# Were Angels Created In The Image of God?



## KMK

> Matt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, *but are as the angels of God in heaven*.



In the resurrection, man is restored to the image of God in which he was created. 

In the resurrection, man will be as the angels of God.

The angles of God must, therefore, bear the image of God.

When did they receive the image of God unless it was in creation?

What is the Reformed stance on this?


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

I'm not aware of any Scripture that says that angels are/were created in God's image.

But perhaps I'm missing/forgetting something.


----------



## Mushroom

Is this in reference to anything more than marital status and gender distinctions?


----------



## KMK

Brad said:


> Is this in reference to anything more than marital status and gender distinctions?



I tend to agree with you, but Calvin says:



> But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Mt. 22:30), our highest perfection will consist in being like them. Institutes; I. 15. 3


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Might I suggest that Calvin is wrong on this one?


----------



## Mushroom

> But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Mt. 22:30), our highest perfection will consist in being like them. Institutes; I. 15. 3


Well, it is evident that we will share some characteristics with angels in glory, so to that extent they must share characteristics with that image. But since we definitely won't share ALL of the characteristics of God's image, it is also evident that the holy angels won't either. Being created in His image can't mean that we will be exact replications of God, but to some extent. Maybe the extent is different for angels than it is for men?


----------



## KMK

Brad said:


> But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Mt. 22:30), our highest perfection will consist in being like them. Institutes; I. 15. 3
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it is evident that we will share some characteristics with angels in glory, so to that extent they must share characteristics with that image. But since we definitely won't share ALL of the characteristics of God's image, it is also evident that the holy angels won't either. Being created in His image can't mean that we will be exact replications of God, but to some extent. Maybe the extent is different for angels than it is for men?
Click to expand...


Well, for one thing, angels don't have physical bodies. If our physical nature bears even one iota of the image of God, that is one iota of God's image no angel ever had.

For the record, here is what Berkhof says:



> But in this statement the great Reformer does not have due regard for the point of comparison in the statement of Jesus. In many cases the assumption that the angels were also created in the image of God results from a conception of the image which limits it to our moral and intellectual qualities. But the image also includes the body of man and his dominion over the lower creatures. The angels are never represented as lords of creation... Systematic Theology; pg. 206



Perhaps Calvin is saying that the angels bear the image of God spiritually.


----------



## a mere housewife

I had thought that being in the image of God was not a reference to our physical, but to our moral/spiritual nature?

It seems like, insofar as our bodies reflect the glory of God, so does a giraffe's - but he is not 'In God's image'?


----------



## KMK

a mere housewife said:


> I had thought that being in the image of God was not a reference to our physical, but to our moral/spiritual nature?
> 
> It seems like, insofar as our bodies reflect the glory of God, so does a giraffe's - but he is not 'In God's image'?



Except for the fact that a giraffe does not have dominion and neither does an angel. The only way it can be said that man has dominion is in a physical sense, I'm thinking. Man does not, in his spirit, possess dominion over things physical, right?


----------



## a mere housewife

I think I understand -- our physicality can't be divorced from our image bearing as a whole. Do you think that it can be said that man is the 'image of God' for the _physical _creation but the angels are in the image of God after their own nature? (I'm sorry if that is phrased badly.)


----------



## Peairtach

a mere housewife said:


> I think I understand -- our physicality can't be divorced from our image bearing as a whole. Do you think that it can be said that man is the 'image of God' for the _physical _creation but the angels are in the image of God after their own nature? (I'm sorry if that is phrased badly.)



Our bodies must be suitable "vehicles" for our image-bearing in the way that a dog's body is not. 

Remember that Christ will eternally have a Man's soul and body, albeit glorified.

*Quote from Brad*


> Is this in reference to anything more than marital status and gender distinctions?



We're not told that we will be androgynous in Heaven. Are the angels androgynous spirits or androgynous when they appear on Earth? Speaking reverently Christ appeared as a man after His resurrection and to the Apostle John on Patmos.

I agree that this is more than somewhat mysterious, as to what we shall be in perfected and glorified soul and body, because as Christ says there is no marriage, and the apostle says it has not been fully revealed what we shall be. 

We will be happy with what we shall be, otherwise the Heavenly Kingdom would not be right.

Some/all of the aspects of the New Creation are beyond our ken, just as we had no knowledge of what to expect while lying in our mums' wombs.


----------



## Mushroom

> We're not told that we will be androgynous in Heaven. Are the angels androgynous spirits or androgynous when they appear on Earth? Speaking reverently Christ appeared as a man after His resurrection and to the Apostle John on Patmos.
> 
> I agree that this is more than somewhat mysterious, as to what we shall be in perfected and glorified soul and body, because as Christ says there is no marriage, and the apostle says it has not been fully revealed what we shall be.
> 
> We will be happy with what we shall be, otherwise the Heavenly Kingdom would not be right.
> 
> Some/all of the aspects of the New Creation are beyond our ken, just as we had no knowledge of what to expect while lying in our mums' wombs.


Thanks, Richard. I was not under the impression that we would be androgynous, but your clarification is helpful.


----------



## Skyler

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Might I suggest that Calvin is wrong on this one?



*gasp* Nooo! You can't say that Calvin was wrong!!! That's just... that's heresy or something!


----------



## a mere housewife

Richard Tallach said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand -- our physicality can't be divorced from our image bearing as a whole. Do you think that it can be said that man is the 'image of God' for the _physical _creation but the angels are in the image of God after their own nature? (I'm sorry if that is phrased badly.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our bodies must be suitable "vehicles" for our image-bearing in the way that a dog's body is not.
> 
> Remember that Christ will eternally have a Man's soul and body, albeit glorified.
> 
> *Quote from Brad*
> 
> 
> 
> Is this in reference to anything more than marital status and gender distinctions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're not told that we will be androgynous in Heaven. Are the angels androgynous spirits or androgynous when they appear on Earth? Speaking reverently Christ appeared as a man after His resurrection and to the Apostle John on Patmos.
> 
> I agree that this is more than somewhat mysterious, as to what we shall be in perfected and glorified soul and body, because as Christ says there is no marriage, and the apostle says it has not been fully revealed what we shall be.
> 
> We will be happy with what we shall be, otherwise the Heavenly Kingdom would not be right.
> 
> Some/all of the aspects of the New Creation are beyond our ken, just as we had no knowledge of what to expect while lying in our mums' wombs.
Click to expand...


Thomas Goodwin says some incredibly wonderful things on this topic -- our heavenly bodies -- though I don't have the book at the moment where I read it. I will remember (I hope) to type it out when I have it again.


----------

