# The Image Of God



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 18, 2008)

PB:

What are some thoughts out there on this. I have come to a section in my Symbolics Class where the image of God is taught in relation to man. Dr. Waldron has taught, with supporting Scripture, that man IS the image of God. Language is used such as man being the representitive of God on earth. 

I am not disagreeing with it, but I must admit it makes me uncomfortable. I am not accustomed to thinking of man in this regard. I am accustomed to thinking of Christ in this regard. And I have Roman Catholic dogma in my ears calling the pope "God on earth" 

How do you understand man as being the image of God? 

RB


----------



## Herald (Sep 18, 2008)

It's interesting that Paul calls Jesus Christ "the image of God."



> 2 Corinthians 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.



Certainly man can fulfill the role as God's representative on earth, because it is God's image that we have been created. But can an exegetical argument be made that man _is_ the image of God? I see a plethora of exegetical and doctrinal hurdles that need to be leaped in order to come to that conclusion. But I am open to correction.


----------



## smhbbag (Sep 18, 2008)

Colossians 1 also refers to Christ this way:


> He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.



I am likewise open to hearing the arguments for it, but I would think there is a great deal of difference between being made _in_ the image of God, and _being_ the image of God.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 18, 2008)

J.A. Motyer has this to say (in the _Evangelical Dictionary of Theology_):

_Man in the Image of God._


> Man is the crown of the creativity of God. The threefold use of the verb “to create” in Gen. 1:27 marks man as both the creature par excellence and the perfect creative act. This human uniqueness is summed up in the description “in our image, after our likeness,” words that are used uniformly throughout the OT of outward form or shape, and this must be their leading idea here too. This does not mean that visibility, form, and shape are part of the divine essence for God is Spirit. Nonetheless, the OT reveals (e.g., Judg. 13:3, 6, 10, 15) that there is an outward shape uniquely suited to (thought not essential to) the divine perfection, and in that image (selem) and likeness (dĕmût) man was created. But every other aspect also of man's nature is related, directly or indirectly in the Genesis narrative, to the image of God: matrimonial (1:26-27; 5:1-2), governmental (1:28), spiritual (subject to personal address by God: 1:28, contrast the bare fiat of 1:22), moral (2:15-17), and rational (2:19-20). The uniqueness of the divine image permeates human nature and constitutes a definition of what man truly is.


----------



## Kim G (Sep 18, 2008)

smhbbag said:


> I would think there is a great deal of difference between being made _in_ the image of God, and _being_ the image of God.



This is my thought as well. Perhaps a definition of the word "image" would help us.

My thought is, the "image" of God is God Himself (Christ, in this case). Being "like" or "in" the image of God means that you have characteristics and similarities of the TRUE image, which is God. Right??


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 18, 2008)

I was going to look up some passages first, rather than pulling info out of my brain, but haven't had the chance. Here goes:

First, I think your instructor might be mixing two concepts together: we certainly have the idea in the New Testament of our being representative of God -- the church being the body of Christ, our sanctification leads us to be more like Christ, and so forth. So in that sense, we could be seen as representatives, particularly of the second person of the Godhead.

That seems like a distinct concept from our being created in God's image as given in Genesis. And even there, we have to keep in mind that when God gives us his image, he never limits himself nor extends us past our limits as humans. In other words, we cannot reflect his omnipresence, God is not limited by our lack of omniscience, and so forth.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 18, 2008)

Reformed Baptist said:


> PB:What are some thoughts out there on this. I have come to a section in my Symbolics Class where the image of God is taught in relation to man. Dr. Waldron has taught, with supporting Scripture, that man IS the image of God. Language is used such as man being the representitive of God on earth. I am not disagreeing with it, but I must admit it makes me uncomfortable. I am not accustomed to thinking of man in this regard. I am accustomed to thinking of Christ in this regard. And I have Roman Catholic dogma in my ears calling the pope "God on earth"
> How do you understand man as being the image of God? RB



Geoff, good topic. I believe both Scriptural and extra-Scriptural data support Dr. Waldron's conclusion. Here are some arguments:

The debate sometimes centers upon the two prepositions that precede “image” and “likeness.” Notice again Genesis 1:26: "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness.” The English word “in” translates the Hebrew _beth_ preposition. The English phrase “according to” translates the Hebrew _kaph_ preposition. If we compare Genesis 1:26 with 5:3, we find that both of these prepositions are used interchangeably. The English prepositions seem to imply that the image of God is something different from and external to man himself. In other words, the text seems to say that God created man in a way that corresponded to his image, as if God’s image was something distinct from man. 

These two prepositions, however, share another meaning in common—that of identity. Thus, in Exodus 6:3 God tells Moses that He had revealed Himself to the patriarchs “as [beth preposition] El Shaddai." God did not reveal himself to them as something that merely corresponded to God Almighty. Rather He revealed Himself to them _in the capacity of_ El Shaddai. In Nehemiah 7:2, Nehemiah uses the kaph preposition to tell us that his brother Hanani “was [_kaph_] a faithful man.” He is not just like a faithful man. He is a faithful man. Thus, we may say that God created man to be the image of God. The image of God is not something outside of man or inside of man. The image of God is man. 

There are other considerations that support this conclusion. First of all, in ancient Near Eastern religious literature, kings (and priests) are referred to _as the image of their deity_, not merely as corresponding to some the image of their god. For example, the Egyptian god Amon Re is represented as saying to Pharaoh Amenophis III (1390-1352 B.C.): “You are by beloved son, who came forth from my members, my image, whom I have put on earth, I have given to you to rule the earth in peace.” In light of this ancient Near Eastern parallel, Hans Wolff writes, "Man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies." (BTW, I believe this ANE parallels [and there are many more] help our understanding of the royal dimension of what it means to be God's image which is usually missed by the Early Church fathers, the Medieval scholastics, and even the Reformers and Puritans.) 

Second, in 1 Corinthians 11:7 the apostle Paul explicitly states, “man is the image and glory of God.” He does not even use a preposition. He simply identifies man as God’s image. 

Third, the NT writers refer to Jesus Christ as the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:14) or exact representation of God (Heb. 1:3). Since Christ is _the second Adam_ (Rom. 5:12-19; 8:3; 1 Cor. 15:45-46), then we would expect a parallel between Christ as God’s image and mankind as God’s image. 

Fourth, if the “image of God” is something external to man and if man is created to correspond to that image, then it might be asked whether that image is male or female in form. If male in form, then how can it be said that woman is also created after the image of God? 

Finally, since the concept of “image” almost always has a three-dimensional, physical-material connotation, then to posit some external image as the pattern for man’s creation would be to suggest the preexistence of some material object. Such a pre-existent material object would be inconsistent with the doctrine of God’s spirituality and non-eternality of matter. 

For these reasons, it seems best to conclude that the “image” and “likeness” of God refer to what man actually is, not merely to some external pattern to which man corresponds.

See Bavinck and Grudem as further reading.


----------



## Reformed Baptist (Sep 18, 2008)

Thanks for the reply Dr. Bob. I have both Bavinck and Grudem.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 18, 2008)

Hello Bob,

Welcome to the PB! Although I'm paedobaptist, I have great respect for Sam Waldron; his clear thinking has helped me greatly in certain theological areas.

My concern is sort of the inverse of _man_ as the image of God; and that is, what is the image of God Himself? This is an opportune time and thread for me to trot out my ignorance (I've been waiting for the occasion!); it pertains to how are we to understand / conceptualize / _visualize?_ the image of God our Father? A while ago I wrote this on a thread:



> We are often told that God does not have a body, and thus not an “ear” or “arm” or “eye” etc, that these are simply anthropomorphisms. I know that the Lord Jesus said “God is a Spirit” (John 4:24), and yet we see – in visions of the great Throne – in Daniel 7:9 and 13:
> 
> I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire…
> 
> ...



Are we to understand these as mere anthropomorphic “images” meant for we humans to help us, or do they indicate some kind of reality? Reading Charnock on these things I came away thinking, No, there is no form to God whatsoever.

But why is it so clearly portrayed – the Father sitting on a throne in brilliant majesty, interacting with Christ Jesus?

How am I to conceive of God the Father in my mind, is He a Person, sitting on the throne – as the Scripture depicts – and I may approach Him thus as His son and subject, or am I to conceive of Him as amorphous? 

Any help would be appreciated.

Steve


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 19, 2008)

Is there no help for the likes of me in my ignorance?


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 19, 2008)

I'd be the last to call you ignorant; here's a thought: shouldn't we _start_ with God (In the beginning _God_ ...) and then turn our attention to understanding the theology of man? In other words, if we start trying to understand God in human terms, aren't we likely to end up in a position that would be less than glorifying to him? 

Even the term anthropomorphic gives me willies, even though I understand what people are trying to say. I am grateful that God does indeed give us comfort through things that appeal to our senses both in the word (every time I work the soil or cook, I think of imagery from the scriptures) and in practice (the Lord's table). Perhaps rather than use the anthro term, it would be better to describe the use of terms such as "strong arm" and "sitting" as being more like a very patient father instructing a very small child. Just a thought .....


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 19, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Is there no help for the likes of me in my ignorance?



Greetings, Steve. I'm sorry for not responding sooner to your post. I forgot to subscribe to this thread so I wasn't aware of any further feedback until I happened to check it a few minutes ago. 

Regarding your question, I'm still included to interpret man's identity as the image of God rather than as corresponding to the image of God. One might argue that Christ is the image to which Adam corresponded. But the term "image" (Heb. _tselem_) overwhelmingly refers to _a concrete, physical two or three dimensional replica_ of something. For example, _tselem_ is used of idols (Num 33:52), sculptured statuettes (1 Sam. 6:5, 11), a large statue of a man (Dan 3:1-3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18), and two-dimensional painted or carved image upon a wall (Ezek 23:14). In the NT, _eikon_ is used for the engraving of a human face upon a coin (Matt 22:20), idols (Rom 1:23), or a visible representation of the beast [i.e., anti-Christ] (Rev 13:14, 15; 14:9, 19; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4). To summarize the biblical data, the term “image” refers to a two or three-dimensional visible replica of an original that is predominantly concrete and physical in nature, rather than abstract and immaterial. Consequently, it doesn't seem likely that God created Adam after a physical three dimensional *pre-incarnate* Christ. Of course, when the Son took human flesh and became the Second Adam, he also become the image of God par excellence. 

This raises the question of man’s physical body vis-a-vis the imago Dei. If man is the image of God in the totality of his being, then in what way—if any—is his physical body related to God? Since the Scripture represents God as a bodiless spirit (Deut. 4:12; John 4:24), theologians have hesitated to include man’s body as part of the image. J. Gresham Machen, for example, writes, “The ‘image of God’ cannot well refer to man’s body, because God is a spirit; it must therefore refer to man’s soul.” 

However, I believe there are two good reasons for viewing man’s physical body as an inherent part of being the image of God. First of all, man’s body is what makes His resemblance to God both concrete and visible. Man is the “image of God” precisely because he is a three-dimensional, concrete replica. For that reason, angels are not “images” of God. In the second place, the physical capacities and actions of man’s body are analogous to God’s capacities and actions. Thus, the Scripture speaks of God as having eyes, ears, a mouth, a face, hands and arms, a mind, and a heart, because God has the capacity to see, to hear, to speak, to sing, to feel, to think, and to act. These so-called “anthropomorphisms” of Scripture do not, as some suggest, reflect “the necessary limitations of language and human thought.” Instead, they reflect _the divinely intended purpose of man’s body_. God purposely created man’s body to reflect His likeness. In summary, we should view man in the totality of his being, body and soul, as a visible replica God.

I realize I haven't directly answered your question. What about the prophetic depictions, like that of Daniel, which depicts the "Ancient of Days" seated on a throne (ch. 7)? What of the theophanies and seemingly physical appearances of "the Angel of Yahweh"? The apocalyptic visions might be explained as metaphorical and symbolic language. But the appearance of the Angel of Yahweh conversing with Abraham and eating food, seems to suggest some kind of physical manifestation. Yet, I'm uncomfortable with the thought that God has an eternal physical body (which is what Mormons argue). So I guess I would presently chalk up the prophetic visions and theophanic manifestations as, perhaps, a combination of metaphorical language describing with familiar language a realm beyond our current ability to comprehend as well as unique appearances of God in physical form--that form not being intrinsic to his being but used provisionally and mediately in God's dealings with man until the time appointed for the Son to take human flesh and dwell among us. 

Hope this helps. And a pleasure to make your acquaintance!


----------



## Herald (Sep 19, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Is there no help for the likes of me in my ignorance?



Steve, if you're ignorant may there be more like you!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 19, 2008)

Don't we have to distinguish between Christ the image of the Father and the image of God?


----------



## kalawine (Sep 19, 2008)

First Corinthians 11:7

7A man ought not to cover his head,* since he is the image and glory of God;*


----------



## kalawine (Sep 19, 2008)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Reformed Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > PB:What are some thoughts out there on this. I have come to a section in my Symbolics Class where the image of God is taught in relation to man. Dr. Waldron has taught, with supporting Scripture, that man IS the image of God. Language is used such as man being the representitive of God on earth. I am not disagreeing with it, but I must admit it makes me uncomfortable. I am not accustomed to thinking of man in this regard. I am accustomed to thinking of Christ in this regard. And I have Roman Catholic dogma in my ears calling the pope "God on earth"
> ...



What he (you, Bob) said.  I agree Bob. I don't think this could be covered any more clearly.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Sep 20, 2008)

kalawine said:


> First Corinthians 11:7
> 
> 7A man ought not to cover his head,* since he is the image and glory of God;*


*

Kevin. Nice to meet you. I see by the picture that you're a guitar player. My son also plays acoustic and some electric. He likes some of Phil Keaggy's music. Do you have a favorite genre or musician?*


----------



## Iconoclast (Sep 20, 2008)

Adam in his pre-fallen state might have been or presented a better Image, then the broken fallen image that we see now.
Jesus as the true and perfect Image of the invisible God shows why and how in the purpose of God man in Christ is to be reigning above angelic beings, In Psalm 8


> 3When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
> 
> 4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
> 
> ...


 Quoted in Hebrews 2, linked to the incarnation and particular atonement of our Lord. This section of scripture is so great a comfort to all who have saving trusted in Jesus by a God given faith,those who have fled for refuge.


> 5For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.
> 
> 6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Sep 22, 2008)

Thanks, Jean, and Bob, for your responses. I realize that this is holy ground, and I should take off my shoes, and tread lightly. My question pertains to how I should apprehend my heavenly Father; I have asked Him about this very thing, and it may be He will answer me through my brothers or sisters here.

I know that, I think for the sake of our limitedness, He localizes Himself as One to be approached on His throne, as Jesus says, "I am set down with my Father in his throne" (Rev 3:21). We see God the Father sitting on the throne of glory in many places in Scripture. In the OT we have the "figures of the true", and the mercy seat spoken of in Exodus 37:9 corresponds with the "throne of grace" in Hebrews 4:16, where "we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." When I approach my Father God, I do it as (my being) in Christ, and present myself before His throne; there give my thanks, my tears, my petitions, my songs.

It is always to the mercy seat I repair. Jesus said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9), and I know this pertains to the character of God, His essential being and nature, and I see "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:6). So I know my Father in Spirit, the Spirit that is in Christ.

Perhaps you are right, Bob, when you say,

So I guess I would presently chalk up the prophetic visions and theophanic manifestations as, perhaps, a combination of metaphorical language describing with familiar language a realm beyond our current ability to comprehend as well as unique appearances of God in physical form--that form not being intrinsic to his being but used provisionally and mediately in God's dealings with man until the time appointed for the Son to take human flesh and dwell among us.​
I cannot visualize the form of a Person on the throne, even though Daniel 7 and Rev 4 and 5 do, but I do visualize the throne whereupon He is, and where Christ is seated with Him -- and Christ Jesus is _not_ the Father, although one with Him in nature and essence -- and I approach Him there.

I cannot even say He is "amorphous", as that seems to me an irreverent label, a little human word and concept.

I suppose it should suffice me to know, and to say, I live in the name of my Savior, "accepted in the beloved" (Eph 1:6) by Father, whom I know in Spirit, and whom I shall apprehend directly when I finish this earthly course; and until then rejoice in His love -- sight unseen -- from which nothing can separate me.

Thanks for engaging me in this seeking to understand.


----------

