HELLBOUND 2015

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." - Luke 16:19-31 KJV

Betraying Grace
"It is a tribute to Dr. Ronald Sider that his book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, has captured the attention of so much of the evangelical Christian world. He writes with conviction and compassion -- a compassion for relieving the poor and hungry of this world which one could only wish more people shared, especially more financially comfortable Christians. From what has been said above, those who define their Christian perspective and ethic according to the Scriptures should have no difficulty endorsing the goal set forth by Dr. Sider: viz. that of getting Christians activated to meet the genuine needs of the poor. Our evaluation of the means advocated by Dr. Sider, however, cannot be as positive. I believe that a proper reading of Scripture does not substantiate, but rather contradicts, many of Dr. Sider's proposals.

This is not the place to engage in a factual analysis of Dr. Sider's approach to helping the hungry of the world, although a significant critique could be undertaken here. It is rather our purpose to offer a normative, Biblical evaluation of his approach, particularly as he advocates the intervention and compulsive agency of the state to improve the outward economic circumstances of the poor. Such advocacy is on a collision course with the teaching of God's word. This is evident first, and in the broadest sense, because it abandons the gracious character of Christian charity.

As we can see from the preceding list of means for helping the poor, there are some provisions which are a matter of justice -- that is, protecting legitimate civil rights against those who would oppress the poor by taking advantage of them (e.g., fraud in the marketplace, prejudice in the courts). But other provisions are of a different character altogether, being a matter of grace (or charity) which proceeds from the heart and leads us voluntarily to feed the poor, lend to them, take up offerings, etc.

When someone possess a right, he may claim justice by making a demand upon others; if he has a right (say, to freedom of worship), then the rest of us have a corresponding duty (here, to forbear his chosen liturgy) -- and the state may impose punitive sanctions for my violating that duty. This is "justice." Now obviously the scope of our moral obligation before God exceeds the scope of our enforceable duties within the civil order of the state. God may require me not to snub a grouchy neighbor (and will consider this in the judgment of the final day), but this does not turn a cheerful greeting into a matter of justice -- as though it were my neighbor's right, and the state may punish me for depriving him of "justice"! It should rather be said that by snubbing the grouchy neighbor I have not been "gracious" to him (and have not treated him as God has treated me). The virtue which I lack will come only by the internal, sanctifying work of God; it will not be produced by the compulsion or threats of the state. The state is an agency of justice, not grace.

Justice and grace (or charity) should also be distinguished when we are thinking of God Himself. The theological concept of God's essential character is logically different from that of God's eternal purposes. The latter denotes His good pleasure which is not constrained or necessary (and thus could have been otherwise) -- such as His choice to send His Son into this world graciously to die for sinners. The former concept denotes what is always and necessarily true of God -- such as His abhorrence of theft. The prohibition of stealing stems from God's unchanging character; it is not an open question whether God might choose to condemn or rather condone stealing. On the other hand, the provision of a saving sacrifice or the granting of regeneration to a sinner stems from God's eternal purpose; necessity did not (could not) constrain it, but God graciously chose it in His good pleasure. It is crucial that evangelical Christians draw a distinction between these two concepts of justice and grace, lest the nature of the gospel message itself be obscured. 

Unfortunately Dr. Sider has not been careful to do so. He advocates what he calls "structural change" such that the state would compel and enforce certain provisions intended to help the poor (like guaranteed income and prices, trade preferences, commodity agreements, land redistribution, foreign grants of economic aid, etc.).About these changes he writes: "Yahweh wills institutionalized structures (rather than mere charity) which systematically and regularly reduce the gap between the rich and the poor." He is forthright by indicating that "what is needed is a change in public policy" -- thus calling "on the government to legislate." His thesis is pointedly stated: "The texts we have examined clearly show that God wills justice, not mere charity."Dr. Sider is pressing for more than charity or grace. He is blunt that certain social policies preferential to the poor are a matter of justice -- to be made a right which the state enforces with its awesome power to punish. Note the stress upon "justice" in this passage:


God wills prosperity with justice. But that does not mean that wealthy persons who make Christmas baskets and give to relief have satisfied God's demand. God wills justice for the poor. And justice, as we have seen, means things like the Jubilee and the sabbatical remission of debts. It means economic structures that check the emergence of extremes of wealth and poverty. It means massive economic sharing among the people of God. Prosperity without that kind of biblical concern for justice unambiguously signifies disobedience. In the broadest sense, then, our objection to Dr. Sider's proposed means to the end of helping the poor is that it abandons the gracious character of Christian charity. By calling upon the state to enforce certain economic provisions, thereby compelling people to show preference for the poor, Dr. Sider is no longer talking about love which is practiced from the heart self-sacrificially. He has tried to turn grace into justice, only to distort them both." - Extracted from Helping the Poor Without Feeding the Beast by Greg L. Bahnsen. Read the whole article HERE.

God's Plan
"There is no doubt that the Bible teaches that faithful people who are wealthy have an important role in God’s plan. Some exemplary people in the Bible, like Abraham (Gen 13:2), Barzillai (2 Sam. 19:32), the Shunemite woman who helped Elisha (2 Kings 4:8), and Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57), were specifically described as being wealthy. After saying that the rich must not be haughty, Paul says that “God . . . richly provides us with everything to enjoy” (1 Tim. 6:17). Enjoying the things that money can buy is not necessarily wrong. At the same time it is significant that each of these four godly wealthy people mentioned were commended for their generosity.

Wealthy Christians can honor Christ especially by being humble, generous, and godly while being wealthy. Poor Christians can honor him especially by being contented, full of faith, generous, and godly while being poor. It is clear that in the Bible wealth is far less important than contentment, joy, peace, holiness, love, and generosity. People with these characteristics are, according to the Bible, truly prosperous whether they are economically rich or poor." - Extracted from IS IT GOD’S WILL FOR ALL CHRISTIANS TO BE WEALTHY? by Ajith Fernando. You can read the whole article HERE.

Jesus Teaches that Regeneration Precedes Faith by John Hendryx

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (John 6:37)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64But there are some of you who do not believe
...And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." (John 6:63, 65)

According to Scripture, all people are born dead in sin (Eph 2:1). This simply means that, as a result of the Fall, people are born without the Holy Spirit and therefore, (left to themselves and being spiritually dead) are hostile to Christ (Rom. 8:7) and unable to understand to spiritual things (1 Cor 1:21). It does not mean they can do (or think) nothing in their fallen state, but it means they can do nothing spiritual or redemptive ... that they will always think God's word is foolish (1 Cor 2:14) until the Holy Spirit, who comes from the outside, works grace in their hearts (Ezek 11:19-20). The natural man may be alive to carnal things, but he is dead to spiritual things. So to the question: can any person come to faith in Christ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, both the Arminian and the Calvinist would definitively answer "no".

The Arminian asserts that this work of the Holy Spirit (this "prevenient grace" that temporarily gives the power of free choice) is ultimately resistible by the fallen sinner. Arminian's affirm that man, apart from grace, hates the light and will not come into the light. And because of this, the Spirit grants them a kind of post-regenerate - pre-conversion state where he is, for a time, lifted out of his moral depravity and given the opportunity to receive or reject the free offer of Christ in the gospel. To be a just God, most Arminians reason, God must give all people an equal opportunity to choose whether to believe or not. And this opportunity is granted, they claim, through prevenient grace. As most Arminians will admit, however, this "semi-regenerate" state is logically, rather than exegetically deduced. On the other hand, the Calvinist is convinced that the Bible teaches that regenerative grace itself opens our blind eyes, unplugs our deaf ears and gives us a new heart (Ezek 36:26, John 6:63) making God's call effectual, infallibly bringing the sinner to faith in Jesus Christ.

Arminian synergists assert that prevenient grace resolves the problem of human boasting since God initiates with grace. But in reality this sleight of hand does not resolve the problem at all and only begs the question. For if God gives this prevenient grace to everybody, we must ask: why do some respond positively to Christ and not others? What makes them to differ? Jesus Christ or something else? The problem of boasting is not removed, for if God gives grace to everybody and only some believe, then the heart that believes still thinks that it made the wiser decision by improving on grace while others did not. The person affirming prevenient grace still must ultimately attribute his repenting and believing to his own wisdom, prudence, sound judgment, or good sense. So in the Arminian belief system, they are not willing to confront the obvious question of why some believe and not others? The only answer I have ever heard to this question in all my years debating this was "because some believed". But, this avoids the question, because I did not ask them what they did, but why they did it? And the "why" seems to be a question that Jesus goes out of his way to answer. (John 8:46-47 & John 10:26)

There are many texts which affirm beyond doubt that regeneration is indeed monergistic ... that the implanting of the new heart is what gives rise to understanding, love of Christ and faith. One of the most important discussions in the Bible about this is where Jesus was speaking to some fellow Jews who did not believe in him (John 6:64) . He said to them:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” ( 6:37) ”

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44)

"… no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." ( 6:65)

The reason I bring these three verses to your attention is because, they are spoken in the same context (John 6) and in this long discussion with Jesus and the Jews about faith these three verses are essentially speaking of the same issue. In fact they share more than one thing in common. They all use the phrase "come to me" and they each make a universal declaration ("no one" or "all"). When read in context the phrase "come to me" is spoken in the same breath as the word "faith". It is a synonym. Likewise the phrase "draws him" is used in parallel with the phrase "gives me" or "granted him". Our Lord declares that "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. (John 6:44) and "All that the Father gives me [draws to Me] will come to me." (John 6:37). In other words, the passage simply states that no one will trust in or have faith in Jesus unless God grants it (John 6:65), and ALL to whom God grants (or gives/draws to Jesus) will believe. Not some of them, but all of them. This universal positive and universal negative means that we are forced to conclude that all that God draws to Jesus infallibly come to faith in him.

Just to demonstrate that "come to me" is identical to "faith" see that just prior to verse 37 Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.” Here we observe that Jesus uses the phrase “believe in me” and “come to me” interchangeably. Even more clear is that the context of John 6:63-65 forces us to understand "come to me" to mean "believe in me" or "have faith in me". In verse 64 Jesus says, "But there are some of you who do not believe " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.  65And He was saying, "For this reason I have said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father."

If we place these statements all together, (understanding that "come to me" and "believe in me" are synonymous), then the magnitude of the Jesus' words become evident, for it allows for no synergistic interpretation. And what does this have to do with regeneration? Well in verse 6:63 Jesus directly alludes to it: "It is the Spirit that quickens [gives life, regenerates]... No one will believe in Me unless God grants it... and ALL to whom God grants it will believe”. Jesus is making sure that no one thinks that anything apart from Jesus is what saves them. That even the very new heart we need to understand spiritual truth, love Jesus and believe is itself a gift of God. This text leaves no room for any other interpretation. This is profoundly important because it creates the inescapable conclusion that the quickening grace of God is invincible. This is why just prior to saying “no one can come to me UNLESS God grants it”, Jesus says, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail.” This means that it is the Spirit who raises our dead spirits to life, makes us born from above John 3:3, 6. The flesh, that is, our sinful nature, cannot regenerate itself and can do no redemptive good of itself, including believe the gospel until quickened by the Holy Spirit.

Faith, Jesus is saying, is not a product of our unregenerate human natures; It is, rather, the product of new life that only He can give us through the quickening work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit alone who, uniting us to Christ, gives life to our dead souls that we may believe. Jesus is affirming the same truth to Nicodemus in John 3, using the same type of language. In verse 6 Jesus tells him, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” And unless one is born of the Spirit he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. Jesus never gives Nicodemus an imperative (command) to be born again, but instead, tells him what must happen to him for eternal life to be a reality. Belief springs from a change of nature, for the old man considers the gospel foolish and thus cannot comprehend it (1 Cor 2:14).

This does away completely also with the Arminian argument where they point to John 10, where Jesus says "when I am lifted up I will draw all men to myself". While we already demonstrated that "draw him" (v. 44) is parallel with "gives me" (v. 37) because it is spoken in the same context with multiple parallelisms so we concluded that ALL the Father gives (draws to) Christ come to him. But the Arminain must reach outside of this passage (out of context) to a completely different situation where Greeks approach Jesus. There is no indication that Jesus is referring to the same issue. In fact, when read in context, Jesus is telling them that he is fulfilling the promise to Abraham that he would become a father of many nations. Not only Jews but gentiles will be included, so Jesus is establishing that He will draw (not all men without exception) but all men without distinction (Jews and Gentiles). He is announcing that his coming coincides with the expansion of God's kingdom to include Gentiles, in large measure.

On a side note, it is interesting to note that the passage on regeneration in John 6:63-65 is one of the most explicitly Trinitarian passages in all of Scripture. It speaks of this work as the powerful, supernatural work of the Triune God. The Father grants faith in Christ the redeemer (John 6:65), through the quickening of the Holy Spirit by means of the spoken word (John 6:63). So the Spirit is the Agent and the word is the instrument used to germinate spiritual life in us, apart from which, no one would believe (V.65).

I have often heard preachers say to people, “all you need to do is believe,” as if this were the easiest thing in the world, but the natural man is unwilling to submit to the gospels' humbling terms. It is a massive affront to our pride to believe that we have no hope save in Jesus alone. J.I. Packer once wisely said, "Sinners cannot obey the gospel, any more than the law, without renewal of heart." We see this at work in this passage when, at the end of John chapter six many of those who previously were with Jesus left because his teaching was too hard, and only the twelve were left. Peter confesses belief however, and Jesus says to him, “…have I not chosen you?” But what is so hard about this passage that everyone else leaves Jesus? It is hard because the gospel of grace alone strips man of all hope that he could have to contribute something, be it ever so small, to his own salvation. Never underestimate the reality of our sinful nature deceiving us this way. The gospel forces us to see our own spiritual impotence and bankruptcy in contributing anything, or even lifting a finger toward our own salvation. But of those who do believe the gospel, we can know with certainty that the Holy Spirit has quickened them and is doing a work of grace in them. Trusting Christ is the immediate result of the new birth, not the cause of it, as John notes in his first epistle:

“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1)

It is also important to further understand that Jesus “will never cast out [those the Father has given Him].” (John 6:37). According to Jesus, those whom He draws are the same as those he will raise up at the last day (John 6:44). This is important because those who reject the perseverance of the saints, believing that Christ does not preserve us to the end, are in effect saying that we must somehow maintain our own justification before God. This is to believe that Jesus’ atonement for us is not sufficient for salvation.

This passage (John 6) is one of the most forceful passages in all of Scripture relating to the invincibility of saving grace. The grace of the Holy Spirit in regeneration is not only sufficient but efficient, unfailingly bringing about God’s desired result. We may resist the gospel when hearing the outward call and even resist stirrings of the Holy Spirit, but no one resists the inward quickening and call of God (Rom 8:30; 1 Cor 1:22-24). In the Old Testament sometimes God would discipline Israel by telling them their crops would fail even though they labored to sow seed. This is proof that all that we do in this world, such as planting crops, requires the prior blessing of God if it is to be fruitful.

Similarly Paul uses an agricultural metaphor when speaking of casting the seed of the gospel. He says, “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” This means that people need to hear the gospel in order to be saved, but we can preach till we are blue in the face and nothing will take root unless the Holy Spirit sovereignly applies that word to the heart that one might hear.

To use some biblical imagery, we cast the seed of the gospel indiscriminately because the Holy Spirit alone can “germinate” the word unto life in Christ. The fallow ground of our hearts must first be plowed up by God, for the soil of our heart is not good by nature, but only by grace. The seed will not find good soil until God makes it so. For Ezekiel the prophet says:

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

Notice that this passage demonstrates that in order for obedience to take place the Lord must first cleanse our hearts, put a new spirit in us and remove our hardened uncircumcised heart. No one believes and obeys while their heart is still stone. Our blind eyes must be opened, our deaf ears unstopped, and our corrupt nature supernaturally changed by the Holy Spirit, before we can begin to have any good thoughts about Christ. The Bible likens the new birth, or regeneration, to the first creation (2 Cor. 5:17). God let light shine into what was darkness. And God breathed life into lifeless man and then man, because of the new principle of life now within him, breathed and walked. Likewise regeneration can be likened to God's first breath in man, and faith, to Adam's first breath. The former is monergistic and the later, while it springs from the principle of grace that now exists within, is participatory. Both the creation and the maintaining are all of grace, but only God's breathing life into us (ex nihilo) is monergistic (that is, it is the work of God alone). When God brings forth something out of nothing, it is monergistic, but when we breathe (or have faith) as a result of God's act, we are now participating, so by definition this is not monergistic, but all springs forth from God's initial monergistic act of giving life from nothing.

"Regeneration is the fountain; sanctification is the river." - J. Sidlow Baxter

"...since you have been born again [by the agency of the Spirit], not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God [instrument]" 1 Peter 1:23

 Important note: Some who oppose the biblical teaching on monergistic regeneration will argue that this cannot be true because no one can be regenerate and not saved. If regeneration precedes faith, they reason, then there is a time, be it ever so short, where one is regenerate but does not yet believe. But this is to misunderstand what regeneration precedes faith actually means. It does not temporally precede faith but rather causally. What do I mean? An example would be one pool ball striking another. Does one ball temporally strike the other first. No they both hit one another simultaneously ... YET the one which rolls has causal priority. The same could be said of heat and fire. Likewise when God, the Holy Spirit, through the preaching of the word, opens our heart to the gospel and gives us new eyes to see the beauty, truth and excellency of Christ, our response is immediate.

"No sooner is the soul quickened, than it at once discovers its lost estate, is horrified thereat, looks for a refuge, and believing Christ to be a suitable one, flies to him and reposes in him." - C.H. Spurgeon

"Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man." - C.H. Spurgeon

What is the Biblical, Historial, Prophetic Solution to the NWO?

Tom Friess of Inquistion Update at First Amendment radio will be my co-host.  He is currently reading "Romanism and the Reformation" author Henry Grattan Guinness.  What is the solution to the New World Order?.   Mr. Guinness will share his solution of a Biblical, Historial, Prophetic solution to the New World Order.  Also Tom also has a audio Call every Sunday at 4:00 PM Pacific standard time.  For more information Click here.

SOME PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN FROM BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important concepts which theologians have investigated in seeking to understand the Biblical teaching on the nature of man is that of man in the ``image of God.'' Gen 1:26-27 describes man's creation in these terms:
Then God said, ``Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let
them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.''
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male
and female He created them.1

Apparently this image of God in man was not totally lost by the fall, since Scripture refers to it at later times in prohibiting the killing and cursing of men (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9). Yet to some degree or in some sense it was lost, since it is being restored in Christians as they ``put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him'' (Col 3:10).

What is this ``image of God'' in man? To answer this question, systematic theologians have primarily worked with the ``image'' passages in Scripture to construct various models. The early Greek theologians, noting the contrast between the (irrational) animals made ``after their kind'' and man made in the image of God, believed the image was man's rational nature, which resembles God's rational nature. Socinian and Remonstrant theologians noted the parallelism between man's dominion over nature and God's dominion over nature; the ``image'' is man's rational nature designed to be appropriate for ruling the earth. Lutheran theologians, by contrast, have tended to emphasize Col 3:10 and Eph 4:24 man's moral nature is the image; this image was lost in the fall when man became a sinner, but it is regained through redemption.2

Reformed theologians have usually included both the rational and moral nature in their definition of God's image in man. For instance, Hodge says:
While, therefore, the Scriptures make the original moral perfection of man the most
prominent element of that likeness to God in which he was created, it is no less
true that they recognize man as a child of God in virtue of his rational nature.
He is the image of God and bears and reflects the divine likeness among the inhab-
itants of earth, because he is a spirit, an intelligent and voluntary agent; and as
such he is rightfully invested with universal dominion.3

Other Reformed theologians, such as Buswell4 and Murray,5 express similar views on the way in which man shares God's image. As a result of the fall, the image of God in man is seen as almost destroyed, man becoming rather like a city in ruins.6

In this paper, we would like to explore a different approach to the image of God in man, one which we might call a perspective from Biblical theology rather than from systematic theology. A very fruitful way of viewing man as being in God's image, we shall suggest, is to consider those pictures God gives of Himself which are analogies featuring man in his relationship to other people or to other parts of the created environment, e.g., man as a husband, a king or a gardener. From this perspective, God images himself in man as man is involved in various human activities. We shall also suggest that this approach more accurately reflects the importance that theologians have sensed in the doctrine that man is a being in God's image, as from this perspective many hundreds of verses in Scripture are directly related to the matter rather than only half a dozen.

Our procedure will be as follows. After a brief study of the Hebrew and Greek words translated ``image'' and ``likeness'' in the classic Biblical passages, we shall survey a number of the ways in which God pictures Himself in Scripture, namely those in which He describes Himself by a human analogy. Thereafter we shall examine a number of passages related to idolatry and suggest that these, too, may be relevant to the image of God in man. Next we shall consider whether God's image is related to God's glory. In each of these sections, we shall attempt to show how this approach is helpful in understanding some difficult Scripture passages and in integrating some matters which might otherwise seem unrelated. Finally we shall seek to show not only that this approach is consistent with classic Reformed systematic theology but that it also has greater possibilities for communicating theological truth to the layman.

THE HEBREW AND GREEK BEHIND ``IMAGE'' AND ``LIKENESS''

In the two OT references to man being in God's image, the same Hebrew word tselem is employed, which is elsewhere used fifteen times in the OT. Brown, Driver and Briggs suggest the word should be variously translated ``image, likeness'' or ``mere, empty semblance'' depending on the context;7 Holladay suggests ``statue, image, model'' or ``drawing.''8 Examining each context, we see that occasionally the word is used for idols (2 Kings 11:18; Ezk 7:20; Am 5:26), though it is not the common word for idols. In 1 Sam 6:5,11, the Philistines seek to placate God after capturing the ark by returning it with golden images of mice and tumors. There are two rather cryptic uses: Ps 39:6: ``Surely every man walks about as a phantom,'' which appears in a context of the futility of man's life; and Ps 73:20: ``Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when aroused, Thou wilt despise their form,'' referring to disaster coming upon the wicked. The cognate Aramaic word is regularly used of idols (15 times in Daniel 2 and 3).

The usual LXX translation of tselem is eikon. This is also used for man in the image of God in 1 Cor 11:7, and for believers assuming the image of Christ or God in Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; and Col 3:10. Elsewhere it refers to man in Adam's image (1 Cor 15:49), of Caesar's image on a coin (Matt 22:20 and parallels), and of the law as an image of good things to come (Heb 10:1). It is used regularly of idols (Acts 19:35; Rom 1:23; 11:4; and the image of the beast in Revelation 13-20). Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich render eikon as ``image, likeness, form'' or ``appearance.''9

The word translated ``likeness'' in Gen 1:26 and 5:1 is demuth. Brown, Driver and Briggs render it ``likeness, similitude,'' and note that external appearance is commonly meant.10 Holladay gives ``pattern, form, shape, image'' and ``something like.''11 An examination of its usage indicates that it frequently occurs in Ezekiel 1 and 10 to describe parts of a vision, comparing the unknown to the known. Elsewhere it is used to speak of poison like a snake's (Ps 58:4), a sound like many people (Isa 13:4), men looking like Babylonians (Ezk 23:15), the images of oxen under the bronze sea (2 Chr 4:3) and an angel who resembles a human being (Dan 10:16). Isa 40:18 is interesting in a context about idolatry: ``To whom then will you liken God? / Or what likeness will you compare with Him?''

In the LXX demuth is rendered variously eidea, eikon, homoios, homoioma and homoiosis, with homoiosis for Gen 1:26 and eikon for Gen 5:1.12 We have already discussed eikon above. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich render homoiosis ``likeness'' or ``resemblance,''13 but it only occurs once in the NT (Jas 3:9), where James speaks about the incongruity of blessing God while cursing men who are made in His likeness. The synonym homoioma is more common, meaning ``likeness, image, copy, form'' or ``appearance.''14 It is used for men changing God's glory into ``an image in the form of corruptible man'' and of various animals (Rom 1:23); for supernatural ``locusts'' with forms like horses (Rev 9:7); for Christ taking upon himself in his incarnation the likeness of man (Rom 8:3; Php 2:7); for sinners after Adam not sinning like he did (Rom 5:14); and for Christians being united with Christ in the likeness both of his death and resurrection (Rom 5:14).

In summarizing these uses, it is interesting to note that (excepting the cases of man in the image of God) the words usually refer to some sort of external appearance, often static but sometimes dynamic. The traditional theological formulations have usually taken image of God to be a static internal (invisible likeness. We would like to suggest an alternative perspective which may also be fruitful, namely one in which the image of God is a dynamic external (visible) likeness what man does is an image of what God does. We do not have in mind the Mormon view of God with a physical body; rather we are suggesting that human activity somehow images God in a dynamic way to those who see it. It is to this suggestion that we now turn.

IMAGES OF GOD IN HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

God pictures Himself in Scripture by a vast number of metaphors or images. Some of these are non-human, e.g., God is a consuming fire (Deut 4:24; Heb 12:29). Others are human, but consist of attributes shared by God and man rather than images in which God pictures himself acting as a man, e.g., God is love (1 John 4:8). In this paper, however, we are interested in those pictures in which God compares Himself to a human being not just any human being, but one engaged in some particular activity or office: e.g., God as a father, a husband, or a farmer.

It is not our intention to discuss these sorts of metaphors exhaustively, nor even to locate all such pictures. Rather we wish to survey a representative set of such pictures and show how man, through them, images God to himself and others. For purposes of discussion, let us categorize these images in terms of relationships: man in relation to his family, man in relation to society, to animals, to plants, and man in relation to the inanimate. We shall discuss these here in reverse order.

Man in Relation to the Inanimate

Of the various ways in which God pictures Himself as a man relating to his inanimate environment, the best known is probably the potter and the clay. As a potter makes clay pots, so God has made us (Isa 64:8; 29:15-16; 45:9). Clay is probably one of the most pliable materials man has used throughout the centuries to produce useful articles; consequently man's work with clay comes closer to creation than almost any other of his every-day activities. The vast distance between God the Creator and man His creature is also emphasized in this picture. The latter two passages above suggest the vast distance between God's intelligence and man's, since the pot has no intellect and man has virtually none compared with God:
Woe to the one who quarrels with his Maker -- an earthenware vessel among the
vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, ``What are you doing?''
Or the thing you are making say, ``He has no hands''? (Isa 45:9)

In comparison with man's strength and with the durability of stone and metal vessels, the clay pot is rather fragile. Man, too, is easily broken. So Job laments that he is being crushed like a pot (Job 10:8-9); Elihu agrees that all men are weak like pottery, and therefore Job need not be afraid of Elihu though he fears to argue with God (Job 33:6-7). As a manufactured article, a pot may be broken by its maker/owner as he sees fit. So a pot is shattered by Jeremiah to symbolize the disaster coming upon Jerusalem (Jer 19:1-13), and the Messiah is similarly pictured destroying his enemies (Ps 2:9).

As a potter designs and uses ceramics for various purposes, so God has done with man (Rom 9:19-24). God can raise up or put down men and nations just as a potter reworks soft clay (Jer 18:1-12). The apostle Paul is a chosen vessel (Acts 9:15), and we, too, may become vessels of honor by responding properly to God (2 Tim 2:20-21). The idea of response may sound rather incongruous in this picture, yet it occurs in both of the last two passages; it probably refers to the fact that clay varies in resistance to being worked.

Other human activities in the inanimate environment which receive attention in Scripture are the mason-stone relation, the builder-building, and the metalsmith-metal. As this is merely a survey, we only mention them here.

Man in Relation to the Plants

Moving up the scale of being, there are numerous metaphors in Scripture where God is imaged in human activities of an agricultural sort. Rather than trying to categorize these botanically, let us look at several topics of relevance.

The righteous person is pictured as a healthy tree in Ps 1:3; 92:12-14; and Jer 17:7-8. God is somewhat in the background in these pictures, yet in Psalm 1 the plant has been planted and appears to be watered by irrigation both activities of the farmer-God. The plants of Ps 92:13 are ``planted in the house of the LORD'' and ``flourish in the courts of our God''; possibly these are double-references, alluding both to the practice of growing trees in the courtyard of one's home and to trees in the temple courts; in any case, the context favors a picture of God as the gardener-owner. The farmer watches over his trees to keep them healthy so that they will provide the fruit for which they have been planted. So, too, God has a purpose for man's life, often referred to in terms of bearing fruit.

Conversely, the wicked are often pictured as endangered plants. In contrast to the fruitful tree, the wicked are chaff which the wind disperses (Ps 1:4). Disobedient Israel is God's vineyard producing worthless grapes (Isa 5:1-7), or the wood of a grapevine which is useless lumber (Ezk 15:1-8). As a fig tree which produces no fruit ought to be cut down, so God will do to the wicked, though He is still giving them one more season to produce fruit (Lk 13:6-9). Even now God has laid the axe at the root of the tree in preparation for the felling stroke (Matt 3:8,10). As the farmer reacts to good and worthless plants, he can picture for himself and others how God reacts to righteous and wicked.

God's grace to the Gentiles is pictured graphically in Romans 11 under the figure of the grafted olive tree. Gentiles are grafted in as wild olive branches to replace Jews, represented by cultivated branches, on the holy rootstock. In a somewhat similar figure, professing believers are pictured as branches attached to Christ the vine (Jn 15:1-9). (In a striking picture of the incarnation God the Son becomes a creature the farmer a plant something no farmer can do!) God the Father is pictured as the vinedresser, removing fruitless branches and pruning fruitful ones so that they may produce even more. Here the good and wicked are combined in one figure: God is not looking for mere profession of Christianity, but that vital connection with Christ which invariably produces fruit.

Man in Relation to the Animals

Moving to the animal kingdom, the major picture of God's dealings with mankind is seen in the shepherd-sheep relationship. We see the shepherd finding the sheep, and leading, feeding, protecting and judging them.

As the shepherd seeks and finds his sheep when they stray, so God has sought and found us when we were lost (Isa 53:6; Lk 15;4-7). Israel is pictured as a scattered flock in Jer 50:6-7, 17-20 and in Ezk 34:11-13,15-16. In the context there are (presumably hired) shepherds which have not done their duty, and the owner must intervene to straighten things out, just as Israel's leaders failed and God intervened.

The shepherd leads his flock from fold to pasture to water. So God guides his people through life (Ps 23:2-3; 80:1). He led Israel to Canaan as a shepherd leads his sheep (Ps 78:52-54). Christ, the Good Shepherd, calls his own sheep from the fold and leads them (Jn 10:1-5).

As the shepherd feeds his sheep by finding them pasture, so God provides our nourishment, both physical and spiritual (Ps 23: 1-2). So He will provide for His people at the end of the age:
As a shepherd cares for his herd in the day when he is among his scattered sheep,
so I will care for My sheep and will deliver them from all the places to which they
were scattered on a cloudy and gloomy day. And I will bring them out from the peoples
and gather them from the countries and bring them to their own land; and I will
feed them on the mountains of Israel, by the streams, and in all the inhabited places
of the land. I will feed them in a good pasture, and their grazing ground will be the
mountain heights of Israel. There they will lie down in good grazing ground, and they
will feed in rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. I will feed my flock and I will
lead them to rest (Ezk 34:12-15).

As the shepherd protects the flock from predators, so God protects His people, collectively (Jer 50:18-19; Ezk 34:12-16) and individually (Ps 23:4):
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil;
for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.

The good shepherd will even die for his sheep (Jn 10:11-18; Matt 26:31, citing Zech 13:7).

In just one case the slaughtering of sheep, a standard part of sheep-raising, is used in this figure. This occurs in a context of judgment being brought on the selfish sheep (Ezk 34:16-24). In another passage, the separation of sheep from goats is used to portray the last judgment (Matt 25:32-33).

There are other pictures from the animal kingdom, such as the owner-steed of Ps 32:9, and hunting and fishing in Jer 16:16 and Matt 4;19, though in the latter two cases God seems to work indirectly through men. The man-animal figure provides a larger scope for human response while still maintaining something of the great distance between the Creator and His creature. The idea of God's rulership, provision, protection and rescue are prominent, while man's usefulness (though certainly the main reason sheep are raised) is not emphasized.

Man in Relation to Human Society

Let us now move on to those images of God which involve man in relationship with other human beings. We will start with the more distant relationships, those involving society outside the home.

The most prominent picture of God in this category is the king-subject one. Of the various forms of government which men have experienced, it appears that monarchy provides the closest analogy to the God-man relationship. Let us look at several aspects of this relationship touched on in Scripture.

A king has and deserves prestige. As we honor a king, so we ought to honor God. In Mal 1:6-14, God rebukes the priests for disrespect which they manifest in the unfit offerings they present to God. Try offering the same animals as a gift to your governor!
``But cursed be the swindler who has a male in his flock, and vows it, but sacrifices
a blemished animal to the Lord, for I am a great king,'' says the LORD of Hosts, ``and
My name is feared among the nations'' (Mal 1:14).

Philo also recognized this perspective. He says that the king is to be honored as ``an image of God.''15

Just as a king rules, so God rules. He rules as king over nature, with the flood chosen as a prime example (Ps 29:1-11). He rules over the nations (Ps 47; 22:28). He rules over kings (1 Tim 6:15; Dan 4:17,25,37). He rules over all that may be called gods (Ps 82:6; 95:3; Jer 10:10-11).

As a king protects those who are righteous and punishes those who do evil, so does God. As king forever, he protects the helpless who depend on Him, avenging them against their wicked adversaries (Ps 10:12-18; 74:12; Isa 33:22). This theme also appears in another relationship, judge-plaintiff and judge- accused. Bahnsen sees this aspect in Gen 9:5-6, where the death penalty is prescribed for killing man. The point of the verse, he says, is not so much that there is a death penalty because man is so valuable (made in God's image) as that man has the right to execute the penalty because he has the image of God and is able to act in His place.16

Moreover, a king is not merely a private citizen; an insult against him is an act of rebellion. So it is with God. In the parable of Lk 19:11-27, the nobleman who goes away to receive a kingdom is hated by enemies who send an embassy to stop his appointment. When he returns as king, they are put to death. Likewise in the parable of the wedding feast for the king's son (Matt 22:1-14), those who refuse the royal invitation or attend in shoddy clothing meet with dire consequences.

This picture reminds us that God is not just a friend of the believer. As king He must rule in righteousness; He shows no partiality; He will condemn the guilty and vindicate the innocent. Our sins against God are greater than they would be if they were against anyone else. We must have proper respect for Him and realize that He has all things under His control.

On the boundary between society and home is the master-slave relationship. The slave is not a part of the family in the sense of blood relationship, marriage or inheritance, but he usually lives in the home. The relation is much more intimate than king-subject, and yet a very substantial distance remains between those involved. This picture is so pervasive in Scripture as to be a ``dead'' metaphor most of the time, that is, one which the reader takes for granted without visualizing the literal picture involved. Thus God is called ``lord'' or ``master'' throughout both OT and NT in words such as adonai and kurios, and men are his slaves by the designations ebed and doulos.

In a few passages this picture is made more explicit. Mal 1:6 says: ``A son honors his father, and a servant his master. Then if I am a father, where is My honor? And if I am a master, where is my respect?'' In Eph 6:9 and Col 4:1, Christian slave-owners are urged to treat their slaves with justice and kindness, in view of the fact that they themselves have God as their slave- master in heaven. From the other side, slaves are urged to view their service to their human slave-master as service to God (Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25). One who was involved in the old master- slave relationship would thus have some insight into this aspect of the God-man relationship that the rest of us lack.

Man in Relation to the Family

Moving on to the family, we reach those relationships that are among the closest a person ever experiences. Only a strong friendship may be closer. Let us consider both the father-child and husband-wife relation in turn.

Perhaps we should speak of the parent-child relationship to be more exact. God is pictured as a replacement for both mother and father in Ps 27:10. And in Ps 131:2 the Psalmist seeks security in God as a child does in his mother. In Deut 32:11, God is pictured as an eagle (probably the mother), training the eaglet to fly. He is a mother hen in Matt 23:37 and probably in all those passages which speak of being sheltered under God's wings (Ruth 2:12; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7; 91:4).

However, the emphasis of Scripture is on the fatherhood of God, possibly to counteract the goddess-worship prominent in ancient fertility cults, but presumably because the figure is more appropriate. There is much material on Israel and on David's descendant as God's son, but for the sake of brevity we will confine ourselves to passages more directly related to the individual believer.

Two themes are used alternatively to picture our becoming children of God. In the one, God has begotten us (John 1:12-13; 1 Peter 1:3); we are his natural (or rather supernatural) children In the other, God has adopted us (Gal 4:4-7; Rom 8:14-19); though not His natural children, He has been pleased to give us privileges which were not ours. The latter image, it seems, pictures God's grace, while the former pictures our real transformation by regeneration and glorification.

As God's children, we are to have a family resemblance to Him. This resemblance is an evidence of the relationship as well as a goal toward which we strive (1 John 3:1-10; Matt 5:43-48; John 8:36-47).

God provides as a good father does. He gives good gifts to His children, not gifts that are worthless or harmful (Matt 7:7-11). God disciplines as a good father does. The hard things that come into our lives have the same purpose as a father's discipline, both correction and training for maturity (Heb 12:5-11). God loves and forgives as a good father ought, as we see most clearly in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32). He forgives when we don't deserve it. He is more willing to forgive than others are. He is more willing to receive us than we are to return to Him.

Finally, let us consider the closest bond of all, that of husband and wife. Surely, we would not dare to propose such a picture of God's relation to us were it not already revealed in Scripture. This picture illustrates God's relation to His people collectively, rather than individually. It is used for both Israel and the Church, though with some differences. Surprisingly, it is not restricted to those who are really His, but the theme of unfaithful wife is used to picture apostasy.

1 Cor 11:7 is also of special interest here:
For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman
from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's
sake.

This passage seems to be making a distinction between man and woman in regard to the image of God, even though Gen 1:27 clearly implies that both man and woman are created in God's image. My suggestion is that the marriage relation images the God-man relationship, with the husband imaging God while the wife images mankind. Paul carries the figure further by noting that man does not originate from woman (true only of Adam and Eve), and (by analogy) certainly God does not originate from man. Likewise, mankind was created for God's sake just as Eve was for Adam's. In this passage (if in no other) it seems that the dynamic picture of man in God's image is actually the thought in the writer's mind!17

Returning to marriage as depicting the God-man relationship, the wedding is a part of this picture. The covenantal aspect of marriage depicts the Sinai covenant in Jer 31:32. And Isaiah 54, an extensive passage employing the marriage analogy, also speaks of a covenant in v 10, though this may be application rather than figure. Psalm 45 also pictures a royal wedding, which is apparently Messianic. The leaving of parents is seen in v 10, where the bride is told to forget her father's house. The purity of the bride is pictured in Eph 5:26-27 and 2 Cor 11:2-3.

The married state ideally pictures the relation of God to his people. The mutual love and joy that exist between the couple is pictured in Ps 45:11,15. In Isa 62:5, God will rejoice over Jerusalem as bridgroom over bride. Christ's love for the church is given as a model for husbands in Eph 5:25.

The wife's submission pictures ours to God. ``Because He is your Lord, bow down to Him'' (Ps 45:11). ``But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything'' (Eph 5:24).

The bearing of children is a central purpose of marriage. This finds expression in Isa 54:1 as the barren one gives birth, and in Ps 45:16 where the queen will have sons who are princes. Presumably, the children in such a picture represent individual believers, while the mother represents them collectively. This would parallel the figure of Gomer and her children in Hosea and that of a city and its inhabitants as mother and children elsewhere (e.g., Lam 1:1,7; 2 Sam 20:19). Perhaps the increase in family size as a result of childbearing pictures the numerical growth among God's people when they are collectively faithful to Him.

The husband provides protection and provision for his wife. In Eph 5:23, Christ is pictured as the savior of his wife, the church. God promises his wife deliverance from oppression and fear in Isa 54:14-17, although the marriage figure has receded into the background by this point in the chapter.

Even the breaking of marriage finds a place in Scripture as a picture of God's relationship to His people. The adultery, divorce and restoration of Gomer in Hosea 1-3 is an acted parable of God's relation to Israel. The divorce is implied in Hos 2:2 (``not my wife...not her husband'') and a similar figure is used in Jer 3:1,8 for both Judah and Israel. Restoration of the marriage relationship between God and Israel is seen in Isa 54:6-8 and 62:4, and implied in Hos 3:1-5. Nothing quite paralleling this occurs with Christ and the church in the NT, though some have seen the harlot of Revelation as an apostate church.

The marriage relationship is used in Scripture to picture the intimacy possible between God and His people. In light of the Biblcal teaching on marriage, this picture still retains a subordination of man to God. By means of adultery it also illustrates the serious nature of turning from Him after claiming to be His.

Of rarer occurrence is the friend-friend relationship as a means of picturing our relation to God. Abraham is spoken of as the friend of God (2 Chr 20:7; Isa 41:8) and the same is implied for Moses in Ex 33:11. So also Jesus calls His disciples friends (Jn 15:14-16).

As one who is living for God may especially be said to share in God's image (e.g., Col 3:10), we might suggest that one who is in rebellion against God shares Satan's image. No expression quite like this occurs in Scripture (though the mark of the beast in Revelation has some parallels), but the father-son image is employed in this way. Jesus says of certain Jews that the devil is their father (John 8:44), and the context is one of ``family resemblance'' in murder and lying. Similarly, John the Baptist calls a group of Pharisees and Sadducees a ``brood of vipers,'' which suggests the Gen 3:15 reference to the seed of the serpent. The apostle John says that ``the one who practices sin is of the devil'' and that the morality of our actions mark us out as children of God or children of the devil (1 John 3:8,10). Perhaps, then, we should translate Ps 73:20 as ``Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when aroused, Thou wilt despise their image,'' referring to God's reaction to the distorted, Satanic image in unbelievers at the judgment.

IMAGE AND IDOLATRY

In surveying the various uses of ``image'' in Scripture, we noticed that many of these have to do with idolatry. Is it merely an accident that idolatry and Biblical anthropology overlap in this word, or is there actually some connection between the two? Let us see.

Certainly in the act of producing idols, man is making images of God, since he bows down and gives them the honor and worship that is due to God alone (e.g., Lev 26:1; Isa 44:15,17). In addition, he makes his idol in the form of some created being (or occasionally some non-existent combination constructed from created beings) since he does not know what God looks like and God has not revealed Himself in a visible form:
So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD
spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make
a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or
female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged
bird that flies in the sky, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the
likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. And [beware], lest you
lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host
of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD
your God has alloted to all the peoples under the whole heaven (Deut 4:15-19).

Yet perhaps the prohibition against idolatry is not entirely because man cannot see or has not seen God. We suggest that, in addition, man is not to make images of God for himself because God has already made images of Himself for man! These images are the figures God uses in Scripture to describe Himself, especially those figures of man acting in various capacities like those we discussed in the previous section.

But if this is the case, why does God prohibit man from making those particular idols which are images of man (e.g., Isa 44:3, and presumably the reference to ``male or female'' in Deut 4:16, above)? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that man only images God as man is a dynamic being, so that a carved or cast image of man lacks one of the very things that makes man an image of God. Notice, in fact, that something of this sort is an important theme in passages against idolatry:
Their idols are silver and gold,/ The work of man's hands./ They have mouths,
but they cannot speak;/ They have eyes, but they cannot see;/ They have ears,
but they cannot hear;/ They have noses, but they cannot smell;/ They have hands,
but they cannot feel;/ They have feet, but they cannot walk;/ They cannot make a
sound with their throat./ Those who make them will become like them,/ Everyone who
trusts in them (Ps 115:4-8).

Yet dynamism by itself is surely not the whole story. Recall that Satan will make a living image of the beast in the end- times, and technological man has already succeeded in making images which can move and speak.18 The particular dynamism which images God has a moral element also.

In addition, there is a strong element of role-reversal in idolatry. Instead of the Creator making the creature in His own image, the creature is making the Creator in his own image. This is presumably a part of man's rebellion by which he seeks to be as God (Gen 3:5) and to call God into judgment (Gen 3:10,12,13). Such role-reversal is also reflected since the fall by means of the rebellion of lower against higher in each of the relationships discussed in the previous section: wife against husband, child against parent, slave against master, and subject against king; and (by God's decree) even animal, plant and ground against man.

Another factor is also at work here. Man refuses to accept the God who actually exists and His revelation of Himself, and replaces that God with himself and/or Satan.19 Man thus distorts the image of God not only in false religion but by refusing to apply God's standards to his own actions. And here again, this shows up in man the actor imaging God in a distorted way: husbands tyrannize over wives, parents provoke children, masters mistreat slaves, kings oppress subjects, and man ruins his natural environment as well. As a result, others are turned off to God's revelation of Himself as husband, father, king, etc., due to the bad connotations which their own experience in a sinful world has given them for one or more of these pictures.

We thus suggest that the connection between image in idolatry and image in Biblical anthropology is not merely accidental or imaginary!

IMAGE AND GLORY

Among the various ``image'' passages in Scripture, one seemed clearly to indicate the dynamic relationship we have been investigating, namely 1 Cor 11:7: ``For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.'' Here we suggested (more or less in agreement with Murray and Calvin)20 that in the marriage relation, the husband images God and the wife images mankind. If this is so, then ``glory'' in this passage must mean something like ``image.'' In fact, Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich assign doxa in this passage the meaning ``reflection,'' unique here to the NT but paralleled once elsewhere in a Jewish inscription.21

The word ``glory'' in Scripture has a wide range of meanings both in the Hebrew and the Greek, and the Hebrew kavod does not completely overlap the Greek doxa.22 Both include ideas of honor, fame, magnificence and splendor. In addition, the Hebrew includes ideas of weight and wealth, whereas the Greek includes radiance and brightness. Yet each word seems to have, at least as a connotation or minor part of its range, the idea of that which characterizes (or ought to characterize) someone, perhaps through the concept of reputation in the Hebrew and fame in the Greek. For instance, consider Prov 25:2: ``It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.'' Are not these activities things which characterize God and should characterize kings? Again, when God causes His glory to pass before Moses, Ex 33:18,22, it is God's attributes of justice and mercy that are proclaimed (Ex 34:6-7).

If one searches through the occurrences of ``glory'' in Scripture, a few other examples of this sort surface, seeming to indicate some connection between ``image'' and ``glory.'' Most notable, it seems, is the familiar Rom 3:23, ``. . . all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'' The context deals with the imputation of righteousness to believers through faith in Christ, so the natural reading of ``glory of God'' is that moral quality which characterizes God and which characterized man before he sinned.

Similarly, consider 2 Cor 3:18, ``. . . we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory . . .'' Here it appears that, in addition to the idea of splendor (which is certainly present in the context), a moral resemblance is also in view. This passage connects glory, image and reflection in a single picture.

In addition, there are many passages where the idea of glory as ``that which characterizes God morally'' may be present, but the context is sufficiently ambiguous to allow some such idea as honor or splendor instead, since these also characterize God. Consider those passages in which God is glorified in someone. These may mean that God comes to be honored by men because of the actions of this person, or they may mean that God reflects His moral character in this person. For instance, in John 17:4, Christ has glorified God on earth even before his own crucifixion. In John 17:10, Christ has been glorified in his disciples. In Isa 49:3, God speaks to His servant Israel in whom God will display His glory. Similarly, Christians are to glorify God in their bodies (1 Cor 6:20); Peter was to glorify God in his death (John 21:19); and the Holy Spirit will glorify Christ as He guides the disciples after Christ's ascension (John 16:14).

Likewise those passages which speak of the glorification of believers in the eternal state may have splendor in view or they may be concentrating more particularly on moral excellence. The whole subject requires more investigation than can be given it here. Suffice it to say that an important part of God's splendor is His moral excellence; that this was a part of man's sharing in the image of God; and that this excellence was seriously disrupted in the fall. This is not to say that everything that may be included in God's glory is also included in the image of God in man. Such passages as Isa 42:8, ``I am the LORD . . . I will not give my glory to another'' seem to rule that out. So does the fact that some of God's attributes (or all of them, if very specifically defined) are incommunicable.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we have briefly surveyed a suggestion that the image of God in man may be viewed dynamically that God images Himself in man as man engages in various activities such as husband, father, master, king, shepherd, farmer and potter. How does this perspective on image compare with that employed in traditional systematic theology?

First of all, the pictures we have discussed are dynamic and concrete rather than static and abstract. The traditional systematic theology perspective deals with invisible realities about the nature of man, while these Biblical theology perspectives deal with actions and relations that are visible and a part of the experience of nearly all humans. If we broaden some of these categories slightly (say, king-subject to official-citizen, and shepherd-sheep to owner-pet), we find that virtually all mankind has had an opportunity to experience the top side as well as the bottom side of some relation or other; that is, we all have a chance to feel experientially a little bit of what it is like to be God. These pictures are thus easier for the layman to understand than the more abstract systematic formulation, and they make God seem more real and less distant.

Second, these dynamic pictures are all relational: God is pictured by means of relationships rather than as He is in Himself. This seems to be more like the emphasis of Scripture, which concentrates on God as He reveals Himself through word and act in salvation history. We are told little about God that is not related to His dealings with man.

Third, the activities included in these pictures are quite complex, and probably involve mankind in the whole range of his abilities. If so, then these pictures must include man using all the communicable attributes of God (at least those communicated to man; the angels may have some we don't), so that they involve the use of all that could be the image of God in man from the traditional systematic theology perspective. If so, then the two approaches are consistent and must be complementary in some sense, somewhat in the nature of attribute and manifestation, or (to pick an example from quantum mechanics) of position and motion.

Fourth, the dynamic approach uses analogies which are suggestive rather than precise: e.g., God as our father does not include any idea of some goddess as our mother; the analogies can be pressed beyond the boundaries intended for them. Of course, a careful study of their use in Scripture will indicate the location of these boundaries. It is not clear, however, that the more static approach of systematic theology has any advantage here. All concepts employed in describing God's nature must be analogies of some sort, and it is not clear we gain any real precision by constructing our own abstract analogies in place of the Bible's concrete analogies.

Lastly, it appears that these dynamic analogies function in two directions. By means of them, we learn to understand God better through the common relationships of human life. As we experience the joys and frustrations of raising children, for instance, we come to have a better idea of what God deals with in redeeming His people and guiding them on to maturity. On the other hand, the nature of God as revealed in Scripture helps us to see how our human relationships should be transformed to reflect the image of God more accurately. We want our children to grow into responsible adults who have no bad images of fatherhood to distort their ideas of God. Thus we study and apply the Scripture diligently in order that our actions as fathers may not cause God's name to be blasphemed.23
Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Matt 5:16).

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Biblical quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.

2. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (1871-73; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968), 2:97-99.

3. Ibid., 2:99.

4. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 1:232-236.

5. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, (Edinburgh and Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 34-41.

6. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.15.4; Buswell, Systematic Theology, 1:255-256.

7. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907), 853-54.

8. William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971), 306

9. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 222.

10. Brown, Driver and Briggs, Lexicon, 198.

11. Holladay, Lexicon, 72.

12. See Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897-1906; reprint ed., 3 vols. in 2, Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1954), 374, 377, 669, 992, 993.

13. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, 568.

14. Ibid., 567.

15. Greg Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1979), 444.

16. Ibid., 442-43.

17. Murray notes on 1 Cor 11:7 that ``Image as predicated of man here is used in a more specialized sense, the image of God that man is as distinguished from the woman'' [Murray, Collected Writings, 2:36]; Calvin says of the same passage that the reference to man as the image of God, expressly excluding the woman, refers to the civil order [Calvin, Institutes 1.15.4].

18. This eschatological act of the false prophet in making a living image of the beast in Rev 13:15 may be viewed as an especially audacious attempt to take God's place and to steal the worship that belongs to Him. Perhaps it is an attempt to mimic God's creation of man in His image.

19. See Meredith Kline's remarks about Eve's religion becoming polytheistic when she accepted Satan's evaluation of the tree, her two gods being herself and Satan [M. G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue (Wenham, MA: published by author, 1981), 176].

20. See note 17.

21. Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, 203.

22. Ibid., 203-04; Brown, Driver and Briggs, Lexicon, 458-59.

23. My thanks to Dr. Vern S. Poythress for a number of valuable insights and suggestions.

Produced for IBRI
PO Box 423
Hatfield, PA 19440

Source: http://www.newmanlib.ibri.org

Roman Catholicism VS Biblical Christianity

Dr. Walter Martin Debates Fr. Mitchell Pacwa of EWTN of the Catholic channel on the Doctrine of Penance. Taken from John Ankerberg Show.

From this debate you will undderstand how erroneous is the position of Roman Catholcism based on what the Bible teach us plainly. No wonder why Roman Catholcism dont recognized the Bible as the Word of God and if we look back in the corridors of history we will find Roman Catholicism not only persecuted Bible believers but also burn them at stake including burning of the Holy Scriptures.