Introduction
There is little doubt that the Brotherhood in the past generation or so has shifted ground in its belief in the nature of God. Dr. Thomas said repeatedly that the Almighty is “corporeal” (Herald, 1861, p. 135) which means “bodily: material” (Concise Oxford Dictionary); but there has since been a movement, scarcely perceptible, toward the credential definition of One “without body and without part”. The change has probably been caused largely by
- the influence of growing scientific knowledge as to the nature and constitution of matter;
- Modernist theology represented by the Bonhoeffer-Tillich school in Germany, and notably in this country by Dr. J. A. T. Robinson in his book Honest to God;
- a misunderstanding of the phrase in John 4:24 which the A.V. renders “God is a Spirit”.
One approaches the subject with reverent concern not to probe the infinitudes of God’s presence and holiness beyond the point to which the Word will take us, nor yet to neglect to search out to the limit whatever in His wisdom He has revealed.
Need to define terms
Dr. Thomas was sufficient of an etymologist to use words to say precisely what he meant. But it is possible out of worthy zeal for his writings to acquire a slick facility for using his exceptionally ponderous phrases without understanding their meaning, and even stringing some together into impressive but meaningless jargon. Once one tries to say in words any ideas that one does not even understand, either the verbal result ceases to have meaning or more seriously conveys false ones. An old spiritual mentor of the present writer used to repeat the dictum “Define your terms” to the point of monotony, but it still lingers half a century later. Verbal in exactitude is the root of many evils, and the present subject is a field of thought in which grievous misunderstandings can only too readily arise because of it.
God is Spirit
Contrary to the A.V., the critical phrase in John 4:24 should be rendered “God is spirit”, with the indefinite article omitted (see other Versions). He seeks not to be worshipped in material temples as at Jerusalem or Gerizim, nor with elaborate ritual forms and ceaseless cycles of sacrifices, all related to time and place. “They that worship Him must worship Him” sincerely, with the “innermost occupations of the heart”, as the noblest response to His redeeming love. “God is spirit”, and we must worship Him spiritually.
Actually, in using these words, the Lord’s mind flashed back intuitively to another incident at the same Sychar (Shechem), and in so doing provided a striking confirmation of this interpretation of the John passage. “Joshua gathered all the tribes .. . to Shechem” to make a farewell plea to the nation to be faithful to God. “Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and in truth” (Josh. 24:1,14, cf. Jn. 4:24). And when the disciples rejoined their Lord he said, “I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour” (v. 38) ; which reflects the words of Joshua, “I have given you a land for which ye did not labour. …” (v. 13). Joshua called for “sincerity and truth”; Jesus for “spirit and truth”. All this is sufficient proof that John 4:24 makes no reference to the physical nature of God.
In Our Image
“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’.” Because “God” is the Hebrew word elohim (in the plural form), Dr. Thomas referred it to the angels (Elpis Israel p. 13, ed. 1917), whilst trinitarians seize on the passage to support their view.
Elohim occurs 25 times prior to this instance in verse 26. If then, consistently, it was uniformly referred to the angels, the Almighty would entirely disappear from the record of Creation in chapter one. And yet to change the meaning to “angels” in only one instance out of a total of 32 in the whole chapter, many of which are attached to the singular, would be an inexcusable departure from sound exegesis.
Primarily, throughout the Old Testament, of the 2,700 or so instances, preponderately elohim is used of God Himself, the plural form idiomatically adding the sense of excellence to mean, from the derivation of the word, Most Powerful God.
Back in Genesis 1:26 then, God is unquestionably the Speaker, saying of Himself and the angels, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. The conclusion is momentous, but the Word drives one inescapably to it: that there is some common resemblance between the Almighty, His angels and man as first created. Whatever be the meaning of the words “image” and “likeness” they apply equally to God and the angels and to man. The Almighty never wastes words, and the Genesis record is the acme of conciseness.
Image is the Hebrew word tselem, which means shape, form, something carved, and is used 14 times of the images in Daniel chapters 2 and 3 (see also 1 Sam. 6:5; 2 Ki. 16:10). H. Wheeler Robinson explains, “In Genesis 5:3 the same writer says that Adam begat Seth ‘in his likeness, according to his image’ employing the same terms as here (1:26). But the only possible meaning is physical resemblance. The deliberate use of identical terms implies that the resemblance of man to God in the initial creation was continued in successive births” (Inspiration and Revelation p. 19). A note on 1:26 in the Jerusalem Bible makes comment to the same effect.
Likeness (Gen. 1:26), which does not concern the present study, probably although not certainly, describes character or personality, involving the intellectual side of man.
Although Dr. Thomas understood the use of elohim in Genesis 1:26 differently from the present writer, his ultimate conclusion is the same, as the following quotation from Elpis Israel will illustrate : “The resemblance, therefore, of Adam to the Elohim as their image was of bodily form, not of intellectual and moral attainment; and this I apprehend to be the reason why the Elohim are styled “men” when their visits to the sons of Adam are recorded in the Scriptures of truth. In shape, Seth was like Adam, Adam like Elohim, and the Elohim, the image of the Invisible Increate: the great and glorious archetype of the intelligent universe” (Elpis Israel, p. 39, ed. 1917).
Once it is agreed that the terms of this germinal passage (1:26) are to be understood literally, it is important to treat as axiomatic that all later passages quoting or alluding to it shall carry the same literalness. It is on this critical point and principle of interpretation that the soundness or otherwise of this present article depends.
Visions of God
Visions of the Almighty were granted to some of the prophets (Isa. 6:1,3; Ezek. 1:26, 28; 43:7; Rev. 4:2,8), and it would seem that in every case God had “the appearance of a man”. Since, however, the other details of the visions are largely symbolical, it could be argued that the enthroned humanlike Figure also is symbolic, especially since in Revelation 4 the Redeemer sharing the throne with God is in the form of a Lamb.
And yet if every member in the series of a statement or in a scene were symbolic the message could not come to rest or have any basis in fact. In the case in point it is likely that the humanlike Form which is at the centre of the visions would bear some outward resemblance to the Divine One being portrayed even though the details be symbolic. But beyond that it would not be wise to venture. At least it can be said that even such visions of the Almighty as were granted to prophets do not militate against the view that has been advanced.
Whom No Man Can Approach
It is the uniform teaching of Scripture that God is immanent, pervading every corner of His Universe with His Presence through the medium of His radiating Spirit (Psa. 139, etc). But quite as unambiguously it teaches that God has location.
The “ascending and descending” of angels and the Son of Man give undeniable evidence that God dwells otherwhere than on earth, in some undefined place called “heaven”, where, enveloped in glory He is enthroned beyond the mortal gaze of man. God “only hath immortality (inherently and underived), dwelling in the light which no (mortal) man can approach unto” (1 Tim. 6:16). He is the Eternal “Substance” (Heb. 1:3 R.V.), the Source of all energy and life, by Whom all other existences are created and sustained: “God the Father out of Whom are all things” (1 Cor. 8:6).
The God “with Whom we have to do” is no shadowy, tenuous Ethereality. His Great Mind is the centre of the Absolute Being, the Creator, the Essence and Source of Spirit. His Substance is Spirit (Heb. 1:3 R.V.), and the Divine Form of His “Substance”, although inherently as different as Spirit is from Flesh, is the prototype of the first man He made of our race.
Immortal angels “behold the Face of my (Christ’s) Father which is in heaven (Mt. 18:10), and yet have appeared on earth in such human like form as not to be distinguishable from man (Heb. 13:2), whilst on other occasions, with outward form no different, radiating a glistering brightness before which their human beholders have fallen on their faces in terrified obeisance (Ezek. 1:28; Dan. 8:17). This might be explained by the angels physically obscuring their glory (see Zech. 4:6 R.V.m; Hab. 3:4), but more likely by their supernaturally protecting or masking the eyes of mortals present (Lk. 24:16).
God in the Image of Man ?
The Infinite God condescends to speak to us in terms within the limits of our knowledge and experience, since we cannot project our language further than we can think. To what extent then in describing Himself and His purposes and activities of grace, does God use anthropomorphic terms, that is attribute human traits and functions to Himself to get His message through to our finite minds? A simple illustration is Psalm 8:3: “When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars which Thou hast ordained …”. It would be incongruous and grossly irreverent to imagine the Almighty Father personally moulding matter with His Fingers, and flinging stars and planets into outer space to take their fixed positions or orbits in the stellar system. In truth, God has humanised the facts of His mighty creative activity to bring them dimly within our ken.
And yet, as we humbly grope and feel after the Reality it is possible to carry the anthropomorphic too far, and fail to grasp some of the literal aspects of His Being that He intends to teach us. To see, myopically, only the symbolic where the true teaching is literal could deprive us of precious further insights into the glory of God.
Man in the Image of God
A. G. Tilney has wisely made the point that anthropomorphism carried to excess makes God in the image of man, whereas theomorphism Scripturally applied sees man correctly in the image of God, with his outward form a faint replica of the Divine Image.
It is a curious situation when this present writer has to hesitate to expound a viewpoint that he learnt 50 years ago, especially when it is generally known to be supported repeatedly by the writings of Dr. Thomas. And now a careful study of the evidence of Scripture has produced no different result. If some readers sniff with impatience, or even disgust, they are invited to show where the Word has been misconstrued.
Christ in the Image of God
As Adam came fresh and unsullied from the Hand of his Maker, his appearance reflected within the limits of his lower nature, something of his Divine Prototype. But soon the image was marred by sin, and mutations have since caused such wide variations of size, shape and colour of the human body that one cannot imagine how far the race has deteriorated from the pristine “image” of the first pair.
In the case of the Lord Jesus, so far as a human mother transmits the defects of the race, he would share them. It might be argued that he would also inherit some superior characteristics from his Divine miraculous begettal, and that there are hints of such a superior “image”, mental and physical, in his early years before the hostility of sin had marred it (Lk. 2:40,52). Ceaselessly harried as he was by his enemies, spied upon by employed informers, pressed continually by the needy, wearied by the sheer physical demands of his journeys and his preaching, and most of all disturbed by the haunting knowledge of the future—these all made that “visage”, so full of grace and truth, “more marred than any man”. It was not inept to say to him as he neared Calvary, “Thou art not yet fifty years old”.
However much the effect of sins not his own had left their mark on that noble brow lined “with grief”, his disciples could see it radiate “the love and kindness of God”, and grow to realise they were beholding “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”. When Philip said, “Show us the Father and it sufficeth us”, he must have been spiritually obtuse, since there was still in the drawn and haggard face something of the paternal “Image”, the Face of the Father reflected in His beloved Son. Perhaps when Jesus replied to Philip, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”, he meant a little more than a mental perception of identity of character. “That … which we have seen with our eyes … of the Word of Life” was an unforgettable experience.
The New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament word “image” (Heb. tselem) is the Greek word eikon (cf. Eng. icon), which was used by Jesus when he asked, “Whose image and superscription is this” about the Roman coin.
Discussing the head covering of sisters in the assembly, Paul says: “For man … is the image (eikon) and the glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (1 Cor. 11:7). Notice that the “image and likeness of God” is quoted from Genesis 1:26 by Paul as “the image and the glory of God”. As in Genesis “image” described physical form, whilst the Genesis term “likeness” becomes “glory” as the equivalent term for personal qualities. But in the case of the woman, Paul does not complete the parallel, and “image” is not used of her, perhaps because her physical form is different from that of both man and God. Hebrews 1:2 takes up the two terms “image” and “likeness” from Genesis 1:26. “The effulgence of His (God’s) glory” (R.V.), defines the word “likeness”; whilst “the express image of His (God’s) substance” explains the term “image”.
All this might seem to be more technical than profitable, but the inspired writer is saying nothing less than that Christ in his mortality was a replica in outward form, within the limits of his nature, of his Father. In other words, “the express image of God’s substance” is synonymous with “family likeness”. Of this there is more to say.
“Now Father I Come to Thee”
The Voice of God was heard, living and nersonal, during the ministry of the Lord Jesus. Only the Father Himself could say, “This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased”. At the baptism of Jesus, at the transfiguration and when the Greeks came to see him, with a crowd present on two of the three occasions, the Father spoke articulately in words that could commonly be heard. It would be a dubious procedure to bend the words of Scripture to mean that God impinged the impression of the message on the minds of the hearers without using audible sound as the medium of transmission, when the records of the incidents are so simple and explicit.
It has been shown elsewhere that John’s Gospel supplies good evidence that Jesus enjoyed a free intercourse of conversation with his Father during the three-and-a-half years between the temptation in the wilderness and Gethsemane, so that he would grow to recognise the personal Voice of his Eternal Father with all its inflections of filial intimacy and love (The Testimony, Jan. 1969, p. 30). The evidence on this point precludes any possibility of our reducing the terms of these experiences of Christ to the anthropomorphic. The Voices of Father and Son were well-known to One another.
From the moment he left the upper room with his disciples, saying, “arise, let us go hence” (Jn. 14:31), the mind of Jesus was directed toward going to his Father. “And, now. … I come to Thee” (Jn. 17:11). In the numerous references to his going to the Father, one feels the tension between this eagerness and a reluctance to leave his faltering bewildered disciples. To join his Father in a complete fullness of harmony and love unfettered by the limitations of his present mortality was not the least part of “the joy that was set before him” that imparted both incentive and strength to face the final ordeal.
And what, still in his mortal mind, did Jesus expect to experience in that Ultimate Union in which their love was finally to be bound and perfected in eternity? Would the relationship be any less personal after he was glorified than before? To ask the question is to answer it, but not to explain it. At least he expected to meet his Father as personally and intimately as when he had spoken to him during the Ministry: not only as the God in Whose Image man had originally been made, but the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” of Whose fulness he had now partaken for eternity. “In Thy presence is fulness of Joy”.
They shall see God
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”, says the sixth beatitude. The first and the last of the beatitudes give promise of the kingdom of heaven, and each of the intervening six some aspects of the immortal blessings of it. To “see God” cannot therefore be merely to improve one’s mental perception of Him. When Job made his final confession of faith and asked for it to be preserved on a memorial plaque, he believed that though he might die and his body decompose, a Redeemer would bring him back to life in the latter days, so that from his flesh he might see God (Job 19:26 R.V.). A Jewish husband would never be “satisfied” until he had a boy in his “likeness”, but David only when he would awake with God’s likeness (Psa. 17: 14-15 R.V.). In a passage in which the personal pronouns are strangely mingled, the Apocalyptic Angel said, “His servants shall serve Him, and they shall see His face” (Rev. 22:3-4).
Although the Saints will take the Kingdom, their earthly responsibilities will not prevent them from “ascending and descending” like the angels and the Son of Man to “behold the face of their Father which is in heaven”.
The original purpose of God will at last be realised in them to perfection, through ages of God’s merciful redeeming grace to bring to fruition His primal edict: “Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness”.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One