Saturday, November 16, 2019

Anthony Hoekema on Man being in the "Image" and "Likeness" of God


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)

Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought
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.