In
his debate with Kwaku El, Jeremy Howard recommended the book Created in God’s Image by Anthony
Hoekema to understand man being created in the “image” of God. I read some
works by Hoekema in the past, including his work The Four Major Cults which I interacted with a few times in my
book-length refutation of Sola Scriptura:
I think
Latter-day Saints will appreciate the following excerpts from the volume (as
well as recommended reading countering the faulty presuppositions and eisegesis
contained therein) to understand how our (esp. Reformed) Protestant friends and
critics approach this issue.
Of course, one should read the following article:
In it, one will find an exegesis of texts that Hoekema himself appeals to, such as John 4:24, Heb 1:3, and Gen 1:26-27 to support his theology (exegetically, they either do not support his theology [John 4:24] and even refute his theology [Heb 1:3 in the Greek]).
Assumption of Creation Ex Nihilo
One of the basic presuppositions of the
Christian view of man is belief in God as the Creator, which leads to the view
that the human person does not exist autonomously or independently, but as a
creature of God. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .
So God created man” (Gen. 1:1, 27) . . . The Scriptures make it very clear that
all created things and all created beings are totally dependent on God. “Thou
[God] hast made heaven, with all their hosts, the earth and all that is on it,
the seas with all that is in them; and thou preservest all of them” (Neh. 9:6,
RSV). That God preserves all his creatures, including human beings, implies
that they are dependent on him for their continued existence. In his address to
the Athenians Paul affirms that God “gives all men life and breath and
everything else,” and that “in him we live and move and have our being” (Acts
17:25, 28). (Anthony A. Hoekema, Created
in God's Image [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986], 5)
Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo
Blake Ostler and the Hosts of Heaven and Species Uniqueness of Yahweh (on Nehemiah 9:6)
Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29
Downplaying the meaning of “image” and “likeness”
The Hebrew word for image, tselem, is derived from a root that
means “to carve” or “to cut.” It could therefore be used to describe a carved
likeness of an animal or a person. When it is applied to the creation of man in
Genesis 1, the word tselem indicates
that man images God, that is, is a representation of God. The Hebrew word for
likeness, demūth, comes from a root
that means “to be like.” One could therefore say that the word demūth in Genesis 1 indicates that the
image is also a likeness, “an image” which is like us.” The two words together
tell us that man is a representation of God who is like God in certain
respects. (p. 13)
On God the Father being “invisible”
To the same effect are Paul’s words in
Colossians 1:15: “He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
over all creation.” So, though God is invisible, in Christ the invisible God
becomes visible; one who looks at Christ is actually looking at God. (p. 21)
The term
translated as "invisible" is αορατος. It simply means
"unseen." It does not, in and of itself, discuss God's substantial
nature (as to whether God is, by nature, invisible). God is "not
seen" as we are not in his presence. I can say that my brother is αορατος,
not that he is, by nature, invisible, but due to geographical distance, he is
"unseen" to me.
Interestingly,
in his epistle to the Magnesians 3:2, Ignatius of Antioch referred to Jesus
(who, after the Incarnation, is embodied) as the "unseen" (αορατος)
bishop:
Now it becomes you also not to treat your
bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence,
having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy
presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance |of
their bishop¦, but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or
rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It
is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey your
bishop, in honor of Him who has willed us |so to do¦, since he that does not so
deceives not by such conduct the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him
that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God,
who knows all secrets. (Ignatius to the Magnesians 3:1-2)
The literature of the time would use such a term to denote God while also
affirming that man could see God. As one scholar noted:
The Herm. writings combine different strains
of thought, but Gnostic statements predominate. It is expressly emphasised that
God is not accessible to the senses: οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἀκουστός, οὐδὲ λεκτὸς, οὐδὲ ὁρατὸς ὀφθαλμοῖς,
ἀλλὰ νῷ καὶ καρδίᾳ,
Corp. Herm., VII, 2a; cf. VI, 4b, 5: XIII, 3, 11a. God is ἀόρατος and ἀφανής, V, 1 f., but also τῷ νοῒ θεωρητός V, 10a. Acc. to some passages this
possibility of seeing God τῷ νοῒ is given to man only after death. Cf. Corp. Herm.,
X, 5 and the excerpt 6, 18 from Stob., I, 194 (Scott., I, 418, 12 ff.). (Wilhelm
Michaelis, “Ὁράω, Εἶδον, Βλέπω, Ὀπτάνομαι, Θεάομαι, Θεωρέω, Ἀόρατος, Ὁρατός, Ὅρασις,
Ὅραμα, Ὀπτασία, Αὐτόπτης, Ἐπόπτης, Ἐποπτεύω, Ὀφθαλμός,” in Gerhard Kittel,
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964–], 5:323)
I am sure a
counter will be, “well, those texts are heretical by both Trinitarian and
Latter-day Saint standards!” True, but such a (lame) counter misses the point
by a mile: it shows that αορατος, according to the contemporaries of the New
Testament writers, did not understand it to mean “substantially invisible,”
just the relative “not seen.”
Commenting
on Col 1:15 and like-texts, D. Charles Pyle noted the following about material
things being “invisible” to human eyes:
. . . this does not mean that, because we
cannot perceive them with our eyes,
they are immaterial. Nor does this
mean that such things, in reality,
are not at all visible under any and
all circumstances.
For example, a tiny virus, while invisible to
the naked eye, actually can be seen with the aid of an electron microscope.
Great starts, so distant that they cannot be perceived using the unaided eye,
are made visible either with the aid of powerful telescopes or with special
photography. Certain wavelengths of radiation outside the so-called visible
spectrum (such as infrared and ultraviolet radiations), that either are too
long or are too short to be seen by most people, need to be converted either by
specialized devices or by using specially-formulated photographic film into visible
light images so that these things then can
be seen. So, in a similar manner, to mankind in general God is invisible.
This is because he makes himself invisible to our sight by the nature of his situation, hiding (Isaiah 45:15-17), rather
than due to some metaphysical aspect of his nature.
Yet his face always is seen by the angels of
little ones (Matthew 18:10). His face shall be seen by those who, in the
future, will dwell in the holy city (Revelation 22:4). God also shall be seen by those who are pure in heart
(Matthew 5:8). Is God, then, invisible in
reality? Not if, according to scripture, people see or will see him, he isn’t!
But then again, this is the main reason for the development of the later
Catholic Doctrine of the Beatific Vision.
No one really sees God at all, in
their view. Rather they only spiritually see
or perceive him in the mind by a spiritual vision, for there is nothing to see
(according to their view). The clear teachings of the Bible that God can be
seen thus is rejected by them, and then the plainest meaning of the scripture
is allegorized away to fit late doctrine to early text.
Finally, does anything exist that God himself
cannot see? If not, then is there anything
that truly is invisible? So, as
can be seen, invisibility is relative to
the visual acuity of the beholder. Just because something is said to be invisible does not make it really so, but only in a relative sense. Not does it necessarily
follow that because something is invisible
it therefore must be immaterial. And then there is that pesky problem of the
fact that the body to which Jesus is hypostatically
united most certainly isn’t
itself literally invisible. It is
corporeal. It is three-dimensional. And it is solid. And if God has a face, and
the scripture makes clear that he does, and that there are those who do now and
who will see it, it is to be seen that God is corporeal, and also is not truly
invisible in the literal sense, as often is claimed about God (and is argued
against the doctrine of the corporeality of God) by the critics of the Church.
(D. Charles Pyle, I
Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of
Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New
Testament Texts (Revised and Supplemented) [North Charleston, N.C.: CreateSpace,
2018], 268-69, italics in original)
On Hebrews 1:3
A Remarkable passage containing a similar
thought is found in Hebrews 1:3, “The Son is in the radiance of God’s glory and
the exact representation of his being.” The glory that Christ the on radiates
according to the author of Hebrews, is not his own but is the glory of God the
Father. The word translated here as “exact representation” (charaktēr) is a very interesting one.
According to W.E. Vine, it denotes “a stamp or impress, as on a coin or a seal,
in which case the seal or die which makes an impression bears the image
produced by it, and, vice versa, all
the features of the image correspond respectively with those of the instrument
producing it.” As one can tell by looking at a coin exactly what the original
die that stamped out the coin looked lie, so one can tell by looking at the Son
exactly what the Father is like. It is hard to imagine a stronger figure to
convey the thought that Christ is a perfect reproduction of the Father. Every
trait, every characteristic, every quality found in the Father is also found in
the Son, who is the Father’s exact
representation. (p. 21)
Is an Embodied Deity a Bad Thing or Good?
Commenting
on the use of “image” and “likeness” in Gen 1:26-27, Hoekema writes:
Obviously, to interpret literally the
anthropomorphic expressions about God found in Genesis 2 and 3 would distort
the biblical description of God as a Spirit (John 4:24) and being him down to
the level of a mere man. (p. 127, emphasis added; this also shows the
importance of properly exegeting John 4:24).
Notwithstanding,
previously in his book, after discussing Heb 1:3 (quoted above), Hoekema stated
the following:
When we reflect on the fact that Christ is
the perfect image of God, we see an important
relationship between the image of God and the incarnation. Would it have
been possible for the Second Person of the Trinity to assume the nature of an
animal? This does not seem likely. The Incarnation
means that the Word who was God became flesh—that is, assumed the nature of man
(John 1:14). That God could become
flesh is the greatest of all mysteries, which will always transcend our
finite human understand. But, presumably, it was only because man had been
created in the image of God that the
Second Person of the Trinity could assume human nature. The Second Person,
it would seem, could not have assumed a nature that had no resemblance whatever
to God. In other words, the Incarnation confirms the doctrine of the image of
God. (pp. 21-22, emphasis added)
Did Jesus,
after the Incarnation, become a “mere man” vis-à-vis His human will and nature?
While, according to the Hypostatic Union, Jesus has two natures (fully human
and fully divine) he is a single person
(per Ephesus and Chalcedon). This is further complicated for Hoekema et al., as
Jesus, according to the Hypostatic Union and the Christology from Chalcedon,
will remain the God-Man for eternity(!) Should he be labelled the “God-Mere Man”?
In reality, being embodied does not entail one being a “mere man” (which is
also poisoning the well, a common cheap debating tactic and fallacy).
The Prohibition Against Images in the
Decalogue and Implications for Anthropology
Commenting
on how man is a “mirror” of God (but only morally, not in terms of
three-dimensional relationship!), Hoekema wrote:
This fact is tied in with the prohibition of
image making found in the second commandment of the Decalogue: “You shall not
make for yourself a graven image” (Ex. 20:4, RSV). God does not want his
creatures to make images of him, since he has already created an image of
himself: a living, walking, talking image. If you wish to see what I am like,
God is saying, look at my most distinguished creature: man. (p. 67)
As noted in
the response to Lynn Wilder, linked at the beginning of this post, “image” and “likeness”
in Gen 1:26-27 shows a physical, three-dimensional relationship between God and
man, not a moral image merely.
Interestingly,
inscriptions and figurines in the ANE depict El and Yahweh as having bodily
form. There is the inscription at Kuntillet Ajrud of Yahweh and his Asherah
(image here),
and at Ugarit, there was a 13 cm. bronze statuette with gold covert, dating to
1300-1400 BC, depicts the deity El. The image depicts an old man with fingers,
eyes, ears, nose, mouth and feet, wearing a robe and crown while sitting down
and placing his hands forward in a blessing gesture (see Ora Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological
Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines [Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University,
1976], 114, no. 1442). I bring this up as some critics (e.g., J.P. Holding)
argue that, if God had a bodily form, there would be instances of God being
depicted in such a manner by the “unfaithful.”
On Num
23:19, a common “proof-text,” see:
As we see, the case for Hoekema's (and the common Reformed) understanding of man being in the "image" and "likeness" of God to be an exegetical failure.
