Rev. Angus Stewart
(1) The Nature and Number of the Image of God
Introduction
There is one thing in the Scriptures that the ungodly call an “image” of God but is definitely not: idols (e.g., Ex. 20:4-6; Isa. 44:9-20; Rom. 1:23; Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 35)!
There are four parties who are spoken of in Holy Writ as truly being in God’s image. Here they are arranged in a sort of “chronological” order:
The Second Person of the Holy Trinity (cf. Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3; Belgic Confession 10)
Pre-fall Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; Belgic Confession 14; Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 6; Canons III/IV:1)
The incarnate Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:4)
All those born again by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 115)
Two of these four parties in God’s image are divine: the eternal Son simpliciter and that same eternal Son when He became incarnate. The other two of these four parties are human beings: Adam and Eve before the fall, and those regenerated after the fall.
All individuals and churches that have any claim to be orthodox gladly acknowledge the truth of the above four identifications (and one non-identification) regarding the image of God or imago dei. But there is disagreement regarding the unregenerate: Is unbelieving man in God’s image? This is the most controversial question involved in the whole subject of the imago dei. It is also a very important issue, especially in our day, when the notion that everybody is in God’s image is being used to promote common grace, women in church office, homosexuality, the salvation of unconverted pagans, etc.
The thesis of this and subsequent articles is that unregenerate and unbelieving men, women and children are not in the image of God. In this and later instalments, Lord willing, we shall see that this is the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the Reformed confessions.
The Nature of the Image of God
Let us begin by analyzing the nature of the image of God. The Bible clearly describes God’s image in His believing people as consisting of three things: knowledge, righteousness and true holiness.
The proof of this comes from two texts in Paul’s epistles. Colossians 3:10 states, “[You] have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him [i.e., God] that created him.” Notice, first, that here we have a reference to the “image” of God. Second, these Christians at Colossae (and all believers) have been “created” in God’s image in regeneration. Third, this image of God, in which we have been created through the new birth, includes “knowledge,” the knowledge of God.
Our second Scripture is the parallel passage in Ephesians 4:24: “ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” First, since Ephesians 4:24 refers to the “new man” which is “created” in God’s “image” and Colossians 3:10 speaks of the “new man” which is “created” “after God,” the phrases God’s “image” and “after God” are equivalent. Second, our being “created” “after God” or in His “image” in regeneration includes “righteousness” and “true holiness.”
This use of Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 in defining the content of the image of God in His born again and believing people (and pre-fall Adam and Eve) as consisting of knowledge, righteousness and true holiness (all ethical, moral or spiritual virtues) is clearly biblical and widely recognized. It is also confessional (Belgic Confession 14; Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 6, 115; Canons III/IV:1; Westminster Confession 4:2; Westminster Larger Questions, Q. & A. 17, 75; Westminster Shorter Questions, Q. & A. 10, 35).
But what is the imago dei in which unbelievers are supposed to be? Unlike what we have just seen regarding the nature of the image of God in believers, there are no biblical texts which specify the nature of the (alleged) divine image in the ungodly. Nor is there any solid exegesis of any biblical texts that prove the content of the (supposed) imago dei in the wicked.
Instead, the content of this alleged image of God in unbelievers is arbitrary. Typically, some or all of the following are mentioned: morality and rationality; spirituality and personality; possession of the “faculties” of memory and/or intellect and/or will and/or conscience; personhood, freedom, dignity, language, etc.
These things surely characterize man—whether believing or unbelieving—but there is no proof that these things are the content of the image of God. Those who maintain that the unregenerate are in the divine image can point to no scriptural testimony as to its content. On this subject, one searches their books and articles in vain for any cogent exegesis of even a single biblical text.
The Number of the Image of God
Moving from the nature of the alleged imago dei in unbelievers, we come to the number of the image (or images) of God in man. According to the theory that absolutely everyone is in the image of God, there are necessarily two images of God in man. First, there is the image of God in the narrow sense, as many of them put it, which consists, as we have seen, in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Second, they posit an image of God in the broader sense, which is the only imago dei in unbelievers.
In short, according to the view that we are here opposing, the number is two, for there are two images of God in man. To express their view more kindly, there are two aspects of the image of God in man.
Reader, which of these two images of God, do you think, is most talked about? Is it the manifestly scriptural truth that believers in Christ crucified and risen are in the imago dei (the image of God in the so-called narrow sense) or the idea that unbelievers are in the imago dei (the so-called image of God in the broader sense)?
What about the teaching of the liberal Protestant churches? Or the Roman Catholic Church? Undoubtedly, they lay great emphasis upon the notion that absolutely everybody is in the image of God. This notion is fundamental in their false doctrine and practice. Indeed, this idea is one of their main theological building blocks!
What about purportedly conservative churches and organizations and people? My experience—and many others I know would say the same thing—is that in their pulpits, periodicals, books and witnessing they speak a lot more about the (alleged) image of God (broader sense) in all men head for head than the very clearly biblical teaching that those are in His image who are in fellowship with the Father through Jesus Christ and by His Holy Spirit.
Let us see know how this applies to unbelievers and believers in this life. According to the theory that we are refuting, the unbeliever is in the imago dei (broader sense), so he has one image of God or one aspect of the image of God. The believer, however, is both in the imago dei in the broader sense and the imago dei in the narrow sense, so he has two divine images or two aspects of the image of God.
But is there any Scripture for this idea of two images of God in His children? Are you aware of anywhere in the Bible that speaks of two divine images in us? Yet the theory that unbelievers are in the image of God necessarily entails two images of God in the regenerate.
We should also consider how this notion applies to the elect before and after their regeneration or conversion. “While we were yet sinners” (to echo Romans 5:8), we possessed one imago dei, the image of God in the so-called broader sense. After the Holy Spirit “quickened us together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5), we possess two images of God, both the divine image in the broader sense and the divine image in the narrow sense, as they speak of them.
But is there any warrant in God’s Word for such a thing? A man being born with one image of God and then being born again and so possessing two images of God? Does Christ teach this in the gospel accounts? Is this found in the letters of Paul or Peter or John, or anywhere in Scripture? Yet these notions of two images of God in man, of unbelievers having one image and believers having two images, and of the elect possessing one divine image before their conversion and two divine images after their new birth, are required by the theory that we are opposing.
(2) The Idea of the Image of God and Massive Incongruities
Last time, in the light of both the nature and the number of the imago dei, we considered significant problems with the view that unbelievers are in the image of God. In this article, we shall critique this theory further. We will begin with arguments from the idea of the image of God, and then we will point out some of the amazing incongruities and massive equivocations which follow from the erroneous position that absolutely everybody bears the imago dei.
The Idea of the Image of God
There are two types of image. First, there is an image with little or no similarity to that which it images. Think of the image of Audi: four interlocking, horizontal circles. This image does not look like an Audi car but you have learned to link it to Audi. Such an image is a symbol, for it represents something else purely by means of association or convention.
Second, there is an image with a significant degree of similarity to that which it images. Think of the image of yourself in the mirror; it sure looks like you!
The image of God is an instance of the latter sort of image. This is evident even from a brief consideration of the four parties that all sides agree are in the image of God. First, the eternal Son of God possesses all the divine attributes and is the perfect image of the Father. Second, Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, is the “express image” of God (Heb. 1:3) so that those who have seen Him have seen the Father (John 14:9). Third, Adam and Eve before the fall were in the imago dei as those who spiritually looked like their Creator (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6). Fourth, all those who are elect and regenerate are in the image of God as those who know Him savingly, and are righteous and holy by the transforming work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:29; II Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
Moreover, those who are in the image of God are also in the likeness of God. The very first reference to the imago dei in the Bible joins these two ideas: “And God said [on day 6], Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). If a party is in the image of God, it is also in the likeness of God (Gen. 1:27; cf. 5:1).
So the question, Are unbelievers in the image of God? is equivalent to the question, Are unbelievers in the likeness of God? Are those willing to answer yes to the former question also willing to embrace the latter?
Let us go further. Someone who is in the image of another is the image of another; someone who is in the likeness of another is the likeness of another (cf. I Cor. 11:7; II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). Do we really want to say this regarding the wicked: the ungodly are the image of God and those who hate Him are the likeness of God?
Scripture not only joins together the image of God and the likeness of God, but it also joins these concepts with the glory of God. Of course! Since God is glorious, those who are His image and likeness are glorious too! Thus Scripture refers to “the image and glory of God” (I Cor 11:7).
Adolf Hitler, the image and glory of God? Osama bin Laden, the image and glory of God! Richard Dawkins, the image, likeness and glory of God? Joseph Stalin, the image, likeness and glory of God!
“Ah,” someone might object, “these are emotive figures, particularly wicked men who hated the holy Triune God with an especially great vehemence.” Yes, but the position we are opposing is that all unbelievers absolutely are God’s image and, therefore, are His likeness and are His glory. Clearly, identifying the ungodly as the image of God goes too far! This important biblical concept carries a lot of theological freight.
Amazing Incongruities and Massive Equivocations
Identifying unbelievers as the image of God also involves further amazing incongruities and massive equivocations.
How does this notion square with the truth of God Himself? Is ungodly man really in the image of God when he does not even worship the God he is supposed to be like? If the wicked were the glory of God, surely they would glorify the God of glory!
The Lord Jesus is “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). But unbelievers, who are supposedly in the image of God, do not recognize the Lord Jesus as the image of God! The wicked, who are allegedly God’s image-bearers, are “blinded” by Satan with regard to the “light” of Jesus Christ, “the image of God” (II Cor. 4:4). Moreover, 2,000 years ago, those who were, allegedly, the image, likeness and glory of God actually crucified the Messiah, who is the perfect image, likeness and glory of God!
On the plain of Dura outside Babylon in Daniel 3, unbelievers in the image of God, according to the theory which we are opposing, bowed down to and worshipped Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image. Those who were the image and glory of God adored and glorified an image of gold!
In Isaiah 46:7, those who are God’s image-bearers bear images of Bel and Nebo, Babylonian gods!
In Romans 1:23, those in the image and likeness of God make and worship images in the likeness of men, birds, beasts and creeping things. Those who are the image and glory of God change the glory of the incorruptible God into images of corruptible creatures!
In Revelation 13:17, those who are the image of God, according to the theory we are opposing, worship the image of the beast. Those who supposedly bear the likeness and mark of God actually bear the mark of the beast! Can all all this theory really be true?
Do you remember Christ’s response to the Pharisees and Herodians who asked if it was lawful to pay taxes to the Romans (Matt. 22:15-22)? The truth is that these Jewish leaders were more interested in coins with the “image and subscription” of Caesar than the God they were supposed to image or in His great image-bearer, the Lord Jesus. Unbelievers in all ages, though allegedly in the image and glory of God, are gripped by the imaginary glory of money rather than the glory of God (cf. Luke 16:13).
What about Satan? If the image of God (in its alleged “broader sense”) consists of rationality and personality, the possession of intellect and will, and creaturely freedom and language, then it follows necessarily that the devil is in the image of God! Yea, Satan is the image of God, the likeness of God and the glory of God! In fact, having such a good memory, powerful intellect and resolute will, the devil has a much, much greater image of God (in the “broader sense”) than any of us!
So it is not just all of fallen humanity that is in the image of God but also be Beelzebub and all his host! Advocates of the theory that we are opposing may object at this, yet it necessarily follows from their own principles.
(3) Divine Sonship and Dangerous Consequences
So far, we have presented four arguments against the popular notion that all unbelievers are in the divine image. In the first three, we reasoned from the nature, the number and the idea of the imago dei. Then we pointed out some of the amazing incongruities and massive equivocations which logically follow from the erroneous position that absolutely everybody bears the image of God.
In this article, we shall produce two more arguments. The first proceeds from the relationship between divine sonship and the divine image, and the second traces several, dangerous ethical and theological consequences of the notion that unbelievers are in the image of God.
Divine Sonship
Let us return to the four parties whom all sides in this debate agree are in the image of God. First, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is both the image of God and the eternal Son of God the Father. Second, Jesus Christ is both the imago dei and the incarnate Son of God. Third, Adam and Eve were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27) as a son and daughter of God (cf. Luke 3:38). Fourth, all believers have been recreated in the image of God (e.g., Rom. 8:29; II Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and are the sons or daughters of God.
Do you see the pattern here? All four parties (the eternal Son, the incarnate Son, pre-fall Adam and Eve, and all believers) are both the image of God and the Son or sons (or daughters) of God. The connection is obvious: sons (or daughters) look like their fathers!
Even in the earthly sphere, this is obvious. Moreover, the visible realm reflects the spiritual realm. By eternal generation, God the Son is the “express image” of God the Father (cf. Heb. 1:3). By spiritual regeneration, God’s sons (and daughters) are the image of God in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).
Let us build on an argument made in the last instalment of this series. The claim that unbelievers are in the image of God means that they are not only the likeness of God and the glory of God, but they are also the sons of God and the daughters of God!
However, Scripture declares that unbelieving, impenitent, reprobate humans are the seed of Satan, the old serpent (Gen. 3:15; Rev. 12:9), and the sons and daughters of Satan. The Lord Jesus denied the claims of the ungodly Jews that God was their Father (John 8:38, 41-42). Instead, He told them, “Ye are of your father the devil [and, therefore, you are his sons and daughters], and the lusts of your father ye will do [because you are like your father and in his image]” (v. 44).
Our Lord went on to explain why the ungodly Jews sought to kill Him (vv. 37, 40, 59) and why they could not receive His truth (vv. 40, 43, 45-47, 55): “Ye do the deeds of your father” (v. 41; cf. v. 38). Here Jesus highlighted two sins (those against the sixth and the ninth commandments) in which the ungodly sons imitated their satanic father: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (v. 44). Ethically and spiritually, the wicked sons imaged their diabolical father!
Dangerous Consequences
Now we are in a position to outline some of the dangerous consequences which flow from the idea that unbelievers are the image of God.
If sodomites and lesbians really are the image of God (and, therefore, also His likeness and glory), homosexuality is OK. This argument is made repeatedly by various Jews and professed Christians, as it was in connection with the appointment of homosexual Canon Jeffrey John as the Church of England Bishop of Reading in 2003 (though he later withdrew his acceptance). Watch out for more instances of this claim in the days ahead!
This doctrine of the imago dei feeds into the liberal notion of the universal brotherhood of man, for all bear God’s image. If everyone is in the image of God, then everyone is a child of God, for all look like God their Father. Thus we have the false gospel of the universal brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity under the universal fatherhood of God. This is the old modernist heresy proclaimed by many, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.
Logically, the doctrine of man is corrupted through this teaching of the divine image. If all are in the image of God, what about the truth of total depravity? Surely, the image of God is good, morally good, for the God who is imaged is good, morally good! Therefore, man is not totally depraved. This is the argument of many.
Similarly, if everybody is God’s image, likeness and glory, then man must have free will. What is the image of the infinitely good God, if it does not entail ethical goodness? And free will (the ability to desire and choose that which is morally good) is crucial for ethical goodness!
Not only the doctrine of man but also the doctrine of God is affected by the notion that everybody bears the imago dei. After all, the Almighty must love His image, likeness and glory in the reprobate! This is called a universal or common grace, according to which the unchangeable Jehovah is merciful to those whom He has passed by and ordained to destruction in the way of their sins (Westminster Confession 3:7). It is instructive that Abraham Kuyper, the father of common grace, builds so much of his case for this false doctrine upon the erroneous idea of the imago dei.
Likewise, the well-meant offer (a passionate desire in the Most High to save the reprobate) fits perfectly with this doctrine of God’s image. Surely, Jehovah must desire the salvation of those in whom His image, likeness and glory are manifest?
In the doctrine of eschatology or the last things, it is the truth concerning hell that is most endangered by a universal image of God in man. God’s image-bearers in hell? Those who are Jehovah’s likeness enduring everlasting burnings? The divine glory in the lake of fire? Could the ever blessed God tolerate such a blasphemous thing as this? If the image of God is in a man, surely there is a spark of His glory in him (the issue is not that of quantity but quality!)? Thus there is no such thing as hell or eternal punishment. Such is the argument of Harry R. Boer, a theologian of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), in his heretical book, An Ember Still Glowing: Humankind as the Image of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990).
I realise that there are some who want to hold that all men are in the image of God (in some sense) within a more orthodox framework of beliefs (regarding homosexuality, man’s total depravity, God’s sovereign grace, hell, etc.). They argue that the so-called broader sense of the image of God consists solely in the categories of creation or nature and does not concern ethical or moral issues.
Besides the problems with this view pointed out in this and the previous two articles, there is the underlying fact that the term “the image of God” of itself carries great theological and ethical freight. Moreover, the idea that the ungodly are in God’s image in some sense has no scriptural support, for the few texts which are brought forward are wrongly interpreted, as we shall see.
(4) Two Verses From the Psalms
The articles in this series oppose the widely held view that the ungodly are the image of God. Our first three arguments were based upon the nature, the number and the idea of the imago dei. We also reasoned from the inseparable connection between divine sonship and the divine image. In addition, we pointed out both the amazing incongruities and the dangerous consequences which arise from the notion that the wicked are God’s likeness.
In this instalment, we shall consider two additional arguments from two verses from the Book of Psalms: Psalm 17:15 and Psalm 73:20. The first was penned by David and refers to God’s “likeness,” while the second was written by Asaph and speaks of God’s “image.”
Psalm 17:15
Psalm 17 is a Psalm of David, as its heading indicates. The man after God’s own heart prays, “Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings” (v. 8). David was a divine image-bearer, one who was confident that he was precious to, and preserved by, his covenant Lord. In this assurance, the earthly king of Israel makes his petitions to Israel’s heavenly King.
The Psalmist asks the Almighty to keep him “From the wicked that oppress me, from my deadly enemies, who compass me about. They are inclosed in their own fat: with their mouth they speak proudly. They have now compassed us in our steps: they have set their eyes bowing down to the earth; Like as a lion that is greedy of his prey, and as it were a young lion lurking in secret places” (vv. 9-12). Is one to think that the perverse opponents of holy David really image God as those who are like Him?
Next David prays against his ungodly persecutors: “Arise, O Lord, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword: From men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes” (vv. 13-14). Are David’s worldly enemies really divine image-bearers?
This question is all the more pointed because, in the very next verse, the Psalmist refers to himself—and not his enemies!—as in the image and likeness of God: “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness” (v. 15).
Here the divine image or likeness includes “righteousness,” as it does in Ephesians 4:24. Paul, the human penman of that epistle, may even have been thinking of Psalm 17:15.
We share David’s confident hope that we, who are in the divine image (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; I Cor. 11:7), and who are being more and more conformed to Christ’s image (Rom. 8:29; II Cor. 3:18), will be completely righteous as those in the perfect likeness of God in the new heavens and the new earth. Then we, along with the man after God’s own heart, will “awake” on the resurrection day (Ps. 17:15; Isa. 26:19), as those who “bear the image of the heavenly” (I Cor. 15:49).
Psalm 73:20
Psalm 73 is the first of eleven inspired hymns written by Asaph (Ps. 73-83), who also penned Psalm 50, as all their headings reveal. It is also the first chapter in the third book of the Psalms (Ps. 73-89).
Geoffrey W. Grogan even reckons that “the message of the Psalter can be seen in its essence in [Psalm] 73” (Prayer, Praise and Prophecy: A Theology of the Psalms [UK: Christian Focus Publications, repr. 2009], p. 245). He adds,
It is increasingly recognized that [Psalm] 73 is of great importance in the structure of the Psalter. It has in fact been well suggested that it virtually sums up the message, not only of whole Book of Psalms but of the whole Old Testament, and so becomes a kind of Old Testament theology in microcosm (pp. 211-212).
For the purposes of this article, the key verse in this God-breathed song is Psalm 73:20: “As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.”
Asaph here is alluding to common human phenomena: sleeping and waking; dreaming and partially remembering one’s dream when one regains normal consciousness. We are all very familiar with this.
In Psalm 73:20, Asaph makes a daring comparison between human beings, who wake after a dreamy sleep, in the first part of the verse before the semi-colon; and God’s remembering the image of a dream after He wakes from slumber (so to speak), in the second part of the verse after the semi-colon: “As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.”
The God who, in reality, neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps. 121:3-4) is here pictured as a man who has a dream. When He wakes up, He cannot remember all His dream. He merely recalls an image of the wicked people He dreamt about. But He loathes even the image of the ungodly: “thou shalt despise their image”!
Prof. David Engelsma comments on this:
Whatever the image of the wicked may be, in despising the image of the wicked God despises the wicked themselves. Their image is themselves in a certain respect. Despising their image, God despises them. This adds something to the divine hatred of the prosperous wicked. God holds them in contempt. He regards them as despicable, shameful creatures (Prosperous Wicked and Plagued Saints: An Exposition of Psalm 73 [Jenison, MI: RFPA, 2007], p. 63).
Would the Holy Spirit inspire these words: “O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image,” if the wicked were truly the image (and likeness and glory) of God?
In his earlier reckoning that the outward prosperity of the ungodly meant that God was blessing them (Ps. 73:1-16), Asaph tells us that he was actually being “foolish,” “ignorant” and brutish (v. 22). This unbelieving thinking was only rectified when the Psalmist returned to worship Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel: “Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end” (v. 17).
Their “end” or destiny is described in the next two verses: “Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors” (vv. 18-19).
The awfulness of eternal punishment! The truth of hell as the destiny of all the reprobate wicked destroys, consumes and makes desolate (to use Asaph’s language) the false doctrine of common grace, which claims that the earthly prosperity of the wicked means that God loves and blesses them.
Thus Psalm 73 is of service on two fronts. First, it militates against the notion that unbelievers are in the divine image. Second, it opposes common grace.
This is especially significant if, as Grogan posits, Psalm 73 presents the “essence” of “the message of the Psalter” and is “a kind of Old Testament theology in microcosm.” Both grace and the imago dei are not common, according to the Psalms and the Old Testament!
On the one hand, the erroneous ideas of common grace and a universal imago dei go together theologically. All those who hold to common grace believe that everybody is God’s image. They invariably use the latter to support the former, like Abraham Kuyper, the father of common grace.
On the other hand, the truth of particular grace fits beautifully with the graces of spiritual knowledge, infused righteousness and true holiness—the image of God!—being wrought by the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of Jehovah’s elect and redeemed people alone. This happens initially in regeneration, progressively in sanctification and perfectly in glorification—all in Jesus Christ, the image of God (II Cor. 4:4)!
The combined testimony of Psalm 17:15 and Psalm 73:20 is compelling. Both verses speak of awaking. First, Psalm 17:15 speaks of David’s waking with spotless righteousness in God’s perfect likeness at the very start of the eternal state of bliss (believers are in the imago dei). Second, Psalm 73:20 refers to Jehovah’s waking at the very end of the earthly lives of the impenitent wicked, and despising and destroying them (unbelievers are not in the imago dei).
But what about the texts that people appeal to in order to “prove” that unbelievers are God’s image-bearers? We will turn to these verses next time, Lord willing.
(5) Three Misinterpreted Texts
Unbelievers are not in the image of God—this is the thesis and burden of this series of articles. So far we have considered arguments from the nature, number and idea of the imago dei, as well as the relationship between the image of God and divine sonship. We pointed out the amazing incongruities, massive equivocations and dangerous consequences involved in the position that the ungodly are Jehovah’s image-bearers. In the last instalment, we looked especially at two verses of Scripture from the Psalms: Psalm 17:15 (believers are God’s likeness) and Psalm 73:20 (unbelievers are not in God’s image).
Now it is time to respond to the three texts to which some appeal in an attempt to prove that the wicked are in the imago dei in the so-called “broader” sense: I Corinthians 11:7, Genesis 9:6 and James 3:9.
I Corinthians 11:7
The first verse is I Corinthians 11:7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
“You see,” exclaim our opponents, “everybody is in the image of God!” However, we should note two very simple points. First, this text says that man “is” the image of God, not merely that he is in the image of God. Second, I Corinthians 11:7 states that man “is the image and glory of God.” Do our adversaries on this issue really want to say that an ungodly man “is the image and glory of God,” the Holy One of Israel, who is “merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Ex. 34:6)?
Apart from the problem that I Corinthians 11:7 proves too much for those who are our theological opponents at this point, the fatal weakness of their view of this text is its context. Paul is writing to the church, those whom he calls his “brethren” (2) and whose “head” is the Lord Jesus (3), not unbelievers. Thus the apostle calls the saints at Corinth to imitate him even as he imitates “Christ” (1), and praises them for remembering him in all things and keeping the ordinances that he delivered to them (2).
Paul tells us that he is writing about the instituted “churches” (16), in which the Lord’s Supper is administered (17-34). The subject of I Corinthians 11:3-16 is the roles of godly men and women in the organized church, with respect to headship, praying, prophesying, etc.
It is in this context that we must read our text: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” It clearly refers to believing man as “the image and glory of God,” as even some advocates of the so-called “broader” aspect of the image realize, for they do not use it in support of their position.
Genesis 9:6
A second verse cited to by those who claim that absolutely everybody is in the imago dei (in some sense) is Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
Unlike I Corinthians 11:7, which only pertains to believers, Genesis 9:6 speaks of mankind. However, Genesis 9:6 does not teach that mankind is in the divine image now.
In stating that “in the image of God made he man,” Genesis 9:6 harkens back to Genesis 1:26-27 and the creation of man on day six. In Genesis 3, two chapters later, the human race fell and lost the image of God, becoming the sons and daughters of Satan (John 8:44).
The opening articles of the Canons of Dordt III/IV explain this:
1. Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright; all his affections pure; and the whole man was holy. But, revolting from God by the instigation of the devil and abusing the freedom of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.
2. Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature.
Thus Genesis 5:3 states, “Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” This Scripture does not teach that our first father had a son in the image of God. Instead, Adam “begat a son in his own likeness, after his image,” a totally depraved image, not the imago dei (cf. Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-21).
The argument of Genesis 9:6 is that man was created in the image of God, unlike the animals. Therefore, the death penalty is to be administered to those who murder human beings (5-6), not those who kill animals (2-3), which have been given to man (2), especially for food (3-4). Genesis 9:6 does not teach that all the sons of fallen Adam, who are in “his image” (5:3), are also in the divine image.
All of this can be summarized in biblical order as follows:
Genesis 1—Creation: man is made in the image of God
Genesis 3—Fall: man loses the image of God and now bears the image of Satan
Genesis 5—Procreation: fallen humanity has children in its own (fallen) image
Genesis 9—Capital punishment: murderers are to be executed because man, unlike the animals, was originally created in God’s image (1:26-27)
James 3:9
James 3, the greatest chapter in the Bible on the tongue, states, “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude [or likeness] of God” (9).
The Greek verb translated “are made” is in the perfect tense. Thus it refers to both a past action (when people were made in the imago dei) and a present state resulting from this action, so that people are now in God’s likeness.
The question is, Does “are made” in the perfect tense refer to man’s original creation in Genesis 1 (and hence to everybody) or does it speak of man’s re-creation (and hence to believers only)?
The latter is the answer, for James 3:9 in its context is dealing with God’s people, who have been regenerated in the image of their heavenly Father (1:18). Thus James 3 is addressed to the “brethren” (1, 10, 12) and speaks of “masters,” that is, teachers, in the church (1). All Christians, and especially church teachers, are to be “perfect” (2) in their words (2-12) and “wise” (13) in their deeds (13-16).
James 4, the next chapter, explains that this is necessary to avoid “wars” and “fightings” “among you,” that is, in the church (1). Some believers are not praying as they ought (2-3), and are forming friendships with the world and so are not living the antithesis (4-5). After warnings against pride in their midst (6-10), James exhorts, “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth of his brother, speaketh evil of the law” (11). The next verse also forbids this evil judging of one “another” (12).
Thus we return to James 3:9: “Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude [or likeness] of God.” It refers to believers hypocritically using their tongues, on the one hand, to bless God their Father but, on the other hand, to curse human beings who have been made in the image of God in regeneration (Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 86) and so are now in the image of God.
Believers speaking evil of one another (4:11-12) starts and continues “wars” and “fightings” in the church (1) or, to express it more graphically, it kindles and feeds spiritual “fire” in the congregation (3:5-6). People engaged in such activities are not equipped to be teachers in the church (1) for they are speaking wickedly (2-12) as those lacking wisdom (13-16).
Next time, DV, we shall consider the teaching of the Reformed confessions on the image of God.
(6) The Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards
We answer the question, “Are unbelievers in God’s image?” with a firm negative! After five articles in which we have treated this issue both biblically and theologically, we now come to the Reformed confessions, first, our Three Forms of Unity and, second, the Westminster Standards. In the next instalment, we shall consider other Reformed creeds.
Three Forms of Unity
The first of the Three Forms of Unity historically is the Belgic Confession (1561). Article 14 defines the imago dei in terms of moral and spiritual qualities, and treats it in connection with man’s creation and the Fall:
We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after His own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will, agreeably to the will of God. But being in honour, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death, and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not, where St. John calleth men darkness.
Two years later our Heidelberg Catechism (1563) was written. It defines the divine image in terms of righteousness, holiness and the knowledge of God, and teaches that man became “wicked and perverse” through the Fall (cf. Q. & A. 7):
Q. 6. Did God then create man so wicked and perverse?
A. By no means; but God created man good, and after His own image, in true righteousness and holiness, that he might rightly know God his Creator, heartily love Him, and live with Him in eternal happiness to glorify and praise Him.
The only other reference to the imago in the first two of the Three Forms of Unity is the Heidelberg Catechism’s later reference to it as the image of Christ, in connection with sanctification and good works:
Q. 86. Since then we are delivered from our misery merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
A. Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by His blood, also renews us by His Holy Spirit after His own image; that so we may testify by the whole of our conduct our gratitude to God for His blessings, and that He may be praised by us; also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith by the fruits thereof; and that by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.
Finally, we come to the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619). This creed also defines the divine likeness in terms of the familiar trio, which were lost at the Fall: knowledge, righteousness and holiness. It does so in terms of man’s “faculties”: his “understanding,” “heart and will,” and “affections,” which, together with his body, constitute the “whole man.”
Man was originally formed after the image of God. His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright; all his affections pure; and the whole man was holy. But, revolting from God by the instigation of the devil and abusing the freedom of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts, and on the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, and perverseness of judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections (III/IV:1).
Immediately after this, the Canons state, “Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt offspring” (III/IV:2). Fallen mankind has children in its own corrupt image and not in the divine likeness!
A later article in the Canons of Dordt, reflecting on the teaching regarding the imago dei above, speaks of it in terms of “spiritual gifts,” “good qualities” and “virtues”:
[The Synod rejects the errors of those] Who teach that the spiritual gifts, or the good qualities and virtues, such as goodness, holiness, righteousness, could not belong to the will of man when he was first created, and that these, therefore, could not have been separated therefrom in the fall (III/IV:R:2).
To conclude, there is not a word in our Three Forms of Unity about the alleged “broader sense” of the image of God, which defines it, for example, in terms of man’s rationality or continued existence after death, though man’s rationality and possession of a soul is, of course, part of his humanity. Moreover, everything in our official creeds fits perfectly with our teaching regarding the divine likeness.
Westminster Standards
Moving from these continental European Reformed creeds, we come to the Westminster Standards (1646-1647) produced by British Presbyterianism. All three of these documents speak of the imago dei in connection with man’s creation, and as consisting in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, explicitly citing in their footnotes the two classic proof texts: Ephesians 4:24 (“And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”) and Colossians 3:10 (“And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him”).
After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures (Westminster Confession 4:2).
Q. How did God create man?
A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man out of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable and immortal souls; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. & A. 17).
Q. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. & A. 10).
The remaining two references to the divine likeness in the Westminster Standards speak of it in connection with the believer’s sanctification (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q. & A. 75; Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. & A. 35), as does Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 86, quoted earlier.
In short, all three documents in the Westminster Standards (the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism) define and explain the image of God in the same way as the Three Forms of Unity. Nothing that they teach conflicts with our view that unbelievers are not in God’s image. Everything they say sweetly accords with our doctrine that only those men, women and children who are in covenant communion with God in Jesus Christ are His likeness, image and glory!
Next time, we shall turn to other Reformed creeds on the imago dei, DV.
(7) Other Reformed Creeds
Last time, we saw that everything in all the three documents of the Three Forms of Unity (the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt) and all three creeds in the Westminster Standards (the Westminster Confession, the Westminster Larger Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism) fit with our doctrine that only God’s elect, redeemed and regenerated people are His likeness and image. But what about the creeds of other Reformed traditions?
Whereas the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards are relatively easy to obtain in the English-speaking world, many of the other Reformed creeds are harder to come by. The best and most comprehensive compilation is the four, superb volumes edited by James T. Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008-2014). The quotations below are taken from this work, with all the italics being supplied by me.
Hungarian Reformed
From the Hungarian Reformed, we will consider first The Synod at Szikszó (1568). In Article XII, the imago dei is not only defined in terms of spiritual “virtues,” but also Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 are explicitly cited in the text of the English translation, and not merely in a footnote:
They err exceedingly who speak the nonsense that the image of God in which man was made was the future humanity of Christ, since it is the virtues that are communicated to men: righteousness, holiness, wisdom (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). And the first man is said to be the form of the future, not the image of man (3:151).
Not only do the Documents of the Debrecen Synod (1567) identify the divine likeness as “virtues,” appealing to Ephesians 4:24, as does The Synod at Szikszó, but they also state that the imago dei was “lost” at the fall and only “restored” to, and “renewed” in, God’s people in Christ by regeneration and sanctification:
First, since the image of God was lost by Adam, it was restored through the image of the infinite God, consubstantial and equal with the Father, i.e., Christ was made to us righteousness, life, truth, and sanctification; that is, He restored our lost virtues (1 Cor. 1; Col. 1-2; Eph. 1, 3; 1 Cor. 15). “Day by day, we are renewed more and more to His image through the Spirit of God” (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18). “Put on the new man, who has been created in accordance with God” (Eph. 4:24) … Therefore Christ, by the power of His deity, has restored the image of God, the lost virtues (3:17-18).
Scottish Reformed
Journeying from one end of the sixteenth-century European Reformed world to the other, we leave Hungary for Scotland. The Scottish Confession (1560), written by the six Johns, including John Knox, opposes original sin (an ethical category) to the divine image, proclaiming in Article III that through the fall the imago dei in man was “utterly defaced” and human beings became the devil’s slaves: “By which transgression, commonly called original sin, was the image of God utterly defaced in man. And he and his posterity of nature became enemies of God, slaves to Satan, and servants to sin (Eph. 2; Rom. 5)” (2:189).
Twenty-one years after the 1560 Scottish Confession of the six Johns, we have Craig’s Catechism (1581). Its author, John Craig (1512-1600), another John, served as the assistant to John Knox in St. Giles, Edinburgh, for nine years; a chaplain to King James VI of Scotland, later King James I of Great Britain and Ireland; and the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on three occasions (1570, 1576 and 1581). Craig’s Catechism was a Scottish staple for over sixty years, until the publication of the two Westminster Catechisms in 1647. This lengthy quotation demonstrates not only that the imago dei is a major theme in Craig’s Catechism, but also that it explicitly and antithetically teaches that only believers are in God’s image. Clearly, unbelievers are in “the image of the serpent,” if the old nature in the believer is so described.
Q. In whose image made He them? (Gen. 1:26)
A. In His own image.
Q. What is the image of God? (Eph. 4:24)
A. Perfect uprightness in body and soul …
Q. What was the craft of Satan here?
A. He persuaded them that good was evil and evil was good.
Q. How could they be persuaded, having the image of God?
A. They had the image, but not the gift of constancy.
Q. What things did they lose through their fall? (Gen. 3:17)
A. The favor and image of God, with the use of the creatures.
Q. What succeeded the loss of the favor and image of God? (Gen. 3:14)
A. The wrath of God and original sin.
Q. What is original sin? (Rom. 5:19; 7)
A. The corruption of our whole nature …
Q. In what did their salvation stand?
A. In the remission of their sin and repairing of God’s image.
Q. What followed upon the repairing of God’s image? (Rom. 7:5)
A. A continual battle both within and without.
Q. From whence does this battle proceed?
A. From the two contrary images in mankind.
Q. What are these images?
A. The image of God and the image of the serpent (3:545, 546, 549).
Other Reformed
Centred on the Alpine regions of France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Austria, the Waldensians were a reform movement that God raised up in the later Middle Ages. In the sixteenth century, through the labours of William Farel and others, the Waldensians joined the Reformed branch of the Reformation.
In Article VIII, the Waldensian Confession (1662) declares, “That man, who was created pure and holy in God’s image, by his own fault deprived himself of that blessed estate, having believed the lying words of the devil.” Ephesians 4:24 and Colossians 3:10 are among the proof texts cited (4:502). The text of the Waldensian Confession of 1655, upon which the 1662 version is based, is practically identical (4:439). The same teaching on the image of God is found in the Waldensian Confession of 1560, which also appeals to Ephesians 4:24 (2:220-221).
The Large Emden Catechism (1551) of East Frisia (now in north-west Germany) and written by the Polish Reformer John à Lasco, is even stronger. It proclaims that the likeness of God is “indisputably” “destroyed” and “lost” by the Fall:
Q. 81. How should I understand this?
R. [i.e., Response] Indisputably, the image and likeness of God, in which man was created in the beginning, along with all inclinations for good, was lost in him.
Q. 82. How should I understand this?
R. This image of God was in Adam in the beginning, by virtue of which he was immortal, holy, wise, and lord of the entire world, and thus was endowed with the freedom and ability to either completely execute or disregard the commandment of God. However, the image of God in himself and in all of us he so destroyed by his sin, that henceforth, all offerings intended for goodness were utterly destroyed both in himself and in all of us (1:607).
The Confession of the Spanish Congregation of London (1560/61) in Chapter 3:1-2 explains that the image of God consists in spiritual “gifts” (2:375-376). Immediately after this comes “Chapter 4: On the Fall of Man; on the Faculty of the Human Will before and after the Original Sin, and the Penalties of It, and the Cause of Evil.” Its first section explains that, though created as one who knew God in love, through the Fall, man is no longer “like God,” but “in the image and likeness of the devil.”
We confess that, man, at his creation, having received from the hand of God the powers of wisdom and the ability and will to know, love, and serve his Creator, persisting in his obedience (which is commonly called free will), received also a law (Gen. 2), in the obedience of which he exercised these admirable gifts; which, breaking by his own free will (Gen. [3]), at the same time was marred from the image of God, and all the benefits that make him like God. And from the state of being wise, good, just, truthful, merciful, and holy he was rendered ignorant, evil, impious, a liar, and cruel, clothed in the image and likeness of the devil toward whom he moved as he departed from God, with the loss of that holy liberty with which he was created (Eccl. 7; 2 Peter 2), and thus was made a slave and servant of sin and of the devil (2:376).
Conclusion
What shall we say after surveying these nine creeds (and others could have been cited to the same effect)? They only ever speak of the image and likeness of God in terms of spiritual “virtues” and “gifts,” including knowledge, righteousness and holiness, the three terms used in the two key, biblical texts (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10), which are either explicitly cited or presupposed in the confessions.
As with the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards, the imago dei in man is treated in these other Reformed creeds in three contexts: creation, the Fall and sanctification. First, the divine likeness is mentioned most frequently in connection with man’s creation in the beginning. Second, the image of God is variously described as having been “lost,” “destroyed” or “utterly defaced” at the Fall, so that mankind, partaking of “original sin,” became “wicked and perverse,” “enemies of God,” “slaves to Satan,” “servants to sin,” “the image of the serpent” and “the image and likeness of the devil.” Third, through our restoration or renewal in the image of Christ in regeneration and sanctification, the elect alone are restored to the divine likeness by sovereign grace!
The Three Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards and these other nine Reformed confessions only ever speak of God’s children, those in covenant fellowship with Him, as being in their Father’s image: Adam and Eve before the Fall, and believers in Christ after the Fall.
The documents of the Three Forms of Unity were written in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, with the delegates at the Synod of Dordt, plus those invitees who were unable to attend, representing practically the whole of the Reformed world at that time. The Dutch Reformed, through their diaspora and missions, have used these creeds around the globe. The Westminster Standards are the confessional documents of Presbyterianism in the British Isles and on every continent. There are also the basis for the Congregationalist Savoy Declaration (1658) and the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), both of which maintain Westminster’s teaching on the imago dei. Add to this the two creeds of the Scottish Reformed before the Westminster Standards and the two confessions of the Hungarian Reformed, plus the creeds of the Waldensians in and around the Alps, the Large Emden Catechism (with its Frisian, German and Polish connections), and the Confession of the Spanish Congregation of London (with its English and Spanish links). None of these fifteen Reformed creeds speak of the imago dei in a “broader sense” or refer to unbelievers as bearing the divine image! Nor do the Congregationalist and Baptist confessions mentioned above.
The next instalment will consider the truth of the imago dei in connection with the five solas of the Reformation, DV.
(8) The Testimony of the Theologians
Subordinate Authority of Theologians
The first five articles in this series used biblical and theological arguments to prove that only believers, and not unbelievers, are in the divine image. The last two articles considered the testimony of the Reformed confessions. Of the fifteen creeds that we looked at, including all the six documents in the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Standards, none speak of the imago dei in the so-called broader sense, all define the divine likeness as we do and some specifically deny the image of God to the ungodly.
But our opponents will object, What about the teaching of individual theologians? Before we address this directly, it is important that everyone get straight the Reformed “hierarchy” as regards authority in spiritual and doctrinal truth. First, our supreme authority is the Word of God, divinely inspired and infallible. Our secondary authority is the Reformed confessions, especially, for us, the Three Forms of Unity. These are, of course, fallible but, after comparing them to the Holy Scriptures, as our “Formula of Subscription” puts it:
We … sincerely and in good conscience before the Lord, declare … that we heartily believe and are persuaded that all the articles and points of doctrine, contained in the [Belgic] Confession and [Heidelberg] Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine, made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-’19, do fully agree with the Word of God.
In our day, evangelicalism, knowing little and caring less for the Reformed confessions, grossly misunderstands the “hierarchy” of theological authority. In its well-nigh uniform practice (and so in its, largely unstated, theory), evangelicalism speaks as if the authority of theologians is higher than that of the Reformed creeds. This is wrong and not Reformed! Inspired Scripture first, then the Reformed confessions and, finally, individual theologians. However, not only is our position biblical and creedal but God has not left himself without witness among the theologians either!
Quotes From Theologians
We begin with one of the greatest: Martin Luther. In his commentary on Genesis 1:26, the German Reformer correctly points out, “If these powers [i.e, memory, will, and mind] are the image of God, it will also follow that Satan was created according to the image of God, since he surely has these natural endowments, such as memory and a very superior intellect and a most determined will, to a far higher degree than we have them.” All admit that such statements are found throughout the writings of the ex-monk of Wittenberg.
Nor did all the Lutheran theologians, ministers and members decline from following this teaching of the man whom God used to start the great sixteenth-century Reformation. Indeed, despite the massive apostasy within worldwide Lutheranism, Martin Luther’s views on the imago dei have not entirely died out. In the USA, the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, in its 1991 Explanation of the Small Catechism of Martin Luther, gives the following questions and answers:
106. What was the image of God? The image of God was this: A. Adam and Eve truly knew God as He wishes to be known and were perfectly happy in Him (Col. 3:10). B. They were righteous and holy, doing God’s will (Eph. 4:24).
107. Do people still have the image of God? No, this image was lost when our first parents disobeyed God and fell into sin. Their will and intellect lost the ability to know and please God. In Christians God has begun to rebuild His image, but only in heaven will it be fully restored (Gen. 3:8-10; 5:3; I Cor. 2:14; Ps. 17:15).
It is not correct to dismiss this teaching merely as “Lutheran” and not Reformed. Beside the Reformed creeds, Heinrich Heppe, a significant historian of the continental Reformed theological tradition, mentions several Dutch, German and Swiss theologians who denied that the wicked are the image of God in the “broader sense,” as it would later be called. Heppe asserts that Johannes Cocceius, Johannes Heinrich Heidegger, Johannes Braun, Herman Witsius, Leonhard Riisen and others “declared against” this notion.1
Moving from continental Europeans, we come to the English Puritans. William Perkins, often called the father of the Puritans, declared, “man by creation was made a goodly creature in the blessed image of God: but by Adam’s fall men lost the same, and are now become the deformed children of wrath.”2 He was followed in this teaching by, amongst others, Paul Bayne (Perkins’ successor at Cambridge University), Richard Sibbes (noted for his warm preaching), Joseph Caryl (author of the longest commentary on the book of Job), Thomas Vincent (who penned a fine explanation of the Westminster Shorter Catechism) and Ralph Venning (who wrote The Sinfulness of Sin).3
Moving north from England, we come to a nineteenth-century, Scottish Presbyterian, George Smeaton, who averred,
The image of God, in which Adam was created, was replaced by the entire corruption of man’s nature (John 3:6). His understanding had been furnished with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator and of spiritual things; his heart and will had been upright; all his affections had been pure; and the whole man holy: but, revolting from God by the temptation of the devil, the opposite of all that image of God became his doleful heritage; and his posterity derive corruption from their progenitor, not by imitation, but by the propagation of a vicious nature, which is incapable of any saving good. It is prone to evil, and dead in sin. It is not denied that there still linger in man since the Fall some glimmerings of natural light, some knowledge of God and of the difference between good and evil, and some regard for virtue and good order in society. But it is all too evident that, without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, men are neither able nor willing to return to God, or to reform their natural corruption.4
Crossing the Atlantic, we turn to American Presbyterian, R. L. Dabney:
This image [of God] has been lost, in the fall, and regained, in redemption. Hence, it could not have consisted in anything absolutely essential to man’s essence, because the loss of such an attribute would have destroyed man’s nature. The likeness which was lost and restored must consist, then, in some accidens.5
A. W. Pink, a twentieth-century English Baptist, also rejects the popular error regarding the image of God:
Even among those preachers who desire to be regarded as orthodox, who do not deny the Fall as a historical fact, few among them perceive the dire effects and extent thereof. “Bruised by the fall,” as one popular hymn puts it, states the truth far too mildly; yea, entirely misstates it. Through the breach of the first covenant all men have lost the image of God, and now bear the image of the Devil (John 8:44). The whole of their faculties are so depraved that they can neither think (2 Cor. 3:5), speak, nor do anything truly good and acceptable unto God. They are by birth, altogether unholy, unclean, loathsome and abominable in nature, heart, and life; and it is altogether beyond their power to change themselves.6
It is in this biblical, creedal and theological tradition that we and the Protestant Reformed Churches stand. As Homer C. Hoeksema put it,
It is perhaps even well not to speak of the image of God in the “[f]ormal” and “material” sense, though this distinction is much safer [than that of the image of God in the so-called “broader” and “narrower” senses]. For after all, the “image of God in the formal sense” is, strictly speaking, not the image of God in man, but his capacity to be an image bearer. And as such, he may bear either the image of God or the image of the devil. It is well, therefore, to limit ourselves to the language of our Canons and to include in the image of God only what this article [i.e., III/IV:1] included, namely, the excellent spiritual, ethical gift which man forfeited through his rebellion and fall.7
1 Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, rev. & ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thompson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978), pp. 232, 237-238.
2 William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbol or Creed of the Apostles, According to the Tenor of Scripture in The Work of William Perkins (Cambridge: John Legat, 1600), p. 240.
3 For quotes from these men and others in this article, plus worthies not mentioned here, see “Theologians on the Image of God in Man.”
4 George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Great Britain: Banner, repr. 1958), pp. 17-18. Note that Smeaton consciously summarizes Canons III/IV:1-4.
5 Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1972), p. 293.
6 A. W. Pink, The Doctrine of Sanctification (Choteau, MT: Gospel Missions, n.d.), p. 45.
7 Homer C. Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers: An Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht (Grand Rapids, MI: RFPA, 1980), pp. 433-434.
(9) The Doctrinal and Practical Importance
False View Not Distinctively Reformed
We have seen that the popular claim that all men head for head, including unbelievers and the reprobate, are in the image of God is false. In the preceding eight articles, we proved this from Scripture (1-5), the Reformed confessions (6-7) and theologians (8). Both the order and the length of these three categories of argument was deliberate. This is the “hierarchy” of authority for Reformed Christians.
Some persist in claiming that it is truly Reformed to hold that unbelievers are the image of God. However, the notion that all of humanity bears the imago dei is not only false but it is also not distinctively Reformed, unlike, say, double predestination or irresistible grace. The so-called “broader sense” of the divine image is not even specifically Christian, since it is the teaching of the various forms of Judaism. Nor is a universal divine likeness characteristically Protestant, for Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the cults all hold to it.
That everyone is in the divine image is axiomatic in theological modernism and liberalism the world over. Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism all delight in proclaiming that everybody bears the divine likeness. Anabaptism, Pentecostalism or Charismaticism unite in affirming that unbelievers are in the imago dei. How can a view held by Pelagius, Servetus, Arminius, Martin Luther King Jr., Benny Hinn and the Pope be distinctively Reformed?
Doctrinal Importance
The importance of the issue as to who is in the image of God is, first of all, a matter of truth. Since God’s Word teaches that the imago dei is particular, being borne by those sinners only who are elect, redeemed and regenerated in the Lord Jesus, Christian and Reformed theology must recognize and teach this. Here we maintain sola scriptura. The Bible alone is the written Word of God and, therefore, the supreme standard of doctrine and practice.
Second, this subject is vital in understanding man as to his lostness. Jehovah despises wicked man’s image (Ps. 73:20) for unregenerate man is not the likeness of God. Instead, he is the image of both his satanic father, the devil (John 8:44), and his earthly father, Adam, who begat children in his own fallen likeness (Gen. 5:3). Thus mankind is totally depraved, “blinded” by “the god of this world” and so lacking free will, which is the ability to believe “the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God” without irresistible grace (II Cor. 4:4).
Third, the correct view of the image of God serves evangelism. Reformed witnessing and preaching calls the unconverted to repent and believe in Jesus Christ crucified and risen for the forgiveness of sins and the imputed righteousness of God, adding the sincere promise that all who come to the Saviour receive eternal life and rest (Canons II:5), and warning that those who stubbornly refuse will perish everlastingly (Luke 13:3). Proclaiming to unbelievers that they are already the image of God (apart from Christ, the image of God) corrupts the preaching, confuses the hearers and weakens the urgency of the gospel call.
Fourth, that the image of God is particular to the regenerate reinforces and so preserves the gospel. Since totally depraved man is the imago diaboli (the image of the devil), with his will in bondage to sin, salvation must come entirely from God and be received by faith alone (sola fide) without works. It is only through the gospel of grace, sovereign grace, grace alone (sola gratia), rooted in unconditional predestination (Rom. 8:29), that man is restored to the image of God—all of the image and every sense of the image.
Fifth, our view of the divine likeness honours Jesus Christ. The eternal and incarnate Son is the perfect image of God (II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3) and the only One in whom man recovers the divine glory. Surely, there is no such thing as a Christless likeness to God! We are renewed in the image of God through being “conformed to the image of his Son, that he might” have the preeminence as “the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Clearly, the imago dei is received only in union with our Saviour for it is in Christ alone (solus Christus).
Sixth, our position magnifies the Holy Spirit and His work. The Holy Spirit creates us in the image of God in regeneration (Col. 3:10). It is “the Spirit of the Lord” who transforms us into “the glory of the Lord” more and more in sanctification (II Cor. 3:18). The Spirit of Christ perfects us in the image of God in the age to come (Ps. 17:15; I John 3:2).
Seventh, the doctrine of the imago dei as particular to those born of the Spirit glorifies the living God. It degrades Him that unbelievers are said to be His image, likeness and glory. Even demons, including Satan himself, are the image, likeness and glory of God, if the imago dei consists of rationality, personality, etc., as is the claim of those who advocate its so-called “broader sense.” The Triune God alone is glorified when we honour His Word, His gospel, His grace, His Son, His Spirit and His work of salvation regarding the divine likeness (soli Deo gloria).
In other words, the doctrine of the divine image as recreated in the regenerate alone is not only that of the inspired Word of God, in accordance with the Reformed confessions. It is also fits perfectly with the Trinitarian faith of Christianity, the genius of Protestantism (summed in the five solas or five “alones”: salvation by faith alone, through grace alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, according to Scripture alone) and the Reformed truth of sovereign grace.
Practical Importance
The truth of the image of God presents us with a compelling Christian identity. In union with Christ, we do and must reflect the likeness and glory of our covenant God who has created, redeemed and saved us. We should live in this world, therefore, as Jehovah’s faithful image-bearers as either male or female, according to our biological creation (Gen. 1:27; I Cor. 11:7). Yet, according to the advocates of the “broader sense” of the divine likeness, a man who tries to image a woman is really the divine likeness and glory!
Our sanctification is growth in the divine image and the beginning of our glorification, even our increased conformity to our Saviour’s likeness—a very attractive and winsome perspective! Thus Paul explains, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (II Cor. 3:18). So let us look at Christ in the Scriptures and in the preaching!
As those recreated in the image of God (Eph. 4:24) and “partakers of the divine nature” (II Pet. 1:4), we must be “followers [i.e., imitators] of God, as dear children,” by walking “in love, as Christ also hath loved us” (Eph. 5:1-2). In the context, this includes being “kind” and “forgiving,” “even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you” (Eph. 4:32).
The church consists of divine image-bearers (I Cor. 11:7), which should be borne in mind in connection with partaking of the Lord’s supper (I Cor. 11:17-34) and the exercise of spiritual gifts (I Cor. 12-14). Since all the saints have been “made after the similitude [or likeness] of God” by the Holy Spirit, we must not “curse” them (James 3:9), and wage “wars and fightings” in the congregation (James 4:1).
The truth of the imago dei helps us as we seek to keep the Decalogue out of gratitude for our salvation in the cross of Christ. We can only keep the first commandment, that of having no other God than Jehovah, by knowing and worshipping Him through His “express image,” the Lord Jesus (Heb. 1:3). Similarly, by believing in Christ, the incarnate image of God, we keep ourselves from making or worshipping any images or likenesses of Jehovah, as per the second commandment. We must not hate or kill our neighbour (sixth commandment) because we know that the human race is different from the animals, for only man was created in the imago dei (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6). The seventh commandment rests upon God’s creation of humanity as male or female (Gen. 1:27; I Cor. 11:7). Evil speech, which is prohibited by the ninth commandment, is especially guarded against in the church because God’s people have been recreated in His “similitude” or likeness (James 3:9).
Jehovah’s providence is even brighter to those who understand the truth of the imago dei, since the One who rules the universe for our salvation is the “express image” of God (Heb. 1:3). Moreover, believers are confident that the great “good” for which our heavenly Father governs “all things” is our increasing transformation into the image of Christ: we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom. 8:28-29). Let us believe and experience this victory (I John 5:4-5)!
Not only our faith but also our hope is informed by the truth of the imago dei. At our resurrection, we shall be God’s perfect image-bearers (Ps. 17:15; I Cor. 15:49). Then, in Christ, we will exercise a far greater kingship over the universe than ever Adam did before the fall (Gen. 1:26-27; Ps. 8). This is well worth waiting for!
