400 years, and treated as normal theology. If a belief can spread that far in just a few centuries, imagine how deeply it can embed itself over two thousand years.

Today, Disability scholars agree, this text is using disability as a metaphor for disorientation and shouldn’t be flattened into literal diagnosis, where disabled people carry shame that Scripture or God never asked them to.

More of these distortions carried into the New Testament and Christian interpretation.

2 Corinthians 12:7–10 discusses Paul’s “thorn in the flesh," which has been used to imply disabilities are spiritually weak or a lesson for others. Paul’s point is that God’s grace is sufficient and present in human weakness.

Instead of this becoming a source of comfort, disabled people have heard, “Your weakness is the problem God is trying to fix.”

This pattern continues when we reach 1 Corinthians 12. Paul’s metaphor was meant to show that every member is indispensable, but across Christian history it’s been flipped. Disabled people were labelled the “weaker parts,” treated as needing special compensation, and used to justify conditional inclusion. Strength was celebrated, disability treated as inconvenient, and worth decided by ability.

None of these texts intended to rank bodies or suggest some people bear God’s image more fully. That's generational, millennia-long, inherited cultural ableism—from pulpits, Bible studies, and casual comments about strength, Independence, productivity, normality—projected onto Scripture.

Three patterns emerge.

1. Cultural ideals became biblical interpretation.

When a culture prizes strength, speed, independence, and productivity, disability is read as a deficit.

2. Metaphors were mishandled.

When Scripture is read only at surface level, without theological depth, disability becomes a literal verdict on neurodiverse and disabled people.

3. Purity logic was universalised.

Temple rules about priests and blemished sacrifices treat disabled people like defective animal offerings, creating a hierarchy of ministry worthy bodies. That logic still shapes our priesthood laws, including Canon C4 paragraph 3, requiring candidates whose “physical or mental infirmity” is judged to hinder their duties.

These patterns appeared in the recent Fearfully and Wonderfully Made report, which documented how these distortions still shape clergy and congregational life.

The result is a tragic inversion of the doctrine of the Image of God. Disabled people were told they are less capable, worthy, or able to represent God.

Discussion. Lets take 5 minutes to discuss these 2 questions.

1. How have these distortions shaped the way people read Scripture and see disabled and neurodivergent bodies?

2. Which distortion felt most familiar to you, and why do you think it has lasted so long?

If you would like to read part 2 or part 3, you can by clicking the links here.