Evangelical Answers : Angels and the Image of God (Imago Dei)

Answer. The most apt definition of the Imago is, in my opinion, here enumerated by Amandus Polanus: “The image of God in rational creatures is the likeness of the divine nature impressed by God on rational creatures, so that they reflect and represent Him as an archetype and father.”1 Peter Van Mastricht similarly states that:

“…the image of God in man is nothing except a conformity of man whereby he in measure reflects the highest perfection of God. It is a conformity, in which it agrees with a vestige, and through this conformity, there concurs in the image every likeness of God in man, by which, in his own way, man reflects God, that is, he displays such things which are to a certain extent and by analogy common to him and God.”2

What exactly constitutes this image, I have no idea. The Scriptures do not say, and theologians vary wildly both within and between theological traditions. However, for the purposes of our present inquiry I believe this definition to be sufficient.

Question. Are Angels made in the image of God? (A Reformed Perspective)

Answer. Yes.

Direct Evidence. If Genesis 1:26 is a reference to the divine council,3 as the vast majority of Hebrew scholars believe,4 then the scriptures explicitly teach that Angels are made in the image of God.5 If Genesis 1:26 is not a reference to the divine council then the Scriptures do not explicitly6 state that Angels are made in the image of God. However, if we examine the whole counsel of Scripture we can hardly arrive at any other conclusion.

Indirect Evidence.

(1) That Angels are image bearers appears to be the view of the majority of theologians, both before7 and after8 the Reformation.9

(2) The titles and roles given to the Angels are indicative of the Imago Dei (Image of God).

(a) Angels are called sons of God—bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25)10—which would be a wholly inappropriate epithet to ascribe to beings who were not image bearers.11 To be a “son” is, by definition, to bear the image of your father (cf. Genesis 5:3—“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.” NASB).12 The same title is given to human beings (Romans 8:14-17) and to the Lord Jesus Himself who is “the Son of God” (Luke 4:41; Matthew 16:16).

(b) Angels are called sons of the Most High (ʿelyôn)—Psalm 82:6.13 John Calvin rightly observed that in light of this “it would be inappropriate to deny that they were endowed with some quality resembling their Father. …For they could not continually enjoy the direct vision of God unless they were like him”14 (cf. Matthew 18:10).

(c) Angels are called gods (’ĕlōhîm)—cf. Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6; and Psalm 8:5 with Hebrews 2:7. Cf. 2 Corinthians 4:4. The same term is used to describe human beings (Exodus 21:6) and the Lord God Almighty (Genesis 1:1).

(d) Angels are called holy ones (ἅγιος in the LXX)—Job 15:15; Daniel 4:13, 17; Psalm 89:5; Zechariah 14:5.14.5 The same title (ἅγιος) is used of human beings (Matthew 27:52; Acts 9:13, 32; 26:10; Romans 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-26, 31; etc.) and of the Lord Jesus Himself who is “the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; John 6:69).

(e) Angels are called princes—Daniel 12:1 (the name Michael means “he who is like God”); Daniel 10:20-21; cf. Ephesians 2:2.15

(f) Angels are called rulers (ἀρχή), authorities (ἐξουσία), powers (δύναμις), dominions (κυριότης), and thrones (θρόνος)—Ephesians 1:21: 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; cf. John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11.16

(g) Angels are described as passing “sentences,” “commands” and “decrees” over humanity—Daniel 4:17; cf. 4:26-27.17

(h) Angels are called God’s council (sôḏ)—Psalm 89:5-7.18

Such descriptions hardly seem appropriate of beings who do not bear the Imago Dei.

(3) The place of humanity in creation. “You have made them a little lower than the angels19 and crowned them with glory and honor” (Psalm 8:5 NIV). Peter Van Mastricht rightly observed that this strongly implies that Angels “bear the image of God at least no less than man”.20 For such a description would seem to be wholly inappropriate were not Angels also bearers of the Imago Dei (cf. 2 Peter 2:10-11).

(4) Humanity is called, as Amandus Polanus rightly observed, to “imitate the holiness and righteousness of the good Angels, so that we are on earth as they are in heaven”21 (cf. Matthew 6:10). That we are to imitate the Angels in such things implies that they are image bearers.

(5) In the end our relationships will resemble those of the Angels (Matthew 22:30). Hence John Calvin writes, “it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares, our highest perfection will consist in being like them.”22 Calvin’s point is this: since we find that Human relationships will one day resemble Angelic relationships—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30 NASB)—such that “our highest perfection will consist in being like them” in this respect, it seems beyond reasonable to infer that Angels are also bearers of the Imago Dei.

(6) In the end our bodies will be like the Angels in their immortality. In Luke 20:35-36 we read that “those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (NASB). Commenting on this passage E. H. Plumptre writes:

‘It is obvious that here the resurrection is assumed to be unto life and to share in the divine kingdom. The fact that men were counted worthy to obtain that resurrection was a proof that they were “children of God,” and as such on the same footing as those other “sons of God,” whom the language of Scripture . . . identified with the angels.’23

Similarly, Matthew Henry observed that they

“are the children of God, and so they are as the angels, who are called the sons of God. In the inheritance of sons, the adoption of sons will be completed. …For till the body is redeemed from the grave the adoption is not completed. … We have the nature and disposition of sons, but that will not be perfected till we come to heaven.”24

(7) Archibald Alexander noted that “Angels are moral agents and accountable beings, or they could not be holy, and could not have sinned, as many of them have done”25—cf. 1 Timothy 5:21, elect Angels; 2 Peter 2:4, Angels that sinned; 1 Corinthians 6:3, judgment (cf. Matthew 25:31,41; Revelation 20:10). Even though moral agency is likely not the essence of the image of God (i.e. it is an accidental rather than substantial property of the Imago),26 it seems unreasonable to assume that one could possess such attributes and not be an image bearer.

(8) The existence of elect (ἐκλεκτός) Angels (1 Timothy 5:21), a quality also attributed to human beings (Matthew 22:14), militates in favor of their status as image bearers.

(9) If Ezekiel 28 is describing the fall of the Satan, a point which it contested among scholars,27 than the description “You had the seal of perfection [תָּכְנִית, lit. a pattern] Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty” (Ezekiel 28:12 NASB), would strongly suggest that Angels were made in the image of God. See, for example, Gregory the Great, who wrote that the “angel which was first created . . . is not said to have been made in the likeness of God, but as the seal of likeness, since as its essential nature is finer, it is suggested that God’s image is expressed with greater likeness in it.”28 However, as the interpretation of this passage is debatable, I propose it only as an ancillary piece of evidence in support of my assertion.

(10) Both Angels and human beings are citizens of the same heavenly city (Hebrews 12:22-24; Ephesians 2:19), employed in the same heavenly vocation (i.e. worshiping the Lord God Almighty—Revelation 5:11-14; 19:10; 22:9), members of the same family (Ephesians 3:14-15), under the same Head (Ephesians 1:10, 22; Colossians 1:20).28.5 How could this possibly be true if Angels were not also image bearers?

Objections. Answering objections is beyond the scope of this summary. However, most objections are relatively facil and can easily be dispelled by a careful examination of the material presented thus far (including the notes)—additionally, objections are cataloged (with answers) in the index above.

Conclusion. Given the evidence enumerated above it seems highly likely that Angels are image bearers. However, It should be observed that Angels may not image God in exactly the same way in which humankind images God. Peter Van Mastricht observed that human beings do not “bear an image of God that is perfect in every way, such an image as Christ bears according to the divine nature . . . but one that is in some measure similar, not the same or equal.”29 The eternal Son “is the image [ἐστιν εἰκὼν] of . . . God” (Colossians 1:15 NASB; cf. Hebrews 1:3) His Father in a manner which is different (“perfect in every way”) from the way in which “man . . . Is the image . . . of God [εἰκὼν . . . θεοῦ ὑπάρχων]” (1 Corinthians 11:7 NASB; cf. Genesis 1:27). Yet the Scriptures speak of both as imaging the Father. So too then, Angels may image God in a way which is—to a degree—different from humankind, however this would in no way negate the status of image bearer in either.30

1. Sons of God. Return to Outline.

The old testament speaks repeatedly of Angels as bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm—sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25)—which would be a wholly inappropriate epithet to ascribe to beings who were not image bearers. To be a “son” is, by definition, to bear the image of your father (cf. Genesis 5:3—“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.” NASB).

How can the Angels be described as sons of God if they are not also image bearers (cf. Genesis 5:3)? Angles are called sons of God. The phrase bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm is everywhere (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25)—except potentially Gen. 6:2 [See further: Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Genesis 6:1-4).]—used to describe angels (or the pre-incarnate Son’s resemblance to the angels). The LXX renders Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7 with ἄγγελος and Daniel 3:25 (LXX 3:92) as υἱῷ θεοῦ. (See further: Deuteronomy 32:8[LXX]; Psalm 29:1; 82:1-8; 89:6; Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Luke 20:36.)

Cf. John Phillips:

The expression “sons of God” (“sons of Elohim”) occurs only four times in other parts of the Old Testament. It occurs three times in the book of Job (1:6; 2:1) where we read of “the sons of God” presenting themselves before God, Satan being in their midst. Evidently in that context the sons of God are angelic beings. It occurs again in Job 38:7 where we read that, at the creation of the world, the morning stars sang together and that the sons of God shouted for joy. Again the sons of God are evidently suprahuman beings. The other reference is in Daniel where we are told of Nebuchadnezzar that he saw four men walking in his burning, fiery furnace. He recognized three of them as his human victims. The fourth was “like a son of God” (in that case it was God the Son in one of His preincarnate appearances), again a supernatural being,

The use of the title “sons of God” in the Old Testament, then, is confined to angelic beings and to Christ. In the Septuagint version of the Scriptures the expression “sons of God” is invariably translated “the angels of God.” The term “sons of Elohim” seems to be confined to those who are directly created by God’s volition rather than to beings born of their own order. It is that characteristic that, as much as anything, distinguishes between the angels and men.

(John Phillips, The John Phillips Commentary Series: Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001], fn. 4, p. 79.) Preview.

Cf. Deuteronomy 32:8:

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided up humankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly.

(New English Translation.)

Cf. NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition:

Heb “the sons of Israel.” The idea, perhaps, is that Israel was central to Yahweh’s purposes and all other nations were arranged and distributed according to how they related to Israel. See S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), 355-56. For the MT יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֵי (bene yisraʾel, “sons of Israel”) a Qumran fragment has “sons of God,” while the LXX reads ἀγγέλων θεοῦ (angelōn theou, “angels of God”), presupposing בְּנֵי אֵל (bene ʾel) or בְּנֵי אֵלִים (bene ʾelim). “Sons of God” is undoubtedly the original reading; the MT and LXX have each interpreted it differently. MT assumes that the expression “sons of God” refers to Israel (cf. Hos. 1:10), while LXX has assumed that the phrase refers to the angelic heavenly assembly (Pss 29:1; 89:6; cf. as well Ps 82). The phrase is also attested in Ugaritic, where it refers to the high god El’s divine assembly. According to the latter view, which is reflected in the translation, the Lord delegated jurisdiction over the nations to his angelic host (cf. Dan. 10:13-21), while reserving for himself Israel, over whom he rules directly. For a defense of the view taken here, see M. S. Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” BSac 158 (2001): 52-74.

(NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019], n. G, on Deuteronomy 32:8, p. 394.) See also: biblegateway.com.

Cf. Meredith G. Kline:

A satisfactory meaning is not readily yielded by the Masoretic text and most exegetes favor an alternative text (supported by LXX and a Qumran Deuteronomy fragment) which reads “sons of El (God)” instead of “sons of Israel.” Some who prefer this text regard “the sons of El” as an allusion to the heavenly council of angels (as specifically read in LXX) and in order to explain the “one apiece” (lemispar) correspondence to the seventy nations have recourse to the seventy sons of the god El in Canaanite myth. However, a more general interpretation (and free from the mythological objection) is that God assigned over each nation a “son of El,” these being understood as the heavenly “princes” of specific nations, like Persia and Greece, mentioned in Daniel 10:13,20,21 and 12:1. It would then evidently be this relationship viewed from the reverse perspective of the peoples’ idolatrous worship of such gods that is referred to in Deuteronomy itself, in 4:19,20 and 29:26(25), passages linked to Deuteronomy 32:8,9 by their common use of key terminology. So understood, Deuteronomy 32:8,9 would assert the national election of Israel as God’s own covenantal proprietorship (32:9; cf. Deut 4:20), with the concomitant claim to Israel’s worship, and the abandonment of the other nations to the service of creature gods, heavenly princes though they were (32:8; cf. Deut. 4:19; Rom 1:21-25).

(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], p. 290.)

Excursus: Sons of the Most High (Psalm 82:6).

Derek Kidner:

The crux for the interpreter is the repeated reference to ‘gods’, who are reprimanded for injustice. Our Lord’s reference to verse 6 in John 10:34f. leaves their identity an open question. On one view (e.g., Delitzsch, Perowne, Briggs) they are human judges, given this title as God’s deputies. This rests chiefly on Exodus 21:6; 22:8f, where for certain legal procedures the parties were required to come before ‘God’ (or ‘the god’); also on Exodus 22:28 (‘You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people’), taking ‘God’ and ‘ruler’ to be synonymous. But these passages are far from conclusive. While the last reference does not exclude a synonym, it does not require it; and the former group need claim no more for the magistrates than what Moses claimed for himself: ‘the people come to me to inquire of God; . . . and I make them know the statutes of God and his decisions’ (Ex. 18:15f.).

A second view is that these ‘gods’ are ‘principalities and powers’, ‘the world rulers of this present darkness’ (of. Eph. 6:12). There are a few Old Testament references to such potentates, good and bad (Is. 24:21; Dn. 10:13, 20f.; 12:1), for whom the New Testament uses the term ‘angels’ (Rev. 12:7). Admittedly they are shown as princes rather than judges, but the distinction is not a sharp one in Scripture (cf. Ps. 72). On the whole this view seems truer than the former to the language of the psalm (e.g. verse 7) and to the occasional Old Testament use of the term ‘gods’.or ‘sons of God’ for angels (see on Ps. 8:5; of. Jb. 1:6; 38:7).

(Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975], on Psalm 82, pp. 296-297, 299.)

Excursus: Sonship and the Imago Dei.

John Calvin:

When we hear the angels called “children of God” [Ps. 82:6] it would be inappropriate to deny that they were endowed with some quality resembling their Father. …For they could not continually enjoy the direct vision of God unless they were like him.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XX: Books I.i To III.xix), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], p. 471.)

Gulielmus [William] Bucanus:

The Angels also are made after the image of God, because they also are called the sons of God [Job 1.6. & 2.1.]…

(William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100.) See also: archive.org.

Amandus Polanus:

His ita præmissis, probandum nobis est, Angelos ad imaginem Dei creatos esse: id autem sequentia argumenta evincunt.

I. Quia creati sunt filii Dei, Job.1.v.6.&38.7.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509.)

English:

With these premises, we must prove that Angels were created in the image of God: this is demonstrated by the following arguments.

1. Because they were created as sons of God (Job 1:6; 38:7).

Johann Heinrich Heidegger:

Creati autem sunt recti ad imaginem Dei, quippe Filii Dei…

(Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Medulla Theologiæ Christianæ: Corporis Theologia: Prævia Epitome, [Tiguri: Typis Henrici Bodmeri 1713], Locus VIII: De Angelis, p. 173.)

English:

They [i.e. the Angels] were created righteous in the image of God, indeed as the sons of God…

Antonius Walaeus:

(Antonio Walæo, Loci Communes S. Theologiæ, De Providentia Dei, De Angelis; In: Antonii Walæi, Opera Omnia: Tomus Primus, [Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officina Francisci Hackii, 1643], p. 192.) See also: books.google.com.

English:

These principles of action, however, are evidently suitable to them all, because they [i.e. the Angels] were created in the image of God. Hence, they are also called the Sons of God in Job 38:7 and elsewhere frequently. Similarly, they are called gods, Elohim, as in Psalm 8:5, explained by the Apostle in Hebrews 2:6.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae):

…contrary to the Manichaeans and the followers of Priscillian we assert that they were created . . . in God’s image. …in Holy Scripture they are called sons of God, servants of God, angels of God, powers and principalities, indeed, even ‘gods.’

(Antonius Walaeus, “Disputation 12: Concerning the Good and Bad Angels,” §. 7; trans. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae: Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation: Volume 1: Disputations 1-23, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, [Leiden: Brill, 2014], pp. 287, 289.) Preview.

Note: “Composed by four professors of Leiden University, it gives an exhaustive yet concise presentation of Reformed theology as it was conceived in the first decades of the 17th century, and held a prominent place as a theological handbook for use in training Reformed ministers in the Netherlands throughout the century.”(Idem, p. 1.)

Meredith G. Kline: (Luke 3:38; Genesis 1:26)

Since the Spirit’s act of creating man is thus presented as the fathering of a son and that man-son is identified as the image-likeness of God, it is evident that image of God and son of God are mutually explanatory concepts. Clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is to be understood as the likeness which a son bears to his father. And that understanding of the image concept, according to which the fundamental idea is one of representational similarity, not representative agency, is further and unmistakably corroborated by Genesis 5:1-3 as it brings together God’s creation of Adam and Adam’s begetting of Seth, expressing the relation of the human father and son in terms of the image-likeness that defines man’s relation to the Creator. To be the image of God is to be the son of God.

(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 45-46.)

Cf. Meredith G. Kline:

As Genesis 2:7 pictures it, the Spirit-Archetype actively fathered his human ectype. Image of God and son of God are thus twin concepts. This reading of that event in terms of a father-son model and the conceptual bond of the image and son ideas are put beyond doubt by the record of the birth of Seth in Genesis 5:1-3. There, a restatement of Adam’s creation in the likeness of God is juxtaposed to a statement that Adam begat a son in his own likeness. Unmistakably, the father-son relationship of Adam and Seth is presented as a proper analogue for understanding the Creator-man relationship[fn. 33: Cf. Luke 3:38.] and clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is thus identified as the likeness of a son derived from his father.[fn. 34: For the connection between the divine image and fatherhood-sonship see Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:2f.; James 3:9; 1 John 3:2; cf. Luke 20:36. By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam’s representative, but as Adam’s son he did resemble his father. The terminology “in his likeness” serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase “after its kind” which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance.]

(Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], p. 23.) Preview.

Excursus: Additional Titles and Descriptions.

In addition to being called “Sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7); Angels are called “gods” (cf. Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6); they are called “Holy ones” (Job 15:15; Daniel 4:13, 17); they are called “rulers” and “authorities” (Ephesians 3:10; cf. 1:21; 6:12; Colossians 1:16), the Archangel Michael is described as the “prince” of Israel (Daniel 12:1—the name Michael means “he who is like God”); the Satan is described as the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4); Angels are described as passing “sentences,” “commands” and “decrees” over Humanity (Daniel 4:17); Angels are described as “ruling” over Humankind (Daniel 4:26-27—both שְׁמַיָּא [Heaven] and שַׁלִּטִן [rules] are plural. ‘Verse 25 says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase “heaven is sovereign” is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier in Daniel 4.’(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)). Such descriptions hardly seem appropriate of beings who do not bear the Imago Dei.

Louis Berkhof:

c. Principalities, powers, thrones, and dominions. In addition to the preceding the Bible speaks of certain classes of angels, which occupy places of authority in the angelic world, as archai and exousiai (principalities and powers), Eph. 3:10; Col. 2:10, thronoi (thrones), Col. 1:16, kureotetoi (dominions), Eph. 1:21; Col. 1:16, and dunameis (powers), Eph. 1:21; I Pet. 3:22.

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976], pp. 146-147.)

Arthur James Mason:

The angels are not a mere multitude of isolated spirits. They are camps, hosts, armies—Mahanaim, Sabaoth (Gen. xxxii. 2; Ps. xxiv. 10). There are Archangels as well as angels. S. Paul and S. Peter half adopt a still larger nomenclature of angelic ranks, though it is plain that they only borrow the nomenclature from teachers whose teaching they are in part combating. “Principalities and Authorities” is a frequent phrase with them; and at other times S. Paul adds the titles of Thrones and Dominions and Powers (Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16). The extent of their sway it is impossible to guess; but they appear in some way to have not only individual persons, but large bodies of men and whole nations, subject to them. There are “Princes” of Persia and Grecia, as well as of the Chosen People (Dan. x. 20, 21); and in something of the same way, it may be, the seven Churches of Asia are represented as under the management of seven “angels,” whose character is mysteriously one with that of the Churches under them. Their power over men is not such as to destroy human free will and responsibility; yet it forms one of the many conditions under which our freedom acts. Those great moulding influences of which we speak under such terms as the “spirit of the age” or “national character” may well be due to the unseen “Principalities” under whom we live.

(Arthur James Mason, The Faith of the Gospel: A Manual of Christian Doctrine: Third Edition, [London: Rivingtons, 1889], p. 87.)

A. H. Strong:

(d) by guiding the affairs of nations;

Dan. 10:12, 13, 21 — “I come for thy words’ sake. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me . . . Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me . . . Michael your prince”; 11:1 — “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him”; 12:1 — “at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people.” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 87, suggests the question whether “the spirit of the age” or “the national character” in any particular case may not be due to the unseen “principalities” under which men live. Paul certainly recognizes, in Eph. 2:2, “the prince of the powers of the air, . . . the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience.” May not good angels be entrusted with influence over nations’ affairs to counteract the evil and help the good?

(Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: Three Volumes in One, [Philadelphia: The Griffith & Rowland Press, 1912], p. 451.)

Michael S. Heiser: (Daniel 4:25-26; cf. 4:13-17)

Verse 25 says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase “heaven is sovereign” is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier in Daniel 4.

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)

Note: Regarding Angelic majesty and dominion, see: Deuteronomy 32:7-9[LXX cf. New English Translation]; Daniel 4:13-17 [cf. 4:24-26]; 10:10-14, 20-21; Job 1:12; 2:6; 1 Kings 22:19-22 [cf. 2 Chronicles 18:18-22]. Ephesians 3:10; 6:12 [cf. Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; Luke 4:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Colossians 1:13. Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2. All passages relating to the Divine Council (e.g. Psalm 89:5-7; Daniel 7:9-10, etc.).

Hebrews 2:5:

For He did not subject to angels the world to come, about which we are speaking.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Owen:

And herein the apostle either preventeth an objection that might arise from the power of the angels in and over the church of old, as some think, or rather proceeds in his design of exalting the Lord Jesus above them, and thereby prefers the worship of the gospel before that prescribed by the law of Moses: for he seems to grant that the old church and worship were in a sort made subject unto angels; this of the world to come being solely and immediately in his power who in all things was to have the preeminence. And this will further appear if we consider the instances before mentioned wherein the subjection of this world to come unto any doth consist.

(John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: In Four Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Thomas Tegg, 1840], p. 288.)

Michael S. Heiser:

Angelic beings are also divine imagers—representatives of their Creator. While humans image God on earth, angelic beings image God in the spiritual world. They do God’s bidding in their own sphere of influence. The Old Testament and New Testament describe angelic beings with administrative terminology, such as:

“Prince” (Dan 10:13, 20-21)

“Thrones” (Col 1:16)

“Rulers” (Eph 3:10)

“Authorities” (1 Pet 3:22; Col 1:16)

First Kings 22:19-23 illustrates the heavenly bureaucracy at work. Angelic beings were created before the earth, and therefore before humans (Job 38:7-8). The notion that God decided to make humans to represent Him and His will on earth mirrors what God had already done in the spiritual world. God announces that, as things are in the heavenly realm, so they will be on earth.

(Michael S. Heiser, “Image of God,” §. The Plural Language Associated with the Image of God; In: The Lexham Bible Dictionary, eds., J. D. Barry, L. Wentz, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012].)

Excursus: Imaging God.

Angels are bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm—sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; etc.)—and to be a “son” is, by definition, to bear the image of your father (cf. Genesis 5:3). However, It should be observed that Angels may not image God in exactly the same way in which Humankind images God. Petrus Van Mastricht observed that Human-beings do not “bear an image of God that is perfect in every way, such an image as Christ bears according to the divine nature . . . but one that is in some measure similar, not the same or equal.”(Theoretical-Practical Theology, Pt. 1, Bk. 3, Ch. 9, §. 29.) The eternal Son “is the image [ἐστιν εἰκὼν] of . . . God” (Colossians 1:15 NASB; cf. Hebrews 1:3) His Father in a manner which is different (“perfect in every way”) from the way in which “man . . . Is the image . . . of God [εἰκὼν . . . θεοῦ ὑπάρχων]” (1 Corinthians 11:7 NASB; cf. Genesis 1:27). Yet the Scriptures speak of both as imaging the Father. So too then, Angels may image God in a way which is—to a degree—different from Humankind, however this would in no way negate the status of image bearer in either.

I realize that there is some debate as to whether Humankind is the image of God or is according to the image of God, however for the purposes of my analogy the point is irrelevant. (E.g. St. Athanasius distinguishes between Christ as τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνος and Humankind as αὐτοὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα.(The Incarnation of the Word of God, 13; PG, 25:120b.)) Thomas Aquinas notes that the ‘image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king’s image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but “to the image,” whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is “to the image,” because He is the perfect Image of the Father.’(Summa Theologica, I.35.2, Reply Obj. 3.)

William [Gulielmus] Bucanus:

Why is man called the image of God? Because of the true likenesse which he hath with God. Why after his image? Because of the imperfection of this likenesse, in that he did not perfectly represent God, as Christ doth perfectly represent the Father.

(William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100.)

Joseph Wilhelm, Thomas B. Scannell:

A comparison of man with the Angels as to the perfection of representing the image and likeness of God, shows that, in several respects, man is a more perfect likeness of his Maker than even the Angels. The latter, of course, represent the Divine Substance and the Divine intellectual life in greater perfection; but man has several points in his favour.

(Joseph Wilhelm, Thomas B. Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik,” Vol. I, Fourth Edition, Revised, [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1909], p. 393.)

1.1. Michael—He Who Is Like God. Return to Outline.

James Montgomery Boice:

The Bible also reveals something of an angelic hierarchy; certain classes or orders of angels are mentioned. In the first class is the angel most mentioned in the Bible: Michael (the names of only two angels are recorded). He is described as being “the archangel,” that is, the head of all the holy angels. His name means “he who is like God” (Dan. 10:21; 12:1; 1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7-10).

(James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian faith: A Comprehensive & Readable Theology: Revised in One Volume, [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986], p. 168.)

Note: The name would seem wholly inappropriate for a being that is not an image bearer.

1.2. Luke 20:35-36. Return to Outline.

Luke 20:35-36:

Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and the women are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, for they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Matthew Henry:

[3.] They are equal unto the angels. In the other evangelists it was said, They are as the angels—ὡς ἄγγελοι, but here they are said to be equal to the angels, ἰσάγγελοι—angels’ peers; they have a glory and bliss no way inferior to that of the holy angels. They shall see the same sight, be employed in the same work, and share in the same joys, with the holy angels. Saints, when they come to heaven, shall be naturalized, and, though by nature strangers, yet, having obtained this freedom with a great sum, which Christ paid for them, they have in all respects equal privileges with them that were freeborn, the angels that are the natives and aborigines of that country. They shall be companions with the angels, and converse with those blessed spirits that love them dearly, and with an innumerable company, to whom they are now come in faith, hope, and love.

[4.] They are the children of God, and so they are as the angels, who are called the sons of God. In the inheritance of sons, the adoption of sons will be completed. Hence believers are said to wait for the adoption, even the redemption of the body, Rom. 8. 23. For till the body is redeemed from the grave the adoption is not completed. Now are we the sons of God, 1 John 3. 2. We have the nature and disposition of sons, but that will not be perfected till we come to heaven.

(Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. IV, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1860], on Luke 20:36, pp. 529-530.)

E. H. Plumptre:

The children of God, being the children of the resurrection.—It is obvious that here the resurrection is assumed to be unto life and to share in the divine kingdom. The fact that men were counted worthy to obtain that resurrection was a proof that they were “children of God,” and as such on the same footing as those other “sons of God,” whom the language of Scripture (Job i. 6; xxxviii. 7, and possibly Gen. vi. 12) identified with the angels.

(E. H. Plumptre, “The Gospel According to St. Luke;” In: A New Testament Commentary for English Readers: Vol. I, ed. Charles John Ellicott, [London: Cassell & Company, Limited, 1884], on Luke 20:36, p. 342.)

Alvah Hovey:

…the words of Christ . . . prove that glorified saints will not marry, because they cannot die; and they cannot die because they are like angels, being sons of God.

(Alvah Hovey, Manual of Systematic Theology, and Christian Ethics, [Boston: Alvah Hovey, 1877], p. 106.)

Leon Morris:

Jesus does not say that they will not die, but that they cannot die. The quality of life in the coming age will be such that death cannot touch it. Thirdly, they are equal to angels and are sons of God. Luke may have coined the word isangelloi, equal to angels, for it is not attested before this passage. Its meaning includes possession of some of the properties of angels, for more than status is involved. It is a question also of nature and function, for marriage is specially in view. There is a sense in which believers are already sons of God. They have been born again; they have been adopted into the family in which they can say ‘Our Father’. But there is a sense in which their sonship will not be consummated until the age to come and it is this fuller sense that is in view here. The absence of marriage does not mean, so to speak, a levelling down of relations so that life is on a lower level. Rather it is a being taken up into the fullness of life in the family of God. Luke adds the reason, being sons of the resurrection (an expression not found in the parallels). Their resurrection is evidence that they possess that quality of sonship that enables them to be compared to the angels.

(Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977], p. 292.)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.:

They are like angels. I.e. disembodied spirits who do not marry. Philo (De sacrif. Abel. 1 § 5) speaks of Abraham, having left this mortal life, becoming “equal to the angels” (isos angelois gegonōs) who are “unbodied and blessed souls” (asōmatoi kai eudaimones psychai). Cf. 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:10 (the risen righteous will “be made like unto the angels”). For a description of angelic life, see 1 Enoch 15:6. The compound adj. isangelos occurs only here in the NT; the Marcan counterpart (12:25c) is clearly more Semitic than this Lucan phrase. If this cl. were really part of what many commentators consider heavily Semitic source material inserted into “Mk,” they would have to reckon with the peculiarly Greek compound adj. In 1QSb 4:25 the priests who are blessed will be kml’k pnym, “like an angel of the presence,” an expression applied to them in this life.

There is a certain irony in Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees, seeing that they admitted neither angels nor spirits. Cf. Acts 23:8.

they are children of God. Lit. “sons of God.” This description is a Lucan addition, found neither in Matthew nor Mark. In Matt 5:9 it occurs in the seventh beatitude, but in an entirely different sense. Here its eschatological connotation is evident. See J. Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 181. It is predicated of human beings whose life and conduct have been deemed worthy of a share in the age to come. There is, indeed, another nuance to the phrase, because “sons of God” is used in the OT as a name for angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6 [in the latter instance bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm becomes in the LXX hoi angeloi tou theou]). Particularly intriguing as background to this episode and to Jesus’ comparisons is the story of the “sons of God” (angels) in Gen 6:2-4 who covet “the daughters of men” and engage in marriage to beget “giants” (gigantes in the LXX for nĕpīlîm and gibbōrîm of the MT). For the Johannine sense of the phrase, see John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2.

(Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Anchor Bible: Volume 28A: The Gospel According To Luke (X-XXIV), [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986], pp. 1305-1306.)

Note: See further: Sons of God and the Daughters of Men (Genesis 6:1-4).

John Nolland:

Mark’s “but they are like angels in heaven” is represented as “for they are equal to angels.” Luke has provided the rest of the verse. The logic of resurrection is taken by Luke to imply not only an escape from the arms of death at the point of resurrection but also a permanent invulnerability to death thereafter. In this new situation there can, therefore, be no place for taking steps to provide sons to carry on the family name. Modern scholars are often troubled at the narrow view of marriage that seems to be implied by this argument that the lack of need for procreation demonstrates the lack of need for marriage. Kilgallen (Bib 67 [1986] 478-95) seeks to restrict the scope of the argument to levirate marriage, but this is hardly convincing. Perhaps more helpfully Wiles (Theol 60 [1957] 500-502) suggests that the unitive function of marriage whereby it “represents the deepest form of personal relationship, the highest form of social experience” does not in resurrection require the exclusivity that is proper for the present age (presumably it will still not be good for man to be alone!).

“Equal to angels” is in support of “not able to die,” not of the abandonment of marriage (against Fitzmyer, 1305; but cf. 1 Enoch 15:6 for the thought that the angelic beings in heaven would not naturally have wives). Though linguistically close, in Philo’s ἴσος ἄγγελοις γεγονώς, “having become equal to the angels” (De sacrif. Abel 5), the likeness for Philo is to the angels’ “unbodied and blessed souls,” which is quite different from what we have here. Much closer are 2 Apoc. Bar. 51:5, 10, where the risen righteous will be “changed into the splendor of angels” and will be “like the angels.” The comparison should not be seen in terms of (a newly gained) intrinsic immortality, but rather in connection with a certain kind of heavenly glory and dignity of form that carries with it freedom from demise through bodily decline, disease, or accident.

“Sons of God” is probably used here in connection with the dignity attaching to membership of the heavenly order (or rather of the age to come, which is here treated as linked with the heavenly order). The phrase is used in some such sense in Gen 6:2; Job 1:6 (where the LXX has “angels of God”; for additional comparison texts see G. Fohrer and E. Schweizer, TDNT 8:347-49, 355). The designation “sons of God” finds its explanation in the appended participial phrase: through resurrection they have been transported into the glories of the age to come. This final “son of” is to be reckoned among the Lukan Septuagintalisms.

(John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 35c: Luke 18:35-24:53, [Dallas: Word Books, 1993], pp. 965-966.)

A. A. Hodge:

Angels are called in the Scriptures “spirits” (πνεύματα), Hebrews 1:14, a word which is also used to designate the souls of men when separate from the body.—1 Peter 3:19. There is however nothing in that word, nor in the opinions of the Jews at the time of Christ, nor in anything which is told us of the nature or the employments of angels in the Scriptures, which prove that angels are absolutely destitute of proper material bodies of any kind. Indeed as the Son of God is to have “a glorious body,” “a spiritual body” forever, and since all the redeemed are to have bodies like his, and since the angels are associated with redeemed men as members of the same infinitely exalted kingdom, it may appear probable that angels may have been created with physical organizations not altogether dissimilar to the “spiritual bodies” of the redeemed. They always appeared and spoke to men in Bible times in the bodily form of men, and as such they ate food and lodged in houses like common men.—Genesis 18:8 and 19:3.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878], p. 252.)

1.3. Matthew 22:30—John Calvin. Return to Outline.

Matthew 22:30:

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Calvin:

But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares (Matth. xxii. 30), our highest perfection will consist in being like them.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 1.15.3, p. 221.)

Note: Calvin’s point is this: since we find that Human relationships will one day resemble Angelic relationships—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30 NASB)—such that “our highest perfection will consist in being like them” in this respect (Institutes, 1.15.3; cf. Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35-36), it seems reasonable to infer that Angels are bearers of the Imago Dei.

Matthew Henry:

2. It is like the state angels are now in, in heaven; They are as the angels of God in heaven; they are so, that is, undoubtedly they shall be so. They are so already in Christ their Head, who has made them sit with him in heavenly places, Eph. 2.6. The spirits of just men already made perfect, are of the same corporation with the innumerable company of angels, Heb. 12. 22, 23. Man, in his creation, was made a little lower than the angels; (Ps. 8. 5.) but, in his complete redemption and renovation, will be as the angels; pure and spiritual as the angels, knowing and loving as those blessed seraphim, ever praising God like them and with them. The bodies of the saints shall be raised incorruptible and glorious, like the uncompounded vehicles of those pure and holy spirits, (1 Cor. 15. 42, &c.) swift and strong like them. We should therefore desire and endeavour to do the will of God now as the angels do it in heaven, because we hope shortly to be like the angels, who always behold our Father’s face. He saith nothing of the state of the wicked in the resurrection; but, by consequence, they shall be like the devils, whose lusts they have done.

(Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. IV, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1860], on Matthew 22:30, p. 215.)

Cf. J. C. Ryle:

…we are told plainly: we shall be “as the angels of God.” Like them, we shall serve God perfectly, unhesitatingly, and unweariedly. Like them, we shall ever be in God’s presence. Like them, we shall ever delight to do His will. Like them, we shall give all glory to the Lamb. These are deep things: but they are all true.

(John Charles Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, [Londo: Hodder and Stoughton, 1896], on Matthew 22:30, p. 291.)

Anthony J. Saldarini:

In the narrative the Sadducees try to ridicule resurrection with an extreme case of Levirite marriage (22:23-33). According to Deut 25:5-6, if a man died childless, his brother residing in the same place was required to marry his deceased brother’s wife so she could bear a son who would carry on the dead man’s name. The Sadducees postulate a woman who was married to seven brothers successively, each dying in turn. Logically, in the next world she will have seven husbands. Though polygamy was allowed in the Bible, polyandry was not; thus her marital relationships with seven men after they rose from the dead would be unlawful. Jesus solves the problem by excluding sexual relationships after the resurrection, in accordance with various apocalyptic traditions. according to which humans become divine-like beings (stars, angels) in heaven with God (Dan. 12:2; 1 Enoch 62:13-16; 104:4; 2 Bar. 51:10).

(Anthony J. Saldarini, “Matthew;” In: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, gen. eds., James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003], p. 1084.)

Note: Cf. 1 Enoch 69:11.

1.4. Ezekiel 28:12—Thomas Aquinas. Return to Outline.

Ezekiel 28:12:

Son of man, take up a song of mourning over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord God says: “You had the seal of perfection [תָּכְנִית, lit. a pattern] Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Thomas Aquinas:

On the contrary, Gregory says (Hom. in Evang. xxxiv): The angel is called a “seal of resemblance” (Ezech. xxviii. 12) because in him the resemblance of the Divine image is wrought with greater expression.

I answer that, We may speak of God’s image in two ways. First, we may consider in it that in which the image chiefly consists, that is, the intellectual nature. Thus the image of God is more perfect in the angels than in man, because their intellectual nature is more perfect, as is clear from what has been said (Q. LVIII., A. 3; Q. LXXIX., A. 8). Secondly, we may consider the image of God in man as regards its accidental qualities, so far as to observe in man a certain imitation of God, consisting in the fact that man proceeds from man, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, as God from God; and also in the fact that the whole human soul is in the whole body, and again, in every part, as God is in regard to the whole world. In these and the like things the image of God is more perfect in man than it is in the angels. But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God’s image. Therefore, as in their intellectual nature, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, we must grant that, absolutely speaking, the angels are more to the image of God than man is, but that in some respects man is more like to God.

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.93.3; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. LXXV.—CII.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922], P. I, Q. 93, A. 3, p. 287.)

Cf. Thomas Aquinas:

The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king’s image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but “to the image,” whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is “to the image,” because He is the perfect Image of the Father.’

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.35.2, Reply Obj. 3; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. XXVII.—XLIX.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1921], P. I, Q. 35, A. 2, Reply Obj. 3, p. 96.)

Gregory the Great:

The angel which was first created was told by the prophet, You were the seal of likeness, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty; you were among the delights of God’s garden.[Ezk 28:12-13] We should notice that it is not said to have been made in the likeness of God, but as the seal of likeness, since as its essential nature is finer, it is suggested that God’s image is expressed with greater likeness in it.

(Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 34.7; PL, 76:1250; trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst, [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990], Homily 34, p. 286.) Preview.

Note: See similar statements from: Tertullian (The Five Books Against Marcion, 2.10; ANF, 3:305-306.), Origen (De Principiis (On First Principles), 1.5.4; ANF, 4:259.), John Cassian (Conferences, 8.8; NPNF2, 11:378.), Cyril of Jerusalem (The Catechetical Lectures, 2.4; NPNF2, 7:9.) and Jerome (Commentariorum In Ezechielem Prophetam Libri Quatuordecim, Lib. IX. Cap. XXVIII, Vers. 11-19; PL, 25:272-273.).

Michael S. Heiser:

Many scholars argue that the Edenic figure in view is Adam. This view depends on rejecting the traditional Hebrew text of the passage. If one prefers the Septuagint here, then God is speaking to an individual who is “with the anointed cherub”—as opposed to speaking directly to the anointed cherub. The more coherent alternative is that the cherub is the serpent—more pointedly, a divine being who has forgotten his place in the pecking order.

But where do we see a serpent in Ezekiel 28? Let’s look first at what’s clear before addressing that question.

This “prince” was in Eden, the garden of God (v. 13). He is beautiful—words like shining or radiant are what come to mind when reading about the panoply of gems that were his “adornment” (vv. 12b-13).

Some have taken this language to refer to a literal jewel-encrusted garment worn by the human prince. They in turn argue that the prince of Eden was Adam. They also note that many of the jewels listed here correspond to the jewels on the breastplate of the Israelite high priest (Exod 28:17-20; 39:10-13). The picture, they say, is Adam as priest-king of Eden. Since Jesus was the second Adam and a priest-king, the analogy fits. The backdrop to the prince of Tyre’s arrogance is the rebellious Adam, not the serpent.

This sounds reasonable until you start looking at how “Adam” is characterized in the verses that follow.

14You were an anointed guardian cherub,

and I placed you on God’s holy mountain;

you walked in the midst of stones of fire.

15 You were blameless in your ways

from the day when you were created,

until wickedness was found in you.

16In the abundance of your trading,

they filled the midst of you with violence, and you sinned;

and I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,

and I expelled you, the guardian cherub,

from the midst of the stones of fire.

17Your heart was proud because of your beauty;

you ruined your wisdom because of your splendor.

I threw you on the ground before kings;

I have exposed you for viewing (Ezek 28:14-17).

Was Adam with an “anointed guardian cherub”? Where do we read in Genesis 3 that Adam was filled with violence, or that his sin was propelled by the fact he was egotistically enamored of his own beauty and splendor? When was Adam cast to the ground to be exposed before kings (v. 17)?

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 77-78.)

Cf. Michael S. Heiser:

Let’s reconsider the gemstones that describe the appearance of the “the sealer” in Ezekiel 28:13. As I mentioned earlier, proponents of the view that Ezekiel is drawing on Adam’s rebellion for his analogous portrayal of the prince of Tyre want to argue that the gemstones point to a human priest-king. But the “adornment” can quite easily be telegraphing something else—divinity. All of the gems have one thing in common—they shine or sparkle. Luminescence is a characteristic of divine beings or divine presence across the ancient Near Eastern world and the Old Testament (e.g., Ezek 1:4-7, 27-28 [cf. Ezek 10:19-20]; Dan 10:6; Rev 1:15). This description of the divine cherub in Eden is designed to convey divinity—a shining presence.

There are more details. The anointed cherub ultimately gets cast out of Eden, out from “the midst of the stones of fire.” We already know from other data that Eden is the place of the council. The “stones of fire” is another clue in that direction. This phrase is associated in other Jewish texts (1 Enoch 18:6-11; 1 Enoch 24-25) with the supernatural, mountainous dwelling of God and the divine council.

It may be objected here that Eden was the dwelling place of God and so the “stones of fire” do not only point to the divine beings of Yahweh’s council. That much is true, but there’s more to the phrase than a dwelling place. Other scholars have also drawn attention to the ancient Near Eastern propensity to describe divine beings as stars. Job 38:7 refers to the sons of God as “stars,” and Isaiah 14:12-13 refers to a being fallen from heaven as the “Day Star, son of Dawn” (ESV) who wanted to ascend above the “stars of God” in the divine realm. The “stones of fire” therefore do not only describe an abode, but also divine entities in that abode.

The “ground” to which this haughty divine being is cast and where he is disgraced is also of interest. The Hebrew word translated “ground” is erets. It is a common term for the earth under our feet. But it is also a word that is used to refer to the underworld, the realm of the dead (e.g., Jonah 2:6), where ancient warrior-kings await their comrades in death (Ezek 32:21, 24-30, 32; Isa 14:9). Adam, of course, was already on earth, so he couldn’t be sentenced there. And he didn’t wind up in the underworld. Yet this is the sort of language we would expect if the point was the expulsion of a heavenly being from the divine council.

Lastly, some scholars have suggested that the problematic term “sealer” (Hebrew ch-w-t-m) might be a cryptic reference to the serpent figure of Genesis 3. If their suggestion is correct, the point of confusion becomes a clever signal that Adam is not in view.

There is a rare phenomenon in ancient Semitic languages where the final letter m is silent (the “enclitic mem”). If the m is made silent in (in effect, removed from) our confusing word, the word becomes ch-w-t, which means “serpent” in Phoenician and other Semitic languages. That noun in its lemma form is ch-w-h.

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 79-81.)

Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu:

Ezekiel 28 may shed light on Satan’s origins. The two oracles of Ezekiel 28 (vv. 1-10; 11-19) present both the “ruler (nāɡ̱îḏ) of Tyre” and the “king (meleḵ) of Tyre.” The first is human, the second is angelic, a guardian cherub, full of wisdom and beauty, covered with every precious stone, living in the bliss of the Garden of Eden, the mountain of I AM (vv. 13-14). Many commentators think that this mythological imagery is drawn from Genesis 2 and that the king of Tyre refers to Adam, for both are said to be in Eden. But the description of the king of Tyre is not apt for Adam. Rather, the imagery fits Satan quite well: an angelic cherub in God’s court, full of wisdom and adorned with the jewels of Israel’s high priest (compare Ezek. 28:13 with Exod. 28:17-20). If this idea is correct, the king of Tyre can be equated with that city’s demonic god (i.e., Satan) who stands behind the charismatic prince of Tyre. The lament for this Edenic king provides an account of the origin of evil in the created world. God accuses this anointed cherub: “Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor” (Ezek. 28:17).

Paul probably has this text in mind when he asserts that the Devil is condemned for his pride (1 Tim. 3:6). Unlike “[Jesus Christ], who being in the very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” but to be used in humble service to others (Phil. 2:6-11), Satan regards his superiority to the other creatures as being for his own exaltation and, correlatively, his advantage as an opportunity to disadvantage others. From the contrast between the serving mind of Christ versus the self-serving mind of Satan, all of history, which is still reaching for a climax, unfolds.

(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 274.) Preview.

1.5. Hebrews 12:22-24: Angels and Humans are Citizens of the Same Heavenly City. Return to Outline.

Hebrews 12:22-24:

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.

(New American Standard Bible.)

Note: Angels and human beings are both citizens of the same heavenly city. It stretches credulity to deny them the status of image bearers in light of this. Both Angels and human beings are citizens of the same heavenly city (Hebrews 12:22-24; Ephesians 2:19), employed in the same heavenly vocation (i.e. worshiping the Lord God Almighty—Revelation 5:11-14; 19:10; 22:9), members of the same family (Ephesians 3:14-15), under the same Head (Ephesians 1:10, 22; Colossians 1:20). How could this possibly be true if Angels were not also image bearers?

John Norton:

The Mystical body of Christ is a spiritual Totum, or Whole, consisting of the Person of Christ, and all the persons of the Elect effectually called, both Angels and Men, orderly united, by the Spirit, unto Christ as their Head, and in him one unto another, after the manner of the body of a man; So as from him is supplied grace suitable to their several relations therein, for the effectual, and perfect communion both of all the members with the Head, and of themselves one with another, unto the increasing itself with the increase of God.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter 13, p. 293.)

Cf. John Norton:

Great is the honor God hath given his Son (as also is the grace therein given unto his people) in giving him to be the head of this glorious body; He hath given HIM to be HEAD, Eph. 1.22. The people in the Wilderness were too many for Moses to provide for, Num. 11.13. Who (saith Solomon) is able to judge this thy so great a people, which cannot be numbered? 1 King. 3.9. but behold together with a far greater people, a far greater person, than either Moses, or Solomon, is here.

The object of this communion are all the members of the Catholic Church, whether Militant or Triumphant. The spirits of just men made perfect, the innumerable company of Angels, God the judge of all, and Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant. See Heb. 12.22, 23, 24. That which we saw and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, 1 Joh. 1.3.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter 13, p. 295.)

Note: Both Angels (Job 15:15; Daniel 4:13, 17; Psalm 89:5; Zechariah 14:5) and human beings (Matthew 27:52; Acts 9:13, 32; 26:10; Romans 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25-26, 31; etc.) are called saints (ἅγιος, lit. holy ones). Cf. Psalm 89:5, LXX 88:6 — ἐκκλησίᾳ ἁγίων assembly of the holy ones, or the church of the saints (1 Corinthians 14:33 — ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων). Cf. Derek Kidner: The biblical universe is not empty, but peopled with myriads [fn. 1: E.g. Dt. 33:2; Dn. 7:10.] of angels, here called holy ones (5, 7) and heavenly beings (6, lit. ‘sons of ’ēlîm’; cf. on 29:1; 82, opening). The word ‘holy’ is used of them in what is probably its primary sense, namely ‘belonging to God’s realm, not man’s’ (cf. Ex. 3:5); its ethical sense of ‘morally perfect’ follows from this, taking its colour from God’s character, just as ‘sons of God’ can be used with or without its ethical implications (cf. Jb. 1:6; Mt. 5:45). Here the angels are seen as a company called together (assembly, 5, is a frequent term for Israel as God’s church: e.g. Dt. 23:1-3, 8), and as a council (7), but this great host only throws into relief the majesty of God before whom the mightiest tremble (7) and with whom none begins to compare either in greatness or (5b, 8b) in goodness. (Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975], on Psalm 89, p. 321.)

Note: Angels were created before humanity (Job 38:7-8), they were saints (ἅγιος, lit. holy ones) long before human beings ever were. Cf. Michael S. Heiser: Angelic beings are also divine imagers—representatives of their Creator. While humans image God on earth, angelic beings image God in the spiritual world. They do God’s bidding in their own sphere of influence. The Old Testament and New Testament describe angelic beings with administrative terminology, such as: “Prince” (Dan 10:13, 20-21) “Thrones” (Col 1:16) “Rulers” (Eph 3:10) “Authorities” (1 Pet 3:22; Col 1:16) First Kings 22:19-23 illustrates the heavenly bureaucracy at work. Angelic beings were created before the earth, and therefore before humans (Job 38:7-8). The notion that God decided to make humans to represent Him and His will on earth mirrors what God had already done in the spiritual world. God announces that, as things are in the heavenly realm, so they will be on earth. (Michael S. Heiser, “Image of God,” §. The Plural Language Associated with the Image of God; In: The Lexham Bible Dictionary, eds., J. D. Barry, L. Wentz, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012].)

John Owen:

In the next place the apostle affirms, that believers are come μυριάσιν αγγελων, ‘to an innumerable company of angels.’ For having declared that they are come to the city of God, he shows in the next place, who are the inhabitants of that city besides themselves. And these he distributes into several sorts, (as we shall see) whereof the first are ‘angels.’ We are come to them as our fellow-citizens. To myriads of angels. Μυριας, is ‘ten thousand,’ and when it is used in the plural number, it signifies ‘an innumerable company,’ as we here render it. Possibly he hath respect to the angels that attended the presence of God in the giving of the law, whereof the Psalmist says, ‘The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place,’ Ps. lxviii. 17; or the account of them given by Daniel, ‘Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him,’ Dan. vii. 10, that is, ‘an innumerable company.’

This access to angels is spiritual. The access of the people to their ministry in Sinai was corporeal only, nor had they any communion with them thereby. But ours is spiritual, which needs no local access to it. We come thereby to them whilst we are on the earth, and they in heaven. We do not so with our prayers, which is the doting superstition of the church of Rome, utterly destructive of the communion here asserted. For although there be a difference and distance between their persons and ours, as to dignity and power, yet as to this communion we are equal in it with them, as one of them directly declares, saying to John, ‘Worship me not, I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus,’ Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9. Nothing can be more groundless, than that fellow-servants should worship one another. But we have an access to them all; not to this or that tutelar angel, but to the whole innumerable company of them. And this we have, 1. By the recapitulation of them and us in Christ, Eph. i. 10. They and we are brought into one mystical body, whereof Christ is head; one family which is in heaven and earth, called after his name, Eph. iii. 14, 15. We are brought together into one society. The nature of which effect of infinite wisdom I have elsewhere declared. 2. In that they and we are constantly engaged in the same worship of Jesus Christ. Hence they call themselves our fellow-servants. This God hath given in command to them, as well as to us. For he saith, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him,’ ch. i. 6, which they do accordingly, Rev. v. 11, 12. 3. We have so on the account of the ministry committed to them for the service of the church, ch. i. 14. See the exposition of that place. 4. In that the fear and dread of their ministry is now taken from us; which was so great under the old testament, that those to whom they appeared, thought they must die immediately. There is a perfect reconciliation between the church on the earth and the angels above. The distance and enmity that was between them and us by reason of sin, is taken away, Col. i. 20. There is a oneness in design and communion in service between them and us; as we rejoice in their happiness and glory, so they seek ours continually; their ascription of praise and glory to God, is mingled with the praises of the church, so as to compose an entire worship, Rev. v. 9-12.

(John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: In Four Volumes: Vol. IV, [London: Thomas Tegg, 1840], pp. 641-642.)

A. W. Pink:

“You are come unto,,..an innumerable company of angels” (Heb. 12:22). We are come to them as our fellow-citizens, in consequence of our faith in Christ. Our access to them is spiritual. We come to them now, while we are on earth and they in heaven. But we come to them not with our prayers, which is the doting superstition of Rome, and utterly destructive of the communion here asserted. For altought there is a difference and distinction between their persons and ours as to dignity and power, yet as to this fellowship we are equal in it with them; as one of them expressly declared to the apostle John “I am your fellow-servant and of your brethren that have the testimony of Jesus” (Rev. 19:10). Upon which John Owen said “nothing could be more groundless than that fellowservants should worship one another” — nor absurd. We have access to all of them, not simply to this or that tutelar angel, but to the whole company of them. We are come to them by virtue of the recapitulation of them and us in Christ, they and we being members of the same heavenly family and associated together in a common worship.

(A. W. Pink, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, [Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1971], p. 114.)

Neil R. Lightfoot:

Thus the heavenly city is comprised of select inhabitants. When a person becomes a Christian, he becomes at the same time a citizen of the heavenly city which is composed of innumerable angels, of members of the church on earth, and of the departed saints.

(Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976], p. 239.)

John Calvin:

To an innumerable company of angels, etc. He means that we are associated with angels, chosen into the ranks of patriarchs, and placed in heaven among all the spirits of the blessed, when Christ by the Gospel calls us to himself. But it is an incalculable honor, conferred upon us by our heavenly Father, that he should enroll us among angels and the holy fathers. The expression, myriads of angels, in taken from the book of Daniel, though I have followed Erasmus, and rendered it innumerable company of angels.

23. The firstborn, etc. He does not call the children of God indiscriminately the firstborn, for the Scripture calls many his children who are not of this number; but for the sake of honor he adorns with this distinction the patriarchs and other renowned saints of the ancient Church. He adds, which are written in heaven, because God is said to have all the elect enrolled in his book or secret catalogue, as Ezekiel speaks.

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. John Owen, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1853], pp. 333-334.)

Matthew Henry:

To an innumerable company of angels, who are of the same family with the saints, under the same head, and in a great measure employed in the same work, ministering to believers for their good, keeping them all in their ways, and pitching their tents about them. These for number are innumerable, and for order and union are a company, and a glorious one. And those who by faith are joined to the gospel church are joined to the angels, and shall at length be like them, and equal with them.

(Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. V, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856], on Hebrews 12:22, p. 651.)

Matthew Poole:

And to an innumerable company of angels; in which city are many excellent inhabitants with whom believers are incorporated, and to whom they have relation, as myriads of angels, who are ministering spirits under the gospel, as under the law, full of holiness, power, agility, and endowments, fit for their work and end…

(Matthew Pool[e], Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], on Hebrews 12:22, p. 872.)

John Gill:

And to an innumerable company of angels; which are created spirits, immaterial and immortal; very knowing, and very powerful; and swift to do the will of God; they are holy, and immutably so, being the elect of God, and confirmed by Christ: and saints now are brought into a state of friendship with them; and into the same family; and are social worshippers with them; and they have access into heaven, where angels are; and with whom they shall dwell for ever: and, in the present state of things, they share the benefit and advantages of their kind offices…

(John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [Philadelphia: Printed by and for William W. Woodward, 1811], on Hebrews 12:22, p. 486.)

Cf. John Calvin: (Ephesians 1:10, 22; 2:19; 3:14-15)

That he might gather together in one. …But why are heavenly beings included in the number? The angels were never separated from God, and cannot be said to have been scattered. Some explain it in this manner. Angels are said to be gathered together, because men have become members of the same society, are admitted equally with them to fellowship with God, and enjoy happiness in common with them by means of this blessed unity. The mode of expression is supposed to resemble one frequently used, when we speak of a whole building as repaired, many parts of which were ruinous or decayed, though some parts remained entire.

This is no doubt true; but what hinders us from saying that the angels also have been gathered together? Not that they were ever scattered, but their attachment to the service of God is now perfect, and their state is eternal. What comparison is there between a creature and the Creator, without the interposition of a Mediator? So far as they are creatures, had it not been for the benefit which they derived from Christ, they would have been liable to change and to sin, and consequently their happiness would not have been eternal. Who then will deny that both angels and men have been brought back to a fixed order by the grace of Christ? Men had been lost, and angels were not beyond the reach of danger. By gathering both into his own body, Christ hath united them to God the Father, and established actual harmony between heaven and earth.

…And gave him to be the head. He was made the head of the Church, on the condition that he should have the administration of all things. The apostle shews that it was not a mere honorary title, but was accompanied by the entire command and government of the universe. The metaphor of a head denotes the highest authority. …Since Christ alone is called “the head,” all others, whether angels or men, must rank as members; so that he who holds the highest place among his fellows is still one of the members of the same body.

…They are first called fellow-citizens with the saints,—next, of the household of God,—and lastly, stones properly fitted into the building of the temple of the Lord. The first appellation is taken from the comparison of the church to a state, which occurs very frequently in Scripture. Those who were formerly profane, and utterly unworthy to associate with godly persons, have been raised to distinguished honour in being admitted to be members of the same community with Abraham,—with all the holy patriarchs, and prophets, and kings,—nay, with the angels themselves. To be of the household of God, which is the second comparison, suggests equally exalted views of their present condition. God has admitted them into his own family; for the church is God’s house.

…Of whom the whole family. …The apostle alludes to that relationship which the Jews had with each other, through their father Abraham, to whom they trace their lineage. He proposes, on the contrary, to remove the distinction between Jews and Gentiles; and tells them, not only that all men have been brought into one family and one race through Christ, but that they are enabled to claim kindred even with angels. …when we apply it to Christ, the whole of Paul’s statement agrees with the facts; for all come and blend together, as one family, and, related to one God the Father, are mutually brethren. Let us therefore understand that, through the mediation of Christ, a relationship has been constituted between Jews and Gentiles, because, by reconciling us to the Father, he has made us all one. Jews have no longer any reason to boast that they are the posterity of Abraham, or that they belong to this or that tribe,—to despise others as profane, and claim the exclusive honour of being a holy people. There is but one relationship which ought to be reckoned, both in heaven and on earth, both among angels and among men—a union to the body of Christ. Out of him all will be found scattered. He alone is the bond by which we are united.

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, trans. William Pringle, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1854], on Ephesians 1:10, 22; 2:19; 3:15, pp. 204, 205, 217, 242, 259, 260.)

2. Genesis 1:26. Return to Outline.

Genesis 1:26:

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.”

(New American Standard Bible.)

Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu:

Most scholars rightly interpret the “us” as a reference to the heavenly court that surrounds God’s throne. This view has linguistic, contextual, and theological support.

(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 213.) Preview. Cf. Idem, pp. 213ff. for explanation.

Cf. Gordon J. Wenham:

The act of creation is preceded by the exhortation, “Let us make humankind in our image.” What prompts God to speak in the plural here? The most likely explanation is that God is inviting the angels to watch man, the master stroke of creation, being produced. This is preferable to supposing it is a plural of self-encouragement. Understanding “us” as an address to the angels does not exclude later Christian, or fuller, readings, which see in it a trinitarian reference to the work of Christ in creation, but that cannot have been the understanding of the writer of Genesis.

(Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis;” In: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, gen. eds., James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003], p. 39.)

Cf. Gordon J. Wenham:

The NT affirms that Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col. 1:15), ‘the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being’ (Heb. 1:3). Such an understanding of the divine image was beyond the reach of the human author of Genesis, but he alludes to another dimension of it by the comment ‘Let us make man in our image’ (26). Here God is pictured talking to the angels, the only allusion to other supernatural beings in this chapter. This remark implies that man is like both God and the angels. (Traditionally, Christians have seen us and our to allude to the other persons of the Trinity. While this is a quite legitimate fuller interpretation, it is not the words’ primary meaning.)

(Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis;” In: New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition: Fourth Edition, eds. D. A. Carson, et al., [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994], p. 61.)

Cf. Tremper Longman III:

Thus, we can appropriately reconsider the language of Genesis 1:26 when God says, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…” While it is not likely that the original readers of Genesis understood this in the light of the Trinity, but rather of God and his angelic servants, the divine council, the New Testament allows us a deeper understanding of the language as including intratrinitarian communication.

(Tremper Longman III, The Story of God Bible Commentary: Genesis, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016], p. 42.) Preview.

Cf. Kenneth A. Mathews:

The interpretation proposed by the Church Fathers and perpetuated by the Reformers was an intra-Trinity dialogue. However, this position can only be entertained as a possible “canonical” reading of the text since the first audience could not have understood it in the sense of a trinitarian reference.

(Kenneth A. Mathews, The New American Commentary: Vol. 1A: Genesis 1-11:26, [Nashville: B & H, 1996], pp. 162-163.) Preview.

Tremper Longman III:

God announces his intention to create humans by stating, “Let us make man in our image.” Some Christian readers suggest that “our image” is a reference to the different persons of the Trinity—Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Yet since God chose to wait until the NT time period to reveal his trinitarian nature, that would make little sense to the original author or reader. Reading this passage in its ancient Near Eastern context leads us to conclude that the reference here is to the divine council. In ancient Israel God was the divine king, and he was attended by other heavenly beings who elsewhere are called angels. Thus God here announces to his angelic servants his intention to create human beings.

(Tremper Longman III, “Genesis;” In: The Baker Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, eds. J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2020], on Genesis 1:26.) Preview.

NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition:

The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate at the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

(NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019], n. B, on Genesis 1:26, p. 4.) See also: biblegateway.com.

Meredith G. Kline:

In the creative fiat addressed to the heavenly council, “Let us make man in our image,” angels are identified as sharing in the image-likeness to God.[fn. 43: Hence, too, a designation of angels found in council contexts is “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:1; Pss. 29:1; 89:6).] The lines of likeness connect not only God and man but God and angels, and man and angels. Agreeably, in the reflection of Genesis 1:26ff. in Psalm 8:5ff., man’s likeness to God is expounded in a comparison of man and angels.[fn. 44: Cf. Hebrews 2:1.] That man in his likeness to God is like members of the divine council suggests that to bear the image of God is to participate in the judicial function of the divine Glory. And it is this judicial role that is prominent when the image idea next appears in Genesis 3:22. There, man’s likeness to God is expressed in terms of his knowing good and evil, which has to do with the royal function of judicial discernment and decision rendering. The latter is elsewhere noted as a mark of likeness to both God and angels.[fn. 45: I Kings 3:28, cf. 9; II Samuel 14:11.]

(Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], p. 27.) Preview.

Meredith G. Kline:

In Genesis 1:26 it is the plural form of the creative fiat that links the creation of man in the image of God to the Spirit-Glory of Genesis 1:2. The Glory-cloud curtains the heavenly enthronement of God in the midst of the judicial council of his celestial hosts. Here is the explanation of the “let us” and the “our image” in the Creator’s decree to make man. He was addressing himself to the angelic council of elders, taking them into his deliberative counsel.

This understanding of the first-person-plural fiat is supported by the fact that consistently where this usage occurs in divine speech it is in the context of the heavenly council or at least of heavenly beings. Especially pertinent for Genesis 1:26 is the nearby instance in Genesis 3:22, a declaration concerned again with man’s image-likeness to God: “Man has become like one of us to know good and evil.” The cherubim mentioned in verse 24 were evidently being addressed. In the cases where God determines to descend and enter into judgment with a city like Babel or Sodom, and a plural form (like “Let us go down”) alternates with a singular,[fn. 30: Genesis 11:7 and 18:21.] the explanation of the plural is at hand in the angelic figures who accompany the Angel of the Lord on his judicial mission.[fn. 31: Genesis 18:2 and 19:1.] When, in Isaiah’s call experience, the Lord, enthroned in the Glory-cloud of his temple, asks, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” (Isa. 6:8), the plural is again readily accounted for by the seraphim attendants at the throne or (if the seraphim are to be distinguished from the heavenly elders, as are the winged creatures of the throne in Revelation 4) by the divine council, which in any case belongs to the scene.[fn. 32: A similar use of the first person plural is characteristic of address in the assembly of the gods as described in Canaanite texts of the Mosaic age.]

The use of the idiom of the divine council in the Genesis 1:26 fiat thus alerts us to the involvement of the Glory-Spirit in this episode. Those who have sought to explain the plural as a reflection of the trinitarian nature of God and in particular as an allusion to the Spirit of Genesis 1:2, though missing the proper explanation found in the council idiom, have been correct in finding the antecedent of the Genesis 1:26 usage in the Spirit of Genesis 1:2. The Glory theophany, in which God was present as Logos-Wisdom and Spirit-Power, stood as archetype at the creation of man as God’s image.

(Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], pp. 22-23.) Preview.

Note: The divine, or heavenly, council of Angelic beings is a concept which is widely attested to in the Scriptures (Job 1:6, 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 82:1; 89:5-7; Isaiah 6:1-3, 8; Daniel 4:13-17, 24-26; 7:9-10; 1 Kings 22:19-22; 2 Chronicles 18:18-22; Nehemiah 9:6; etc.).

Meredith G. Kline: (Genesis 11:7)

Yahweh’s coming is described as a judicial inspection, a coming down to take account of what was going on and to deal with it (v.5). In Genesis 18:21 this terminology is used for God’s descent to judge Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Exod 19:20). The plural form, “let us go down” (Gen 11:7), points to the presence of the angel attendants of the heavenly council, customary agents of God’s judgments (cf. Gen 18:2; 19:1; Exod 19:20).

(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], p. 277.)

Gordon J. Weham:

The strongest case has been made for the view that the divine image makes man God’s vice-regent on earth. Because man is God’s representative, his life is sacred: every assault on man is an affront to the creator and merits the ultimate penalty (Gen 9:5-6). But this merely describes the function or the consequences of the divine image; it does not pinpoint what the image is in itself.

Second, it must be observed that man is made “in the divine image,” just as the tabernacle was made “in the pattern.” This suggests that man is a copy of something that had the divine image, not necessarily a copy of God himself. Exod 25:9, 40 states that the earthly tabernacle was modeled on the heavenly, and Mettinger (ZAW 86 [1974] 410-11) argues that Genesis, in speaking of men being made in God’s image, is comparing man to the angels who worship in heaven. Man’s similarity to them consists in their similar function: both praise God either on earth or in heaven (Mettinger, 411). Furthermore, angels are pictured as ruling the nations on God’s behalf (Deut 32:8), just as man is appointed to rule the animal kingdom.

But even if angels bear the divine image, we are still left with isolating what it is that God, the angels, and men have in common that constitutes the divine image. A study of the verbs that are used of both God and man would help to identify some of those features. Both God and man see, hear, speak. Man dies but God does not. God creates but man does not. God cannot be seen, and so on. And of course, both God and man rest on the seventh day (2:1-3). While these continuities between God and man do not exhaust the notion of the divine image, they do suggest areas of similarity that perhaps the biblical writers were referring to when they used this term. (See further J. F. A. Sawyer, JTS 25 [1974] 418-26.)

(Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, [Waco: Word Books, 1987], pp. 31-32.)

Gordon J. Wenham:

(a) From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa 6:8). Among recent commentators, Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger, Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation. Westermann thinks such a conception may lie behind this expression, but he really regards explanation (e) below as adequate.

(b) From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ (G. T. Armstrong, Die Genesis in der alten Kirche [Tübingen: Mohr, 1962] 39; R. McI. Wilson, “The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen 1:28,” Studia Patristica 1 [1957] 420-37), Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.

…(e) Joüon (114e) himself preferred the view that this was a plural of self-deliberation. Cassuto suggested that it is self-encouragement (cf. 11:7; Ps 2:3). In this he is followed by the most recent commentators, e.g., Schmidt, Westermann, Steck, Gross, Dion.

…The choice then appears to lie between interpretations (a) “us” = God and angels or (e) plural of self-exhortation. Both are compatible with Hebrew monotheism. Interpretation (e) is uncertain, for parallels to this usage are very rare. “If we accept this view, it will not be for its merits, but for its comparative lack of disadvantages” (Clines TB 19 [1968] 68). On the other hand, I do not find the difficulties raised against (a) compelling. It is argued that the OT nowhere else compares man to the angels, nor suggests angelic cooperation in the work of creation. But when angels do appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (e.g., Gen 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb “create” in 1:27 does, in fact, suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind. “Let us create man” should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4, 7 puts it: “When I laid the foundation of the earth . . . all the sons of God shouted for joy” (cf. Luke 2:13-14).

If the writer of Genesis saw in the plural only an allusion to the angels, this is not to exclude interpretation (b) entirely as the sensus plenior of the passage. Certainly the NT sees Christ as active in creation with the Father, and this provided the foundation for the early Church to develop a trinitarian interpretation. But such insights were certainly beyond the horizon of the editor of Genesis (cf. W. S. LaSor, “Prophecy, Inspiration and Sensus Plenior,” TB 29 [1978] 49-60).

(Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, [Waco: Word Books, 1987], pp. 27-28.)

Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu:

Most scholars rightly interpret the “us” as a reference to the heavenly court that surrounds God’s throne. This view has linguistic, contextual, and theological support. As for its linguistic support, ʾelōhîm means “divine beings” in 1 Samuel 28:13, though the TNIV renders it “a ghostly figure.” The point, however, is not whether it means “divine beings” or “a ghostly figure”; rather, that it does not refer to God, or “gods” in a polytheistic sense.

As for the contextual support of the primary interpretation of “us,” a reference to the angelic realm is the most likely meaning of “us” in connection with God in Genesis 3:22 and 11:7. Before looking at Genesis 3:22, however, one must take Genesis 3:5 into consideration. The Serpent, who becomes identified as Satan in later revelation, tempts the man and woman to eat forbidden fruit to gratify their pride: “You [plural] will be like divine beings (ʾelōhîm), knowing good and evil” (translation mine). Conceivably, ʾelōhîm here is another honorific plural for God, but its attributive modifier, “knowing” (yōḏēaʿ, literally “knowers of”), is plural. Normally translators decide whether ʾelōhîm is a grammatical plural (“divine beings”) or an honorific plural (“God”) by its accompanying modifiers. For example, at the beginning of verse 5, ʾelōhîm takes a singular attributive, the participle yōḏēaʿ (“knows”). In this case, the plural is honorific. But at the end of the verse, by contrast, the construction ʾelōhîm yōḏēaʿ involves a plural participle of the same word, showing that ʾelōhîm should now be rendered by “divine beings” and yōḏēaʿ by “knowers of.” In Genesis 3:22 I AM confirms the Serpent’s statement, saying, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil,” which is a reference to the Serpent’s temptation in 3:5. Accordingly, the “us” in 3:22 refers to divine beings, and since the Serpent knows of the divine counsel, he belongs to that realm and in this case knows what he is talking about.

In Genesis 11:7 God speaks in response to the rebellion at the Tower of Babel when a crowd of people developed a scheme to escape their earthbound status and ascend into the realm of divine beings. The heavenly rallying cry, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language,” matches the mortals’ cry, “let us make bricks.” The heavenly “us” most probably refers to the angels who superintend the nations (cf. Deut. 32:8; Dan. 10:13) and accompany the Lord in judgment (Gen. 19:1-29: Matt. 25:31: 2 Thess. 1:7).

The contextual argument finds support also in its only other use with reference to God in Isaiah 6:8. In his temple vision, Isaiah is caught up into the heavenly court to join the seraphim that surround God’s throne, and he hears God asking them: “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” (6:8). Other passages also envision God as surrounded by a heavenly host (see 1 Kings 22:19: Job 1:6: 2:1: 38:7: Jer. 23:18; cf. Ps. 82). In God’s second call to Isaiah (40:1-11)—this time to announce Israel’s salvation rather than judgment, unlike Isaiah’s first call (6:12-13)—Isaiah again finds himself in the heavenly court. We know that “Comfort, comfort my people” is God’s addressing the heavenly court, not just Isaiah, because “comfort” is a numerical plural. In sum, all four uses of “us” with reference to ʾelōhîm support only the interpretation that “us” refers to heavenly divine beings.

As to the theological argument, significantly all four uses of “us” involve the impingement of mortals into the realm of divine beings. Though God involves the divine court in these four passages, he is the Commander, as can be seen in his two questions, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” In embarking upon the grand adventure of making creatures, who like divine beings can and do cast off their role as God’s servants to vie with God himself for dominion, the narrator represents God as the sole actor: “So God created (singular verb ʾāḏām.” He involves his council in his undertaking but does not need their advice (see lsa. 40:14). The Genesis cosmology portrays God as supreme. He is totally in charge and is so secure in his authority that he involves the heavenly council in his plans and projects and even bestows part of his authority to mortals. In the broader context of Genesis and the Bible, this interpretation lays down the theological basis for the social inter course between the divine beings and earthbound mortals (cf. Gen. 19:1; 28:12; 32:1; Matt. 4:11 et al.). The “us” foreshadows the introduction of the Serpent, who is, of course, a spiritual being with the knowledge of the divine realm.

(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], pp. 213-215.) Preview.

Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks:

us. See also 3:22; 11:7. Various referents have been suggested for the “us.”[fn. 38: Suggestions include an unassimilated fragment of myth, an address to creation, a plural of majesty or intensification, or a plural of self-deliberation. See P. D. Miller Jr., Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure and Theme (Sheffield: Department of Biblical Studies, Univ. of Sheffield, 1978), 9-26. The idea that the “us” is an unassimilated fragment of myth is theologically objectionable. The Torah, especially Gen. 1. polemicizes against mythic thinking. That the “us” is an address to creation is textually objectionable. The text denies that creation has volition, and Genesis 1 aims to distinguish God and humans from the rest of creation. A plural of majesty or intensification does occur in Hebrew with nouns (the word for God, ʾelōhîm, is plural for that reason), not however with pronouns. Pronouns are always countable plurals. For this reason, grammatically the “us” cannot be a plural of majesty or intensification (P. P. Jouon, Grammaire de l’Hébreu biblique [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1947], 309, 11 n. 1). Some have suggested a plural of self-deliberation (W. H. Schmidt, Die Schöpfungsgeschichte der Priesterschrift [WMANT 17; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlage, 1964], 130). GKC finds grammatical support for this interpretation (§1248 n. 2), which would also explain the “us” in 11:7. However, Cassuto debates the grammatical merit of such a plural. Also, this meaning does not explain the other uses of “us” in 3:22 and Isa. 6:8 (Cassuto, From Adam, 55-56).] The traditional Christian interpretation, that it represents a plurality within deity, has some textual support and satisfies the Christian theology of the Trinity (John 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). That God is a plurality is supported by the mention of the Spirit of God in 1:2 and the fact that the image itself is a plurality. This interpretation would also explain the shifts in the text between the singular and plural. The primary difficulty with this view is that the other four uses of the plural pronoun with reference to God (3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) do not seem to refer to the Trinity. The explanation that better satisfies all such uses of the pronoun is that God is addressing the angels or heavenly court (cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Ps. 29:1-3; 89:5-6; Isa. 6:8; 40:1-6; Dan. 10:12-13; Luke 2:8-14). It seems that in the four occurrences of the pronoun “us” for God, God refers to “us” when human beings are impinging on the heavenly realm and he is deciding their fate. In Gen. 3:22, God sees that human beings have grasped the knowledge of good and evil and have become like divine beings. In Genesis 11 the heavenly court comes down to see what the earth-bound are building to attain the heavenly space. In Isa. 6:8, God is clearly addressing the heavenly court, which the prophet in his vision has entered. It is not surprising that God would address the heavenly court, since angels play a prominent role in Scripture (e.g., Gen. passim; Job 38:7; 1 Tim. 3:16),[fn. 39: Psalm 8 is, as Franz Delitzsch rightly asserts, a “lyric echo” of Gen. 1:26-28 (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 1 [London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.], 177). In David’s reflection upon our text he speaks of ʾāḏām as being “a little lower than the heavenly beings [ʾelōhîm].” Since the rest of the psalm depends on Gen. 1:26-28, David more probably derived his thought from the text than created it ad hoc. However, some prefer to invest lähim with its most common meaning, God. First, against this interpretation, the Greek translation, the oldest interpretation of the psalm, understood this as a reference to angels. Second, the inspired writer of Hebrews assumes this meaning (cf. Heb. 2:7). Third, the psalmist consistently addresses God in the second person. Had he meant “God,” he would have said, “You made him a little lower than yourself” (see also P. Humert, Études sur le récit du paradis et de la chute dans la Genèse [Neuchatel: Universite, 1940], 170).] and there is much commerce in Genesis between the angelic realm and human beings.[fn. 40: The main argument against this interpretation is that angels are not involved in creation (see Cassuto, From Adam, 55). However, God’s address of the heavenly court does not mean that they participate in the act of creation. For instance, in Isa. 6:8 when God says, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?” God is the primary actor, but he is acting in concert with a heavenly dimension.]

(Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], pp. 64-65.)

Cf. Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks: (Genesis 3:5)

5. like God, knowing. The Hebrew word for “knowing” is yōḏēʿa, a masculine plural participle. The meaning is ambiguous. On the one hand, the plural can be used as an honorific form for God, in which the given translation is legitimate. On the other hand, it can be a countable plural, in which case the translation should be “you will be like divine beings, knowers of good and evil.” The latter meaning is more probable, since, after they eat of the forbidden fruit, the text says unambiguously, “They have become like one of us, knowers of good and evil” (lit., Gen. 3:22). In any case, the serpent makes God appear to be restricting them from full humanity.

(Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], p. 91.)

Cf. Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks: (Genesis 3:22)

22. us. See the note on 1:26. The best explanation of the first-person plural is that God is referring to the heavenly court. Concerning the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve are now like other heavenly beings. It seems improbable that God is referring only to himself (2 Sam. 14:17).

(Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], p. 95.)

Cf. Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks: (Genesis 11:7)

7. Come, let us. The rallying cry of heaven matches the mortals’. The “us” refers to the divine council (see 1:26).

(Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], p. 180.)

John H. Walton:

Use of plurals. The use of the plural pronouns (“us” and “our”) in verse 26 has occasioned constant discussion among the commentators. The early church fathers considered them a reference to the Trinity, while the rabbis offered various grammatical explanations. In the last century, two other theories have arisen, which explain the plural as a vestige of polytheistic mythology or as a reference to a heavenly court. Thus, there are now three categories of explanation:

1. Theological: The plurals are explained as an expression of plurality within the Godhead, either specifically of the Trinity or at least as a recognition of the two persons represented by the creator God (ʾelohim) and the Holy Spirit of verse 2.

2. Grammatical: The plurals are explained as an expression of grammatical or rhetorical conventions, including self-deliberation, plural of majesty, and grammatical agreement with the plural ʾelohim.

3. Cultural: The plurals are explained against the background of ancient Near Eastern culture.

We do not have the space to consider each of these in the detail they deserve, but in the end, it is methodology and presupposition that lead the interpreter into one category or another. The grammatical is the easiest to dismiss since none of the cited conventions are attested with any consistency in Hebrew. The rare instances in which they can be claimed generally have either other possible explanations or characteristics that differentiate them from the usage here.

The theological is probably the most popular in traditional circles, but it suffers when subjected to hermeneutical cross-examination. That is, if we ask what the Hebrew author and audience understood, any explanation assuming plurality in the Godhead is easily eliminated. If the interpreter wishes to bypass the human author with the claim that God’s intention is what is important, there are large obstacles to hurdle. If the divine intention is not conveyed by the human author, where is it conveyed? Certainly if the New Testament told us that the Trinity was referred to in this verse, we would have no trouble accepting that as God’s intention. But it is not enough for the New Testament simply to affirm that there is such a thing as the Trinity. That affirmation does not prove that the Trinity is referred to in Genesis 1:26. Without a specific New Testament treatment, we have no authoritative basis for bypassing the human author.

Further commending the human author is the belief that the Old Testament audience also had an authoritative text being communicated to them. We cannot afford to approach the text with the question, “Which interpretation fits best with my beliefs?” We must ask what the plurals would have meant to the original audience. That leads us to the cultural category.

One of the cultural options taken by interpreters is that the plurals are a vestige of polytheism. Unfortunately, they can only accommodate their view by means of many presuppositions concerning the derived nature of the text and the incompetence of a series of editors. Since most readers, like myself, are not persuaded in the least by those presuppositions, we will simply set that option aside.

The other position informed by cultural background, the heavenly court option, is much more defensible in that the concept of a heavenly court can be shown to be current not only in the ancient worldview, but also in the biblical text.[fn. 17: The clearest example is found in 1 Kings 22:19-22. Other references include lsa. 14:13, “mount of assembly,” and Job 1, where the sons of God, usually members of the council assemble before God.] Thus, the belief in such a heavenly court does not need to be imported from the general culture (though the evidence for it is extensive and clear);[fn. 18: E. Theodore Mullen, The Assembly of the Gods (Atlanta: Scholars, 1980); see also his article, “Divine Assembly,” in ABD, 2:214-17.] one needs only read the Bible. In the ancient Near East the heavenly court was a divine assembly made up of the chief gods of the pantheon. It was this group that made decisions and decreed destinies. In the Old Testament, the heavenly court is made up of angels, or more specifically, the “sons of God.” All that remains is to consider whether the details of the context are in accord with what we know of God and his heavenly court.

Some have objected that it denigrates God to suggest that he consults with angels about such matters (Isa. 40:14). They point out, in addition, that it is contrary to biblical teaching to think of the angels being involved in creation or of people being in the image of angels. Careful reading, however, demonstrates that these objections cannot be sustained. (1) We must distinguish between consulting and discussing. God has no need to either consult or discuss with anyone (as Isa. 40:14 affirms). (2) It is his prerogative, however, to discuss anything he wants with whomever he chooses (Gen. 18:17-19). Such inclusion of the heavenly court in discussion does not in any sense necessitate that angels must then have been used as agents of creation. In Isaiah 6:8 the council’s decision is carried out by Yahweh alone. (3) Finally, the idea that the image should be referred to as “our” image does not imply that humans are created in the image of angels; it is possible, though not necessary, that angels also share the divine image in their nature. The image of God differentiates people from animals, not from angels.

If, then, we are going to link our interpretation to the sense that the Israelite audience would have understood (and methodologically I believe that is essential for maintaining the authority of the text), the heavenly court is the most defensible interpretation and poses no insuperable theological obstacles.

(John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], on Genesis 1:26.) Preview.

Franz Delitzsch:

But how are we to understand this plural faciamus? It is not a self-objectivizing plural (Hitzig on Isa. vi. 8), for there is no example of a speaker speaking of himself in the plural, while his ego is addressing his words to himself as object. On the other hand the so-called plur. majestatis is by no means unusual in the East (DMZ. xxii. 109). He who speaks in the plural of greatness proper, appears to himself (without being comprised with others) to be of the value of many. In this sense God frequently speaks of Himself in the Koran (e.g. 88. 25 sq.) as We. But such a plural cannot be shown in Holy Scripture where God is speaking of Himself. Where it seems to be found, we have to admit that God the Father is comprising Himself either with the Son and the Spirit or with the celestial spirits. Scripture itself confirms the latter, for from beginning to end it testifies that God communicates to the spirits who surround Him what He purposes to do upon earth, 1 Kings xxii. 19-22; Job i.; Dan. vii. 10; Luke ii. 9 sqq.; Rev. iv. sq., with Ps. lxxxix. 8 and Dan. iv. 14, where compare the Chaldee representation of the עירין, ἐγρήγοροι, as Θεοὶ βουλαῖοι (Diodor. ii. 30). It is in this communicative sense that נעשׂה is intended. Just as Jahveh comprises Himself with the true Israel, Isa. xli. 21 sq., so does He with the seraphim, Isa. vi. 8, and here, as also iii. 22 and xi. 7, with the heavenly spirits in general. This is the explanation of the Midrash (Pesikta de Rab Cahana, ed. Buber, 34a; comp. Targ. Jer.), and in accordance with this of Philo (i. 556, ed. Mangey): διαλέγεται ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατὴρ ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεσιν. Elohim no more concedes thereby a share in creation itself to the Bene Haelohim than He does in sending (Isa. vi. 8); but He does give them an interest therein as to their knowledge and will. The communicative speaker ever remains, in relation to those whom he thus comprises with Himself, the Higher. But He imparts to them and gives them an interest in the matter in hand. It is in accordance with this that we must understand “in our image and in our likeness” as including the angels. According to Scripture, the angels form together with God one family, and man, being made in God’s image, is for this very reason made also in the image of angels (βραχύ τι παρ’ ἀγγέλους, according to Ps. viii. 6, LXX.), though this is not directly stated…

(Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], pp. 98-99.)

Cf. Franz Delitzsch: (Genesis 3:22)

…Behold, the man is become as one of us… The plural is communicative, God comprises Himself, as i. 26, xi. 7, with the בני אלהים as Isa. vi. 8, with the seraphim; here indeed there follows immediately, ver. 24. the mention of other such heavenly beings.

(Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], pp. 171-172.)

Cf. Franz Delitzsch: (Genesis 11:7)

…Come on, we will go down . . . Jahveh comprising the angels with Himself, as at iii. 22 and i. 26, but here as ministers of His penal justice.

(Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], p. 351.)

Michael S. Heiser:

Many Bible readers note the plural pronouns (us; our) with curiosity. They might suggest that the plurals refer to the Trinity, but technical research in Hebrew grammar and exegesis has shown that the Trinity is not a coherent explanation. The solution is much more straightforward, one that an ancient Israelite would have readily discerned. What we have is a single person (God) addressing a group—the members of his divine council.

It’s like me going into a room of friends and saying, “Hey, let’s go get some pizza!” I’m the one speaking. A group is hearing what I say. Similarly, God comes to the divine council with an exciting announcement: “Let’s create humankind!”

But if God is speaking to his divine council here, does that suggest that humankind was created by more than one elohim? Was the creation of humankind a group project? Not at all. Back to my pizza illustration: If I am the one paying for the pizza—making the plan happen after announcing it—then I retain both the inspiration and the initiative for the entire project. That’s how Genesis 1:26 works.

Genesis 1:27 tells us clearly that only God himself does the creating. In the Hebrew, all the verbs of creation in the passage are singular in form: “So God created humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created him.” The other members of the council do not participate in the creation of humankind. They watch, just as they did when God laid the foundations of the earth (Job 38:7).

You might wonder at this point why the language changes from plural in verse 26 (“Let us make humankind in our image and according to our likeness”) to singular in verse 27 (“So God created humankind in his image, in the likeness of God he created him”). Does the Bible contradict itself here? No. But understanding the switch requires understanding what the “image” language means.

…Divine image bearing is what makes humankind distinct from the rest of earthly creation (i.e., plants and animals). The text of Genesis 1:26 does not inform us that divine image bearing makes us distinct from heavenly beings, those sons of God who were already in existence at the time of creation. The plurals in Genesis 1:26 mean that, in some way, we share something with them when it comes to bearing God’s image.

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 39-40, 41.)

A. B. Davidson:

We found the name Elohim to mean ‘mights,’ ‘powers,’ and it is with this meaning that the name is given to the angels. In contrast with man, angels belong to the class of Elohim. …It might be an interesting question how the same name Elohim came to designate God and this class of beings. Perhaps we should be satisfied with the general explanation, that the name, meaning ‘powers,’ is applied from the standpoint of men to all that is above man, to the region lying above him. Though the same name is given, the two are never confounded in Scripture. But if this answer does not seem satisfactory, our inquiries will throw us back into a prehistorical period, a period where the genesis of the general name Elohim and its general applications must be investigated. From the beginning of Scripture we find God and these Elohim called by the same name; He is surrounded by them; they are His servants, and they minister to His purposes of grace and providence. …These Elohim, or sons of Elohim, form the council of Jehovah. They surround Him, and minister to Him. He and they are Elohim. And it is from this point of view that some explain the use of the plural in such passages as “Let us make man” (Gen. i. 26); “Let us go down and there confound their language” (Gen. xi. 7). In character these angels are said to excel in strength, and to be mighty (Ps. ciii. 20); they are styled קְדשִׁים (Job v. 1, XV. 15; Ps. Ixxxix. 6, 8; Zech. xiv. 5; Dan. viii. 13).

(A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, ed. S. D. F. Salmond, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907], pp. 293, 294, 295.)

Robert Davidson:

(i) The form of the creation statement changes from the impersonal ‘let something happen’ to ‘Let us make man’. There has been much discussion as to why the plural us is used here of God. Early Christian writers naturally saw in it confirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a reading back into the Old Testament of much later doctrine and can hardly explain why the plural is so seldom used in this way in the Old Testament. More modern explanations have been sought along the lines of a royal plural or a plural of exhortation, but the Old Testament parallels cited are not very convincing. Elsewhere in the Old Testament the first person plural used with reference to God is only found in Gen. 3: 22; 11: 7 and Isa. 6: 8. In all these passages there is good reason to see in the background echoes of the mythological picture of the heavenly court with whom the supreme god takes council when important decisions have to be made: cp. Ps. 82: 1

‘God takes his stand in the court of heaven to deliver judgement among the gods themselves.’

Added solemnity and significance is thus given to what now takes place, the creation of man. The hymn, however, leaves us in no doubt that it is the one supreme God of Hebrew faith who created man. This is made clear by the succession of singular verbs in verse 27: So God created . . . he created him . . . he created them.

(Robert Davidson, The Cambridge Bible Commentary: Genesis 1-11, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1973], p. 24.)

Nahum M. Sarna:

Let us make The extraordinary use of the first person plural evokes the image of a heavenly court in which God is surrounded by His angelic host. Such a celestial scene is depicted in several biblical passages. This is the Israelite version of the polytheistic assemblies of the pantheon—monotheized and depaganized. It is noteworthy that this plural form of divine address is employed in Genesis on two other occasions, both involving the fate of humanity: in 3:22, in connection with the expulsion from Eden; and in 11:7, in reference to the dispersal of the human race after the building of the Tower of Babel.

…For the celestial court, cf. 1 Kings 22:19-22; Isa. 6:8; Ps. 29:1-2; 82; 89:6-7; Job 1:6; 2:1. In Job 38:7, divine beings are present at creation. The present interpretation is found in Gen. R. 8:3; Rashi.

(Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], pp. 12, 353.)

Paul Kissling:

The book of Genesis does not discuss the creation of angels or the cherubim or seraphim. But angels as well as cherubim appear in the book of Genesis and throughout the Pentateuch as though their existence could be taken for granted. When Isaiah has a vision of the exalted LORD Seated upon a throne and surrounded by seraphim, he hears the LORD say, “Whom shall I send and who will go for us?” One way of reading this text is to suggest that the “us” is the LORD and the seraphim who surround him and declare his holiness. There is no reason to exclude the angel view out of hand. Only God does the actual creating in Genesis 1 just as only the LORD does the actual sending in Isaiah 6. But angels have a role to play in the working out of God’s purposes just as the seraphim have a role to play in the preparation of Isaiah for his prophetic calling (Isa 6:6). The ministry of angels does not in any way diminish God’s glory, nor does it threaten the doctrine of Christ’s unique divine status.

(Paul Kissling, The College Press NIV Commentary: Genesis: Volume 1, [Joplin: College Press, 2004], p. 123.) Preview.

Note: Kissling also sees the “plural of self-deliberation” and the “view that God is here addressing his Spirit” as possible alternative interpretations. He concludes: “Perhaps the three views are not mutually exclusive; the imagined audience might well have read this text in more than one way.”(Ibid.)

2.1. Psalm 8:5 and Hebrews 2:7. Return to Outline.

Psalm 8:5:

You have made them a little lower than the angels [מֵאֱלֹהִים, ἀγγέλους in LXX; cf. Heb. 2:7] and crowned them with glory and honor.

(New International Version.)

Cf. Hebrews 2:7:

You made them a little lower than the angels [ἀγγέλους]; you crowned them with glory and honor

(New International Version.)

Note: Human beings are described as being made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7; Psalm 8:5). This description would seem to be wholly inappropriate were not angels also bearers of the Imago Dei (cf. 2 Peter 2:10-11).

NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition:

The Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (ʾelohim) can refer to the one true God, to false gods, or the heavenly beings. In this context it would refer either to God or to the angels. The LXX (the ancient Greek translation of the OT) reads “angels” in Ps 8:5 (and is the source of the quotation of Ps 8:5 in Heb 2:7). The term אֱלֹהִים may refer to heavenly beings (angels) in Gen 3:5, where the serpent says to the woman, “you will be like the heavenly beings who know good and evil.” (Note Gen 3:22, where God says, “the man has become like one of us.” Also see the notes at Gen 1:26-27 regarding the plural forms.) In Ps 82:1, 6 אֱלֹהִים may refer to the members of the heavenly assembly (or may be a polemic against false gods).

(NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019], n. X, on Psalm 8:5, p. 907.) See also: biblegateway.com.

Cf. John Gill:

…since the word is rendered angels by the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint interpreters, the Jewish commentators, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, and in the Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, and above all by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, it is best to interpret it of them…

(John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament: Vol. III, [London: Printed for the author; And sold by George Keith, 1765], on Psalm 8:5, p. 521.)

Meredith G. Kline:

The very form of the creative fiat of Genesis 1:26 calling for the making of man in God’s image tells us that we have to do here with the Glory-theophany, and thus with the heavenly assembly or council. For the Creator speaks in the deliberative plural idiomatic of the council: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” …Coupled with the image-of-God concept in both the fiat and fulfillment sections of the record of the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-28 is the idea of man’s dominion over the world, the dominion that images the dominion of the God-King enthroned in the divine council of the Glory temple. Commenting on this Genesis 1 passage, Psalm 8 expresses the imago Dei idea as a likeness of man to the members of that divine council — “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels” (v. 5a[6]) — and then expounds this status as a royal crowning with glory and a dominion over all the earth (vv. 5b-8[6-9]).

(Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 42-43, 44.)

Franz Delitzsch:

According to Gen. i. 27 man is created בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים, he is a being in the image of God, and, therefore, nearly a divine being. But when God says: “let us make man in our image after our likeness,” He there connects Himself with the angels. The translation of the LXX. ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ ̓ ἀγγέλους, with which the Targum and the prevailing Jewish interpretations also harmonize, is, therefore, not unwarranted. Because in the biblical mode of conception the angels are so closely connected with God as the nearest creaturely effulgence of His nature, it is really possible that in מֵאֱלֹהִים David may have thought of God including the angels. Since man is in the image of God, he is at the same time in the likeness of an angel, and since he is only a little less than divine, he is also only a little less than angelic. The position, somewhat exalted above the angels, which he occupies by being the bond between all created things, in so far as mind and matter are united in him, is here left out of consideration. The writer has only this one thing in his mind, that man is inferior to God, who is רוּחַ, and to the angels who are רוּחות (Isa. xxxi. 3; Heb. i. 14) in this respect, that he is a material being, and on this very account a finite and mortal being; as Theodoret well and briefly observes: τῷ θνητῷ τῶν ἀγγέλων ἠλάττωται.

(Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Psalms: Vol. I, trans. Francis Bolton, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880], on Psalm 8:5, p. 154.)

Gerhard von Rad:

It is the only text after Gen. 1.26 ff. that makes a declaration about God’s image in man. Psalm 8 also gives us an important complement to the idea. In it Yahweh is addressed; nevertheless, man is said to be made a little lower than the “Elohim.” This means that God’s image does not refer directly to Yahweh but to the “angels.” So also in v. 26. The extraordinary plural (“Let us”) is to prevent one from referring God’s image too directly to God the Lord. God includes himself among the heavenly beings of his court and thereby conceals himself in this majority. That, in our opinion, is the only possible explanation for this striking stylistic form. Proof for the correctness of this interpretation appears in Gen. 3.22, where the plural again occurs just as abruptly and yet obviously for the same reason.

The notion of the heavenly court is in itself quite common to the Old Testament (I Kings 22.19f.; Job, ch. 1; Isa., ch. 6); but one must explain why it seems so abrupt here. The declaration about God’s image is indeed highly exalted, but it also remains intentionally in a certain state of suspense. In Old Testament terms, the meaning of vs. 26f. is that man is created by God in the form of and similar to the Elohim. If one wants to determine the content of this statement more closely, one must ask how ancient Israel thought in detail of this Elohim. Here two predicates are important: “wise” (II Sam. 14.17, 20) and “good” (I Sam. 29.9). (Both assertions, as unreflected popular sayings, reveal the universal, almost proverbial, character of this notion.) Nevertheless, one should not suppress the fact that in the broader background of this Priestly statement about God’s image in man there is the notion of Yahweh’s human form. But did the great prophets speak any differently of God? (Amos 4.13; 9.1 ; Isa. 6.1; etc.) One thinks especially of the appearance of the “glory of Yahweh” in Ezek. 1.26. The equally subtle and careful statement in Ezekiel (“a likeness as it were of a human form,” demūt kemar’ē ’ādām) seems exactly the prelude to Gen. 1.26 (P. Humbert, 172).

(Gerhard von Rad, The Old Testament Library: Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961], p. 57.)

J. Richard Middleton:

Since the main function of divinity in both Israel and the ancient Near East is precisely to rule (hence kings were often viewed as quasidivine), it is no wonder that Psalm 8 asserts that in putting all things under their feet and giving them dominion over the works of God’s hands, God has made humans “little less than ʾĕlōhîm” (8:5-6 [MT 8:6-7]). It does not matter whether ʾĕlōhîm is translated “God” or (with the Septuagint) “angels,” the meaning is virtually unchanged. In the theology of both Psalm 8 and Genesis 1, humans (like the angelic heavenly court) have been given royal and thus godlike status in the world.

(J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1, [Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005], p. 28.) Preview.

Willem S. Prinsloo:

The poet prefers the use of contrasts to make his point. This preference occurs again in the third strophe (8:5-8), which contrasts with the preceding one. Whereas the weakness of humans is emphasized in the second strophe, in the third strophe their dignity as representatives of the LORD is placed in the foreground. The LORD is the subject of all the verbs in vv. 5-6. Humans have no authority or dignity in themselves; rather, they receive all their power from God. A striking metaphor, that of a king, is used to describe their responsibility. The LORD has crowned human beings with “glory and honor,” God’s own attributes of royalty. Since they are image bearers of God, the LORD has made humans a little less than his divine being. In language reminiscent of Genesis 1, their dominion is described in detail in vv. 7-8. Human beings rule over domestic animals, wild creatures, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, and all the other creatures of the ocean.

(Willem S. Prinsloo, “Psalms;” In: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, gen. eds., James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003], p. 373.)

John Calvin:

The meaning of David is this,—“O Lord, thou hast raised man to such a dignity, that it differs but little from divine or angelic honor; for he is set a ruler over the whole world.”

(John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. John Owen, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1853], on Hebrews 2:7, pp. 58-59.)

Matthew Henry:

In making man the head of all the creatures in this lower world, the top-stone of this building, the chief of the ways of God on earth, and only a little lower than the angels in place, and respect to the body, while here, and to be made like the angels, and equal to the angels, at the resurrection of the just, Luke 20. 36.

(Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: Vol. VI, [Philadelphia: Haswell, Barrington & Haswell, 1838], on Hebrews 2:7, p. 705.)

John Gill:

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, &c.] In the Hebrew text it is, than Elohim, which some render, than God; but it is rightly rendered by the apostle, than angels; and so the Targum, Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, interpret it. Christ was made a little lower than the angels, through the assumption of the human nature, which is inferior to angels, especially the corporeal part of it, and in this Kimchi makes the lessening to be; and more especially as that was assumed by Christ, with the infirmities of it; and by reason of the straits and indigencies he was brought into in it; besides, he was in it made under the law, which was given by angels, and to some parts of which they are not subject; and sometimes he stood in need of the ministry and support of angels, and had it; particularly he was made lower than they, when he was deprived of the gracious presence of God, and in the time of his sufferings and death; and which seem chiefly to be respected, as appears from ver. 9…

(John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament: In Two Vols.—Vol. II., [London: William Hill Collingridge, 1853], on Hebrews 2:7, p. 687.)

Note: Regarding Angels and the giving of the Law, see: Hebrews 2:2; Galatians 3:19; Acts 7:53.

3. Election and Moral Agency. Return to Outline.

Archibald Alexander:

Angels are moral agents and accountable beings, or they could not be holy, and could not have sinned, as many of them have done. They were doubtless, placed when created, in a state of probation, as man was. Indeed, every rational creature, made under a moral law, is naturally in a state of probation; that is, obedience is required of him, and a reward promised, and a penalty threatened in case of disobedience.

(Archibald Alexander, A Brief Compend of Bible Truth, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1846], p. 61.)

Note: See: 1 Timothy 5:21, elect Angels; 2 Peter 2:4, Angels that sinned; 1 Corinthians 6:3, judgment (cf. Matthew 25:31,41; Revelation 20:10).

Note: Even if such traits (attributes) are not the essence of the image (accidental rather than substantial), it seems unreasonable to assume that one could possess such attributes and not be an image bearer.

E.g. R. L. Dabney: (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6)

On the other hand, another class of the angels have finally and irrevocably fallen into spiritual death. The inference from these facts would seem to be, that the angels, like the human race, have passed under the probation of a covenant of works. The elect kept it, the non-elect broke it; the difference between them being made, so far as God was the author of it, not by His efficacious active decree and grace, but by His permissive decree, in which both classes were wholly left to the freedom of their wills. God only determining by His Providence the circumstances surrounding them, which became the occasional causes of their different choices, and limiting their conduct. On those who kept their probation, through the efficacy of this permissive decree, God graciously bestowed confirmation in holiness, adoption, and inheritance in life everlasting. This, being more than a temporary obedience could earn, was of pure grace; yet not through a Mediator; because the angels, being innocent, needed none.

(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology: Second Edition, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], pp. 269-270.)

4. Archibald Alexander Hodge; Johannes Wollebius; John Gill; etc. Return to Outline.

Gulielmus [William] Bucanus:

The Angels also are made after the image of God, because they also are called the sons of God,[Job 1.6. & 2.1.] and they were created spirituall, immortall, and just. And Christ teacheth plainely, that we shall be truly blessed, and therefore like to God, when we shall in heaven be made even as the Angels of God, Mat. 22.30.

Amandus Polanus:

The image of God is that dignitie and excellencie in which the reasonable creatures being created like unto God, doe excell other creatures. Or else it is the agreement of the reasonable creatures with the most high and blessed God.

…The creatures made according to the image of God are Angels and men. Mat. 22. 30. and 6.10. Job 1.6.

(Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], pp. 55, 57.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

That man was created particularly in the image of God

XXVI. Moreover, the chief excellence and prerogative of created man is in the image of his Creator (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9). For while God has impressed as it were a vestige of himself upon all the rest of the creatures—if you exclude only the angels, as God made man a little lower than them (Ps. 8:5), and they seem to be called sons of God (Job 38:7), and are instructed with wisdom in the intellect and holiness and righteousness in the will, the chief points of the divine image, as much or even more so than men, and thus bear the image of God at least no less than man—so that from all the creatures you can gather the presence and efficiency of the Creator, or as the apostle says, you can clearly see his eternal power and divinity (Rom. 1:20), yet only man did he bless with his own image, that from it you may recognize not only what the Creator is, but also who he is, or what his qualities are.

(Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 3: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021], Part 1, Book 3, Chapter 9, §. 26.) Preview.

A. A. Hodge:

The second fact is, the Bible says God made Adam in his own image. Now the word “image” here means two things, which you can easily see. There is a good deal taught in that saying, “Let us make man in our own image.” There is a constitutional image of God, and there is a moral or accidental image. Now, when God made man in his own image, he made the spirit rational and moral, and he made it capable of free will; in doing so God made man in his own image. That image of God was not lost. Why, the sinner is in the image of God. The devil is in the image of God, because he is an intelligent spirit. Sometimes there are certain sinners who are in this respect more in the image of God than certain saints; that is, there is more of them—more will, more strength, and in that respect they are more like God. This constitutional image of God never was lost and never will be lost. But besides this, God created Adam in the moral image of God; that is, “in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness;” so that the new-created man was in the image of God. And when we take on the new man in Christ Jesus we take on his image, as in the creation; that is, by regeneration. It was the moral image of God which was implanted in the will which made Adam holy and good. The last point is his “dominion over all creatures.” Now, this dominion over God’s creatures is founded on two grounds: First, because of the constitutionality of it; even bad men can govern on the earth. But it is founded on the higher spiritual likeness to God, of which we have spoken, real although differentiated from the Creator, and which will never be completely developed until man adds to his constitutional likeness the original spiritual moral image of God which he has lost; not until man becomes not only rational, but holy, can he regain this image.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], pp. 182-183.)

Johannes Wollebius:

I. Although the entire universe is a mirror of the divine power, wisdom, and goodness, yet the image of God, properly speaking, is a quality only of angels and men.

II. The image of God consists partly of natural gifts—the simple, invisible substance of angels and of human souls, life, intellect, will, and immortality; and partly of supernatural ones original blessedness, rectitude and majesty of intellect and will, and majesty and dominion over other creatures.

(Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, Bk. 1, Ch. 5, §. 2.1-2; trans. A Library of Protestant Thought: Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius, F. Turretin, ed. & trans. John W. Beardslee III, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1965], p. 56.)

Note: Regarding Angelic “majesty and dominion over other creatures,” see: Deuteronomy 32:7-9[LXX cf. New English Translation]; Daniel 4:13-17 [cf. 4:24-26]; 10:10-14, 20-21; Job 1:12; 2:6; 1 Kings 22:19-22 [cf. 2 Chronicles 18:18-22]. Ephesians 3:10; 6:12 [cf. Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16; Luke 4:6; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:2; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Colossians 1:13. Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2. All passages relating to the Divine Council (e.g. Psalm 89:5-7; Daniel 7:9-10, etc.).

Cf. Michael S. Heiser: (Daniel 4:25-26; cf. 4:13-17)

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)

Thomas Ridgley:

From the general account we have given of the divine perfections, we may infer, 1. That there is nothing common between God and the creature; that is, there is nothing which belongs to the divine nature which can be attributed to the creature, and nothing proper to the creature is to be applied to God. There are, however, some rays of the divine glory, which may be beheld as shining forth or displayed in the creature, especially in the intelligent part of the creation, angels and men; who are for that reason, represented as made after the divine image. 2. Let us never think or speak of the perfections of God, but with the highest reverence, lest we take his name in vain, or debase him in our thoughts. ‘Shall not his excellency make you afraid, and his dread fall upon you?’ And whenever we compare God with the creatures, namely, angels and men, that bear somewhat of his image, let us abstract in our thoughts all their imperfections, whether natural or moral, from him, and consider the infinite disproportion that there is between him and them.

(Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 80.)

John Gill:

The image of God, in which man was created; God, said, Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness — so God created man in his own image, Gen. i. 26, 27. Whether image and likeness are to be distinguished, as by Maimonides, the one respecting the substantial form of man, his soul; the other certain accidents and qualities belonging to him; or whether they signify the same, is not very material; the latter seems probable; since in Gen. i. 27. where image is mentioned, likeness is omitted; and, on the contrary, in Gen. v. 1. the word likeness is used, and image omitted. Now though this is only said of man, that he is made after the image and likeness of God, yet he is not the only creature so made; angels are like to God, and bear a resemblance to him, being spirits, immaterial, immortal, and invisible, and are also righteous and holy in their nature, and are sometimes called Elohim; yet the image of God in man, differs in some things from theirs: as that part of it especially, which lies in his body, and in his connection with and dominion over the creatures; and yet he is not in such sense the image of God, as Jesus Christ the Son of God is, who is the image of the invisible God, yes, the express image of his Father’s Person, having the same divine nature and perfections he has; but man, though there was in him some likeness and resemblance of some of the perfections of God; which are called his imitable ones, and by some communicable; as holiness, righteousness, wisdom, &c. yet these perfections are not really in him, only some faint shadows of them, at least not in the manner and proportion they are in God, in whom they are infinite, in man finite; and though the renewed and spiritual image of God in regenerate persons; which is of an higher and more excellent kind than the natural image of God in Adam, is called a partaking of the divine nature, 2 Pet. i. 4. yet not to be understood as if any partook of the nature and essence of God, and the perfections of it; only that that is wrought in them, and impressed on them, which bears some resemblance to the divine nature.

The seat of the image of God in man, is the whole man, both body and soul; wherefore God is said to create man in his image; not the soul only, nor the body only; but the whole man, Gen. i. 27. and v. 1. Even as the whole man, soul and body, are the seat of the new and spiritual image of God in regeneration and sanctification; The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; which the apostle immediately explains of their whole spirit, and soul and body, being preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; when and at the resurrection of the dead, the saints will most fully appear to bear the image of the heavenly One, 1 Thess. v. 23. 1 Cor. xv. 49.

(John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, [Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971], Book 3, Chapter 3, §. 4, pp. 274-275.)

John Calvin:

I admit that Adam bore God’s image, in so far as he was joined to God (which is the true and highest perfection of dignity). Nevertheless, I maintain that this likeness ought to be sought only in those marks of excellence with which God had distinguished Adam over all other living creatures. All men unanimously admit that Christ was even then the image of God. Hence, whatever excellence was engraved upon Adam, derived from the fact that he approached the glory of his Creator through the only-begotten Son. “So man was created in the image of God” [Gen. 1:27 p.]; in him the Creator himself willed that his own glory be seen as in a mirror. Adam was advanced to this degree of honor, thanks to the only-begotten Son. But I add: the Son himself was the common Head over angels and men. Thus the dignity that had been conferred upon man belonged also to the angels. When we hear the angels called “children of God” [Ps. 82:6] it would be inappropriate to deny that they were endowed with some quality resembling their Father. But if he willed that his glory be represented both in angels and in men and manifested in both natures, Osiander is ignorantly babbling when he says that angels were set beneath men because they did not bear the figure of Christ. For they could not continually enjoy the direct vision of God unless they were like him. And Paul similarly teaches that “men are renewed . . . after the image of God” [Col. 3:10 p.] only if they consort with the angels so as to cleave together under one head. To sum up: if we believe in Christ, we shall take on the form of angels [Matt. 22:30] when we are received into heaven, and this will be our final happiness. But if Osiander is allowed to infer that the first pattern of God’s image was in the man Christ, with the same justification anyone can contend that Christ had to partake of the angelic nature because the image of God belongs to them also.

W. G. T. Shedd: (Quoting John Calvin)

…Adam bore the divine image because he was united to God; yet I contend that the similitude of God is to be sought only in those characteristics of excellence with which God distinguished Adam above the other creatures. And that Christ was even then the image of God is universally allowed; and therefore whatever excellence was impressed on Adam proceeded from the circumstance that he approached to the glory of his maker by means of his only begotten Son. But this Son was a common head to angels as well as men; so that the same dignity which was conferred on man belonged to angels also.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894], p. 90. Cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6.)

Cf. W. G. T. Shedd:

…the “image of God,” namely, a rational soul…

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], p. 514.)

Heinrich Heppe:

10.—These gifts are the special advantages with which the image of God in angels is adorned. God created the angels personal spiritual beings in His image in truth, i.e. in holiness and righteousness.—POLAN (V, 11): “The image of God in angels is the likeness of the divine nature impressed on angels by God at their first creation, that as sons of God they may call Him their Father. The parts of the image of God in angels are two: the first is the actual incorporeal substance of the angels, by which they suggest the incorporeal God; the second consists in the excellent attributes assigned to the angelic substance by God.” LEIDEN SYNOPSIS (XII, 7): “We assert, then, that in the beginning all the angels were created good—and in the image of God, against the Manichees and the Priscillianists”.

(Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 207.)

Amandus Polanus:

His ita præmissis, probandum nobis est, Angelos ad imaginem Dei creatos esse: id autem sequentia argumenta evincunt.

I. Quia creati sunt filii Dei, Job.1.v.6.&38.7.

II. Quia creati sunt substantiæ spirituales & rationales.

III. Quia creati sunt justi, sancti, puri.

IV. Quia Angelorum bonorum sanctitatem & justitiam imitari debemus, ut tales in terris sumus, quales sunt Angeli in cœlo, Matth. 6.v.10.

V. Quia Angelis bonis similes erimus post universalem resurrectionem, Matt. 22.v.30.

Imago Dei in Angelis, est similitudo divinæ naturæ, Angelis à Deo impressa in prima creatione, ut ipsum tanquam filii Dei suum patrem referrent.

Partes imaginis Dei in Angelis sunt duæ: prima est ipsa substantia Angelorum incorporea, quâ Deum referunt incorporeum: secunda sunt excellentes proprietates, Angelicæ substantiæ tributæ à Deo.

(Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509.)

English:

With these premises, we must prove that Angels were created in the image of God: this is demonstrated by the following arguments.

1. Because they were created as sons of God (Job 1:6; 38:7).

2. Because they were created as spiritual and rational substances.

3. Because they were created just, holy, and pure.

4. Because we must imitate the holiness and righteousness of the good Angels, so that we are on earth as they are in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

5. Because we will be like the good angels after the universal resurrection (Matthew 22:30).

The image of God in the Angels is the likeness of the divine nature, impressed upon the angels by God at the first creation, so that they might reflect Him as the sons of God reflect their Father.

The parts of the image of God in the Angels are twofold: the first is the incorporeal substance of the angels, by which they reflect the incorporeal God; the second are the excellent properties attributed to the angelic substance by God.

Synopsis of a Purer Theology (Synopsis Purioris Theologiae):

Therefore contrary to the Manichaeans and the followers of Priscillian we assert that they were created out of nothing at the beginning of time, and also that they all were good and in God’s image. “For God saw everything that He had made, and behold it was very good” (Genesis 1:31), and therefore in Holy Scripture they are called sons of God, servants of God, angels of God, powers and principalities, indeed, even ‘gods.’ And it is said of those who have fallen away from them that they did “not stand firm in the truth” (John 8:44) and “did not keep their original state” (Jude 6)—from where it necessarily follows that they had been in the truth and that they had a holy beginning.

Gisbertus Voetius:

De imagine Dei in Angelis.

An in angelis fit imago Dei? Affirmatur.

An homo magis ad imaginem Dei creatus fit, quam angeli? Negatur. & Quæstio Absurda.

An angeli imperium habeant in creaturas inferiores? Distinguitur.

An inter angelorum prærogativas fit aliarum creaturarum opera non egere? Affirmatur.

(Gisberto Voetio, Syllabus Problematum Theologicorum, [Ultrajecti: Ex Officina Ægidii Roman, Academiæ Typographi, 1643], Prioris Partis Theologiæ, Sectio Prior, Tractatus III, Titulus IV, Subtitulus III: De Imagine Dei in Angelis, p. Z3a)

English:

On the Image of God in Angels.

Is the image of God found in angels? It is affirmed.

Is man created more in the image of God than angels? It is denied and the question is deemed absurd.

Do angels have dominion over lower creatures? It is distinguished.

Is it among the prerogatives of angels that they do not require the works of other creatures? It is affirmed.

Johann Heinrich Heidegger:

Creati autem sunt recti ad imaginem Dei, quippe Filii Dei…

(Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Medulla Theologiæ Christianæ: Corporis Theologia: Prævia Epitome, [Tiguri: Typis Henrici Bodmeri 1713], Locus VIII: De Angelis, p. 173.)

English:

They [i.e. the Angels] were created righteous in the image of God, indeed as the sons of God…

Antonius Walaeus:

Hæc vero agendi principia ipsis omnibus competere, patet ex eo, quia ad imaginem Dei creati sunt. Unde & Filii Dei vocantur Hiob 38.v.7. & alibi passim. Item dii, Elohim, ut Psal.8.v.5. explicante Apostolo ad Hebr.2.v.6. quod etiam ex colloquiis, revelationibus eorum, doxologiis, gratulationibus, &c. satis liquet. Diserte illis scientia tribuitur 2.Sam.14.21. Dominus meus Rex sapiens est, tanquam sapientia angeli Dei, ad cognoscendum quicquid sit in hac terra. Voluntas illis adscribitur Dan.4.17, cum dicitur, Ex decreto vigilum verbum hoc, & ex sermone sanctorum hoc postulatum est. Sic enim vocantur ibi Angeli. Potentia ipsorum ex ipsorum actionibus passim liquet.

English:

These principles of action, however, are evidently suitable to them all, because they were created in the image of God. Hence, they are also called the Sons of God in Job 38:7 and elsewhere frequently. Similarly, they are called gods, Elohim, as in Psalm 8:5, explained by the Apostle in Hebrews 2:6. This is also clear from their conversations, revelations, doxologies, gratulations, etc. Knowledge is explicitly attributed to them in 2 Samuel 14:20: “My lord the king is wise, like the wisdom of the angel of God, to know all that is on the earth.” Will is ascribed to them in Daniel 4:17, where it is said, “This sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones.” For thus the Angels are called there. Their power is clearly evident from their actions everywhere.

Johannes Maccovius:

Incommunicable attributes refer to those attributes, which do not have any likeness in creatures, such as being infinite, eternal and immeasurable. Communicable attributes are those attributes, which have some analogy in creatures, such as wisdom, will, righteousness, mercy and essence. But this analogous thing in creatures is either a vestige or an image of God. Being and essence are called vestiges of God; likewise life, which is also present in living things created next to human beings and angels. The image of God refers to a likeness shared with God regarding intellect, will, integrity, righteousness, dominion over creatures, which occurs in human beings and angels alone.

(Johannes Maccovius, Distinction et Regulæ Theologicæ ac Philofophicæ, [Franequeræ: Sumptibus Joannis Archerii, 1653], 4.13, p. 43; trans. Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. & ed. Willem J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, Rein Ferwerda, [Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009], 4.13, p. 113.)

Edward Leigh:

Bonitas rei Bonitas creatæ est illa perfectio, qua apta sit ad usum, cui inservit, Amesius. Hæc bonitas duplex est, 1. Generalis omnium creaturarum, viz. Integritas & Perfetio omnium donorum & virium naturalium, quarum beneficio suas operationes exercere possunt conformiter ad divinam voluntatem & ordinare ad proprios fines. 2. Specialis, creaturæ rationalis, Angelorum & hominum; qui donis supernaturalibus ornat: sunt, quæ vocantur uno nomine sanctitas sive imago Dei. Gen.1.26.

(Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228.) See also: books.google.com.

English:

The goodness of a thing, the goodness of the created thing, is that perfection by which it is suited for the use it serves, according to Ames. This goodness is twofold: 1. General, of all creatures, namely, the integrity and perfection of all natural gifts and powers, by which they can perform their operations in accordance with the divine will and be directed to their proper ends. 2. Special, of rational creatures, Angels and humans, who are adorned with supernatural gifts: these are called by one name, holiness or the image of God (Genesis 1:26).

William Ames:

66. Three things are required for an image: one, that it be like something; two, that it be formed and fashioned to imitate something as a facsimile; three, that the likeness be either in its specific nature or in its highest perfection.

67. In the inferior creatures the image of God is not properly to be found, but only a shadow and vestige of it.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.8.66-67, p. 105.)

Cf. William Ames:

1. Special government is God’s government of rational creatures in a moral way.

2. The unique character of these creatures makes the difference. Since they are created after the image of God, are in some way immortal, and decide their actions in accord with their own counsel, they are to be directed towards an eternal state of happiness or unhappiness in accordance with their own counsel and freedom.

…14. The special government of rational creatures applies to angels and men.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 110-111.)

William Ames: (1642)

66. Three things are required to make an Image. 1. That it be like. 2. That it be expresse, and framed to imitate another thing as an exemplar, or copy. 3. That that likenesse be either in its specifiall nature, or most noble perfection.

67. Hence it is, that in the inferior Creatures the Image of God is not properly found; but only a shadow, and footstep of it.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.8.66-67, p. 43.)

Cf. William Ames: (1642)

1. Speciall Gubernation is that where that whereby God doth governe reasonable Creatures in a speciall manner.

2. The speciall condition of those Creatures doth cause the difference. For seeing they are in some sort immortall, and created after the Image of God, and have an inward principle of their own actions proceeding from counsell, therefore they are to be governed to an eternall state of happinesse or unhappinesse, and that agreeably to counsell, and freedome.

…14. Speciall government of the reasonable Creature is of Angels and men.

(William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 50-51, 52.)

John Ball:

Q. What are the Angels?

A. Angels are finite. Heb. 1.13.14. Col. 1.16. Mat. 4.11. and 26, 53. Psal. 68.17. compleat and immortal Spirits, Matth. 22.30. Luke. 20.36. Heb. 1.7. Psalm 104.4. made after the image of God, Job 2.1. Psal. 8.5. Luke 9.26. Matth. 25.31. Heb. 2.7.

(John Ball, A Short Treatise Containing all the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion, [London: For John Wright, 1656], pp. 87-88.)

John Norton:

The goodness communicated from God unto the creature, is either special, bestowed upon Angels and men: Or common, bestowed upon the rest of the Creation: The Earth is full of the goodness of the Lord, Psal. 33.5. The impression of his Image is upon the reasonable, the impression of his Footsteps, is upon the unreasonable creature.

(John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13.)

William Perkins:

First, Man was created and framed by the hand of God, and made after the image of God: for Moses brings in the Lord speaking thus, Let us make man in our image, &c. in the image of God created hee them, which also must bee understood of Angels.

(William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, [London: Printed by John Legatt, 1616], pp. 70-71.)

Note: Page 70 is mistakenly labeled “42”.

Zacharias Ursinus:

Angels and holy men are tearmed the image of God, as well in respect of the Son & the holy Ghost, as of the eternall Father…

(Zacharias Ursinus, The Summe of Christian Religion, trans. Henry Parry, [Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, 1595], Part I, “Of the Image of God in Man,” p. 128.)

Note: Like many Reformed divines, Ursinus believed that the one of the constituent components of the Imago Dei was moral rectitude, which was subsequently lost in the fall of the Angels and humankind. Consequently, Ursinus asserted that the elect more fully bear the Imago Dei relative to the reprobate. However, like most Reformed theologians, Ursinus concedes that the Imago Dei “was not wholly lost” in the fall and that aspects of it remain in the fallen.(Idem, p. 126.)

Note: I personally find the distinction between the “broad” and “narrow” conceptualization of the Imago Dei—though very common among Reformed divines, e.g. Louis Berkhof, Manual of Reformed Doctrine, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1933], pp. 129-130.—to be highly dubious for several reasons. The most poignant of these being enumerated by Berkouwer and Smith respectively. G. C. Berkouwer: Do we not, then, in dealing with an image which is both kept and lost, have to do with a strange paradox, or a dialectic, or a mysterious antinomy, which invites confusion? …And then is it possible to talk meaningfully of a loss of the image in the narrower sense, and the retention of the image in a broader sense? Doesn’t the concept of two aspects of the image of God actually involve the postulating of two very different things, two separate images? …Despite all attempts to overcome the ‘antinomy’ involved and to develop a unified view of the image, the ‘twofold image’ remains stubbornly dualistic, because the image understood in the wider sense has a very different content than the image understood in the narrower sense. …A synthesis is not possible because the two aspects of the image are tied in with two very different concepts.(Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jellema, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962], pp. 53, 57, 61, 62.) Morton H. Smith: Various passages in the Scripture refer to man, even in his fallen state as the image of God (Genesis 5:3; 9:6; James 3:9; 1 Corinthians 11:7; compare Psalm 8). As we study these passages, we see that the usage of the term “image” does not distinguish between man as unfallen and fallen, but between man and other creatures. The Scriptures do not hesitate to speak of the terrible effects of sin on man, and yet they do not apply this language to the image. The implication is that the fact that man is the image is not directly affected by sin. The image though not lost has been terribly marred, and thus man suffers the loss of some of the consequences of being the image of God, such as the loss of moral excellence, and the darkening of his reason, and the corruption of all his members. He still remains, however, the image of God.(Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], pp. 239-240.) Cf. G. C. Berkouwer: If the image could be thought of as man’s essence, as will and intellect, then indeed it was not lost; but, he argues, if we think of it supernaturally, as righteousness and holiness, then the image is radically and totally lost: The restoration of the image in Christ presupposes that it has been lost. But Gerhard then unexpectedly adds that there are indeed “remnants” (reliquiae) of the image even in fallen man, which leads Schumann to ask the pointed question: “Gerhard speaks here of remnants of the image; can he also speak of remnants of original righteousness?” If this is not the case — because of man’s total corruption and his complete loss of conformitas — then it would appear that the image of God and justitia originalis can not be simply identified.(Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jellema, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962], p. 47.) Cf. Gerald Bray: Most seriously of all, the idea that the image of God in man conferred moral awareness is directly contradicted by the narrative in Genesis itself. …Adam, though he was created in the image of God, was not allowed to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When he did so, God said ‘Behold, the man has become like one of us,’ implying that in this particular at least, there had been an important dissimilarity between Himself and His human creature.(Gerald Bray, “The Significance of God’s Image in Man,” pp. 207-208; In: Tyndale Bulletin, 42.2, [1991]:195-225.)

Edward Arthur Litton:

The angels collectively were created in the image of God, and perhaps in a higher sense than that in which Adam was . . . they are called ‘sons of God’ (Job i. 6; xxxviii. 7), as, in the writer’s view, specially related to God, and ‘sons of the mighty’ (Ps. Ixxxix. 6), as excelling in strength.

(E. A. Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: On the Basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Third Edition, ed. H. G. Grey, [London: Robert Scott, 1912], pp. 126, 124.)

William Burt Pope:

1. They occupy a sphere of existence less closely connected with the material universe than that of man in his present estate. Their spirituality, however, must not be misunderstood. It seems to be synonymous with invisibility in the only passage which directly links them with the creaturely universe, or records their creation: by Christ were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible.[Col. 1:16] God alone is pure essential Spirit: these created spirits are clothed upon with ethereal vestures, such as Paul describes when he says, There is a spiritual body.[1 Cor. 15:44] Thus our Lord tells us that the children of the resurrection are ἰσάγγελοι, equal unto the angels.[Luke 20:36] Having a more subtle organization than man, they are at present higher in their range of faculties: greater in power and might[2 Pet. 2:11] and angels that excel in strength.[Psa. 103:20] But what their faculties are, what organs they use, and what is the bond between their psychology and our own, we know not. They were created at once and in a wide variety of grades. Though the description thrones, dominions, principalities, powers,[Col. 1:16] partly refers to their ministerial offices, there are other indications of a boundless range of existence in the super-terrestrial world, answering to the abundance and diversity of life upon earth; but without the law of species, and admitting of no increase by generation or development: they are all and individually, as created at once one by one, sons of God[Job 1:6.] by direct filiation. Hence the revelation of Scripture discloses precisely such a continuation upwards of the scale of being as analogy would suggest: as in the lower orders the species is all and the individual nothing, as in man the species and the individual are blended, so in the upper world the species is lost, and each is apart and alone before God: all, however, being marshaled and distributed into orders of the laws of which we know nothing save that they do not include species and generation.

2. All spirits were created in the image of God: and their first estate[Jude 6] was probationary: this law of the moral government of the Most High seems to be universal.

(William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical: Vol. I, [New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1889], pp. 409-410.)

William Burt Pope:

1. There can be no higher description of them than that they wait upon God. The Lord is the Lord of hosts,[Isa. 47:4] and the holy angels are His sons:[Job 1:6] all the sons of God shouted for joy.[Job 38:7] Their joy is the joy of worship: they sing the doxology to the Holy Trinity—to man as yet unrevealed, but revealed to them—in Isaiah’s mystical temple;[Isa. 6] they receive the commandment, which they were quick to obey, to worship the Son when He was brought into the world;[Heb 1:6] and they descend to sympathies with, if indeed they do not join in, the devotion of the Church of God among men. So near are they to the manifested Divine glory, and so do they reflect it, that they are called gods:—worship Him, all ye gods![Psa. 97:7] though this, as in the case of human judges, receiving the same designation, may refer rather to their representative character as executing their functions in the Divine name. In this character they are known as Cherubim: forms which are symbolical, rather than descriptive, and signify the forces of the created universe, attendant upon God, but not God Himself; and Seraphim, also representing the creature before God and extolling His perfections, as unslumbering Watchers,[Dan. 4:17] burning with Divine love. But the highest honor conferred upon them is this, that the Supreme unites them with Himself as His court:—Let us go down![Gen. 1:26] includes them, though the US points to another mystery. Throughout the Old Testament the Lord is in the assembly of His saints;[Psa. 89:7] into which even the representative of evil spirits might enter, before Christ came to cast them out finally: and Satan came also among them.[Job 1:6] But this leads to the ministry of these blessed spirits of heaven.

(William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Being Analytical Outlines of a Course of Theological Study, Biblical, Dogmatic, Historical: Vol. I, [New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1889], p. 412.)

John of Damascus:

He is Himself the Maker and Creator of the angels: for He brought them out of nothing into being and created them after His own image, an incorporeal race, a sort of spirit or immaterial fire: in the words of the divine David, He maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire[Ps. civ. 4] and He has described their lightness and the ardour, and heat, and keenness and sharpness with which they hunger for God and serve Him, and how they are borne to the regions above and are quite delivered from all material thought.

An angel, then, is an intelligent essence, in perpetual motion, with free-will, incorporeal, ministering to God, having obtained by grace an immortal nature: and the Creator alone knows the form and limitation of its essence.

(John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.3; trans. NPNF2, 9:18-19.) See also: ccel.org.

5. The Reformed Position—Indirect Testimony. Return to Outline.

Most Reformed theologians do not speak directly upon the question: “are Angels bearers of the Imago Dei?” However, that being said, historically the vast majority of Reformed theologians have defined the Imago Dei as consisting of (1.) man’s rational nature, and (2.) his moral conformity to his Creator. If this consensus is correct—note that I make no comment upon the general veracity of this assertion; theologians vary wildly both within and across theological traditions regarding the nature of the Imago Dei—then it naturally follows that Angels are image bearers, for they possess a rational nature and were initially created in a state of moral rectitude.

Cf. Charles Hodge:

According to the Reformed theologians and the majority of the theologians of other divisions of the Church, man’s likeness to God included the following points: —

His intellectual and moral nature. God is a Spirit, the human soul is a spirit. The essential attributes of a spirit are reason, conscience, and will. A spirit is a rational, moral, and therefore also, a free agent. In making man after his own image, therefore, God endowed him with those attributes which belong to his own nature as a spirit. Man is thereby distinguished from all other inhabitants of this world, and raised immeasurably above them. He belongs to the same order of being as God Himself, and is therefore capable of communion with his Maker. This conformity of nature between man and God, is not only the distinguishing prerogative of humanity, so far as earthly creatures are concerned, but it is also the necessary condition of our capacity to know God, and therefore the foundation of our religious nature. If we were not like God, we could not know Him. We should be as the beasts which perish. The Scriptures in declaring that God is the Father of spirits, and that we are his offspring, teach us that we are partakers of his nature as a spiritual being, and that an essential element of that likeness to God in which man was originally created consists in our rational or spiritual nature. On this subject, however, there have been two extreme opinions. The Greek theologians made the image of God in which man was created to consist exclusively in his rational nature. …The Lutheran theologians were, in general, inclined to go to the apposite extreme. The image of God, according to them, was that which was lost by the fall, and which is restored by redemption. …The Reformed theologians take the middle ground between the extremes of making the image of God to consist exclusively in man’s rational nature, or exclusively in his moral conformity to his Maker. They distinctly include both.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Volume II, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1872], pp. 96-97, 97-98, 98.)

Cf. R. L. Dabney:

The Reformed divines represent it as grounded upon man’s rationality and immortality, which make him an humble representation of God’s spiritual essence; but as consisting especially in the righteousness and true holiness, in which Adam was created.

(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology: Second Edition, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], pp. 293-294.)

Cf. R. L. Dabney:

Next: we learn that man, unlike all lower creatures, was formed in the “image of God”—”after His likeness.”

(R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology: Second Edition, [St Louis: Presbyterian Publishing Company of St. Louis, 1878], p. 293.) [bold added]

Cf. A. A. Hodge:

…the Son of God is to have “a glorious body,” “a spiritual body” forever, and since all the redeemed are to have bodies like his, and since the angels are associated with redeemed men as members of the same infinitely exalted kingdom, it may appear probable that angels may have been created with physical organizations not altogether dissimilar to the “spiritual bodies” of the redeemed.

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878], p. 252.)

E.g. Wilhelmus à Brakel:

The basis—or canvas—for this image is the spirituality, rationality, and immortality of the essence of man’s soul, and more particularly the faculties of the soul such as intellect, will, and affections. The soul had to be of such a nature in order for the image of God to be impressed upon it. This does not constitute the form of the image of God, however, for man possessed these before as well as after the fall. Even the devils possess these at the present time. When God forbids man to murder, man having been created in God’s image (Gen 9:6), this refers to both what he did possess as well as the background which he still possesses, upon which the image of God at one time was impressed. God did not wish this background to be destroyed. The spirituality and the faculties of the soul belong to the image of God as a background belongs to a painting. The latter can still exist and remain, even though the image upon it has been so erased that any resemblance of the same can no longer be detected; nevertheless it can still be seen that something had been impressed upon it.

The essential form, the true essence of the image of God, consists in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, they being the qualities that regulate the faculties of the soul: intellect, will, and affections.

(Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: Volume 1: God, Man and Christ, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], pp. 323-324.)

Note: À Brakel defines the “canvas” of the Imago Dei as “spirituality, rationality, and immortality of the essence of man’s soul” and attributes this to Humankind after the fall and to the reprobate Angels. He then defines “the true essence of the image” as consisting of “knowledge, righteousness, and holiness” which he attributes to the Saints in heaven and presumably the elect Angels (for they also possess these characteristics).

Note: While I agree with à Brakel that Angels are image bearers, I do not agree with his understanding of the constituent components of the Imago Dei. “Since God is without sin and called his image good, the image does not pertain to humankind’s spiritual status as innocent or sinful. The continued use of the expression in Genesis even after the Fall confirms this interpretation.”(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 217.)

6. Objections and Answers. Return to Outline.

6.1. Objection: Matthew 22:30. Return to Outline.

G. C. Berkouwer:

Calvin cites Matt. 22:30, “in the resurrection . . . they are like angels in heaven,” which seems to imply that man’s fulfillment is to become like the angels. But this is very dubious evidence for the creation of the angels in God’s image. The text is concerned with the eschatological perspectives of the resurrection in connection with “neither marrying nor being given in marriage,” so that Calvin’s conclusion hardly follows from the hos aggelloi of the text. See Calvin, Institutes, I, XV, 3.

(Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics: Man: The image of God, trans. Dirk W. Jellema, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962], fn. 42, p. 85.)

Reply Objection.

While it is true that the context is eschatological, this does not necessarily invalidate Calvin’s point. Calvin is not attempting to draw his conclusion from the sociocultural, rhetorical or historical context of Matthew 22:30; rather he is deducing an inference from the text as a whole by means of what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “good and necessary consequence” (1.6). For example, Exodus 3:6 has nothing to do with the resurrection—in terms of sociocultural, rhetorical or historical context—and yet our Lord Jesus Christ makes a “good and necessary” inference from this text to refute the Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection, cf. Luke 20:37-38; Matthew 22:31-32; Mark 12:26-27). Calvin’s point is simply this: since we find that Human relationships will one day resemble Angelic relationships—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30 NASB)—such that “our highest perfection will consist in being like them” in this respect (Institutes, 1.15.3; cf. Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35-36), it seems reasonable to infer that Angels are bearers of the Imago Dei.

6.2. Objection: Dominion and the Imago Dei. Return to Outline.

Louis Berkhof:

But in this statement the great Reformer does not have due regard for the point of comparison in the statement of Jesus. In many cases the assumption that the angels were also created in the image of God results from a conception of the image which limits it to our moral and intellectual qualities. But the image also includes the body of man and his dominion over the lower creation. The angels are never represented as lords of creation, but as ministering spirits sent out for the service of those that inherit salvation.

(Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1965], p. 206.)

Reply Objection.

There are two issues with Berkhof’s assessment.

(1.) The first is his inadequate assessment of both the role of Angels and of Humanity.

(a.) Angels are by definition “messengers” (ἄγγελος), however, John the Baptist is also described as a “messenger” (Matthew 11:10–ἄγγελόν) and this does nothing to negate his status as an image bearer.

(b.) Angels are described as those who “render service” (Hebrews 1:14–διακονίαν), yet the same is said of Barnabas and Paul (Acts 12:25–διακονίαν) and even of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:8–διακονία). All Christians are called to be servants of others (Matthew 20:26–διάκονος; Mark 9:35–διάκονος) and even the Lord Jesus Himself said that He did not come to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:28–διακονηθῆναι). Those who are greatest are those who serve others (Matthew 20:24-28). The status of servant does nothing to negate the status of image bearer.

(c.) Angels are called “Sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7); they are called “gods” (cf. Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6); they are called “Holy ones” (Job 15:15; Daniel 4:13, 17); they are called “rulers” and “authorities” (Ephesians 3:10; cf. 1:21; 6:12; Colossians 1:16), the Archangel Michael is described as the “prince” of Israel (Daniel 12:1—the name Michael means “he who is like God”); the Satan is described as the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4); Angels are described as passing “sentences,” “commands” and “decrees” over Humanity (Daniel 4:17); Angels are described as “ruling” over Humankind (Daniel 4:26-27—both שְׁמַיָּא [Heaven] and שַׁלִּטִן [rules] are plural. ‘Verse 25 says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase “heaven is sovereign” is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier in Daniel 4.’(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)). Such descriptions hardly seem appropriate of beings who do not bear the Imago Dei.

(2.) The second issue relates to Berkhof’s unproved assertion that “dominion” is definitional of the Imago Dei (we will deal with the corporeal nature of Humankind later—see §. 6.3. below). Morton H. Smith observes that while “some have sought to identify the image with the dominion, the generally accepted view is that the dominion is the consequence of man’s being made in the image of God. . . . The structure of Genesis 1:27-28 suggests that the dominion is something conferred on the man, who is already the image of God.”(Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], p. 236.)

Question. What of those persons who are incapable of exercising dominion over the lower creation (e.g. the comatose patient, or the unborn child)? Are they image bearers?

Excursus: Angelic Dominion.

Arthur James Mason:

(Arthur James Mason, The Faith of the Gospel: A Manual of Christian Doctrine: Third Edition, [London: Rivingtons, 1889], p. 87.)

A. H. Strong:

(d) by guiding the affairs of nations;

(Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: Three Volumes in One, [Philadelphia: The Griffith & Rowland Press, 1912], p. 451.)

Michael S. Heiser: (Daniel 4:25-26; cf. 4:13-17)

(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)

Hebrews 2:5:

For He did not subject to angels the world to come, about which we are speaking.

(New American Standard Bible.)

John Owen:

(John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: In Four Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Thomas Tegg, 1840], p. 288.)

Michael S. Heiser:

“Prince” (Dan 10:13, 20-21)

“Thrones” (Col 1:16)

“Rulers” (Eph 3:10)

“Authorities” (1 Pet 3:22; Col 1:16)

(Michael S. Heiser, “Image of God,” §. The Plural Language Associated with the Image of God; In: The Lexham Bible Dictionary, eds., J. D. Barry, L. Wentz, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012].)

Excursus: Dominion and the Imago Dei.

Moises Silva:

Indeed it does, for Genesis 1:26 explicitly connects the concept of image with that of dominion: “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule . . . .” We probably should not infer, as some have done, that image simply equals dominion. The connection between the two concepts appears to be rather that the one serves as the basis for the other.[fn. 6: Cf. Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), 1:100: the rule promised is not a reference to the content of the image “but its consequence, or, as Frank thinks it better to express it... not its nature, but the manifestation of that nature.” This interpretation can be supported, though not conclusively proved, from the grammar: the word and translates the so-called “weak waw,” which is often used after cohortatives to indicate purpose. Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), p. 4, with reference to GKC §109f. Note also S. R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, 3d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969; orig. 1912), chap. 5, and most recently Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990) §39.2.5.] God made Adam and Eve like him and so they are able to exercise dominion over the earth. Of course, insofar as they do exercise that dominion they may be regarded as vice-regents under God, so that their ruling function too derives from, and is like, God’s reign over his creation. Just as God created the world (chap. 1), so Adam tills the land (2:15). Thus one clear respect in which human beings are different from animals is that humans cultivate the ground. And agriculture may certainly be viewed as but one specific expression of a much broader set of activities. (all work in general, cultural functions, etc.) that reflect the rule of Adam and Eve and their descendants.

(Moises Silva, God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], pp. 23-24.) Preview.

Cf. Gordon Wenham:

26.b. 3 masc pl impf רדה “rule.” Impf preceded by simple waw as here expresses purpose (GKC, 109f; Lambdin, 119.)

(Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, [Waco: Word Books, 1987], p. 4.)

Cf. Bruce K. Waltke, M. O’Connor:

Conjunctive waw serves to join two clauses which describe interrelated or overlapping situations not otherwise logically related. Pairs of such clauses may form a hendiadys. There is a tendency, both in translation and commentary, to assign to the conjunctive waw a more logically distinct value where possible; this tendency may obscure the distinctive shape of Hebrew narrative. We have already discussed the use of conjunctive (or copulative) waw before suffix forms (32.3) and prefix forms (33.4); here we treat conjunctive waw before volitionals and some non-volitional prefix forms.

Conjunctive waw can connect volitional forms: imperatives (## 1-2), jussives (# 3), or cohortatives (# 4), or various combinations (cohortative + jussive, # 5; imperative + cohortative, # 6; 34.6). It can also join a clause beginning with a prefix form to a preceding clause (## 7-9).

(Bruce K. Waltke, M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax [Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990], §39.2.5, p. 653.) Preview.

Note: Cf. Samuel Rolles Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew: And Some Other Syntactical Questions, [Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1892], Ch. 5, p. 64f.

Cf. Franz Delitzsch:

The narrative does not expressly state wherein the Divine likeness consisted, for the dominium terræ promised to man, 26b, is not, as the Socinians think, its content but its consequence, or as Frank thinks it better to express it (ib. i. p. 349), not its nature. but the manifestation of that nature. Nevertheless it results as a retrospective inference from this sovereignty (Ps. viii. 6b), that the Divine image in man consists in his being a creature who has mastery over himself (self-conscious and self-deter mining), and therefore exalted above all other earthly. creatures.

(Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], p. 100.)

Karl Barth:

But on this view it is too readily assumed that the saga affirms a technical connexion between the divine likeness and the dominium terrae, the latter being explicable in terms of the former, and the former in terms of the latter. There can be little doubt that the two are brought together and that the dominium terrae is portrayed as a consequence of the imago Dei, but the question remains whether a technical connexion is intended. If this were the case, would it not have to be expressed?

(Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: Volume III: The Doctrine of Creation: Part One, eds. G. W. Bromiley, T. F. Torrance, trans. Edwards, Bussey & Knight, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958], p. 194.)

Gerhard von Rad:

This commission to rule is not considered as belonging to the definition of God’s image; but it is its consequence, i.e., that for which man is capable because of it.

(Gerhard von Rad, The Old Testament Library: Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961], p. 57.)

James Petigru Boyce:

3. When God purposed to make man, he also said, “And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Gen. 1:26.

Because of this language some have supposed that this dominion was also a part of the image and likeness of God.

But, evidently, this was an office conferred upon the man made in God’s image, and not a part of that Image. The Scripture presents it as something that was to follow after the nature was conferred upon man. The resemblance between him and God, in this respect, is very striking. That becomes more so, when we recognize the fulfilment of this purpose in its highest sense in the mediatorial dominion of the Godman. But this position is one of office, and not of nature, and the image of God declared of man is manifestly an image of his nature.

(James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, [Louisville: Chas. T. Dearing, 1882], p. 233.)

Francis Pieper:

Man exercised dominion over the creatures. That was an immediate consequence of possessing the divine image…

(Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics: Volume I, [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950], p. 522.)

John Miley:

It should be distinctly noted, and the fact should be emphasized, that man was originally made in the image of God. Hence this image must be in what he was originally, just as he came from the creative hand of God. We thus exclude every thing extraneous to the man himself, and equally every thing subsequent to his creation, whether from the divine agency or as the fruit of his own action. We thus exclude the dominion assigned to man, which has often been set forth as the great fact of his likeness to God. Man was constituted in himself, not in his dominion, the image of God himself, not of his dominion. His dominion was an assignment subsequent to his creation in the image of God, which image constituted his fitness for such dominion.

(John Miley, Systematic Theology: Volume I, Pt. III, Ch. II, § II.5; In: Library of Biblical and Theological Literature: Vol. V.–Systematic Theology, [New York: Eaton & Mains, 1892], p. 407.) Preview.

Geerhardus Vos:

43. Does the image of God consist in dominion over the lower creation?

No, this dominion is certainly brought into connection with the image of God and depends on the image, but it is not the image. Also, the reference here is not to all dominion but to that which all human beings possess equally by virtue of their being human. Compare, on the other hand, 1 Corinthians 11:7-8, where the reference is to an image and ruling in another sense, specifically with the male person in view. The dominion man has over the lower creation is not the same as the dominion God has, and therefore cannot constitute the image of God.

(Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Single Volume Edition, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2020], 1.6.43, p. 184.)

Wolfhart Pannenberg:

If, however, the function of the divine image is to represent God’s rule in his creation, we cannot simply equate the image and the function of rule. If the concept of the image is the basis (and limit) of the function, we must define the function as a consequence of the divine likeness. What the latter really consists of, Gen. 1:26f. does not tell us and does not need to tell us, since the point of the statement is to provide a basis for the function. It might be considered, perhaps, whether the addition of “likeness” is not to be explained in terms of the intention. If so, we may understand that our rule over creation is “like” that of the Creator.

(Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology: Volume 2, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1991], pp. 203-204.)

Morton H. Smith:

Though some have sought to identify the image with the dominion, the generally accepted view is that the dominion is the consequence of man’s being made in the image of God. It is because he is the image of God that he exercised dominion over the world. The structure of Genesis 1:27-28 suggests that the dominion is something conferred on the man, who is already the image of God.

(Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], p. 236.) Preview.

Robert Reymond:

Some scholars (e.g., Buswell)[fn. 12: J. Oliver Buswell Jr., A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1962), 1:233-35.] suggest that the image in man (or at least an aspect of it) is his dominion over the creation. But Genesis 1:26 seems to indicate that dominion was to be a bestowment upon God’s image bearer, an investiture grounded in and contingent upon the fact that man is God’s image. Verse 28, where dominion is made a reality by its actual bestowment upon man, follows the action of verse 27 where man is created and already stands before God and the world as God’s image. In other words, it is because man is God’s image that God bestows dominion over the world upon him.

(Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998], pp. 427-428.)

6.3. Objection: Corporeal Form and the Imago Dei. Return to Outline.

Herman Bavinck:

However great the resemblance between humans and angels may be, the difference is no less great. Indeed, various traits belonging to the image of God do exist in angels, but humanity alone is the image of God. That image does not just reside in what humans and angels have in common, but in what distinguishes them. The principal points of difference are these: first, an angel is spirit, and as spirit the angel is complete; man, on the other hand, is a combination of soul and body; the soul without the body is incomplete. Man, accordingly, is a rational but also a sensuous being. By the body man is bound to the earth, is part of the earth, and the earth is part of man. And of that earth man is head and master. After the angels had already been created, God said that he planned to create humankind and to give them dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26). Dominion over the earth is integral to being human, a part of the image of God, and is therefore restored by Christ to his own, whom he not only ordains as prophets and priests, but also as kings. But an angel, however strong and mighty he may be, is a servant in God’s creation, not a master over the earth (Heb. 1:14).

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 265, pp. 461-462.)

Reply Objection.

(1.) It is not at all certain that Angels do not possess “bodies” in some sense. A. A. Hodge, commenting on the term “spirits” (πνεύματα), observed that there is “nothing in that word, nor in the opinions of the Jews at the time of Christ, nor in anything which is told us of the nature or the employments of angels in the Scriptures, which prove that angels are absolutely destitute of proper material bodies of any kind.”(Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878], p. 252.) (See further: Excursus: Angelic “Bodies”, below.)

(2.) It is not at all certain that Mankind’s corporeal nature is a constituent part of the Imago Dei.

(a.) All living entities in the lower creation (e.g. plants, fish, insects, reptiles, birds, mammals, etc.) possess corporeal forms. Given that corporeal form is not unique to Humankind, it seems unlikely that it would form a constituent part of the Imago Dei. James Petigru Boyce correctly observed that the “body of man, although in many respects superior to that of the brutes, is in a great measure like theirs. The analogy between man and animals generally is very striking and especially that between him and those nearest to him in the stage of being. . . . there can be no analogy between him and God in this respect.”(Abstract of Systematic Theology, [Louisville: Chas. T. Dearing, 1882], p. 231.)

(b.) God is spirit (John 4:24) and “as pure spirit, has no body in the likeness or image of which man could be created.”(Ibid.) J. Gresham Machen similarly observes that “because God is a spirit” the Imago Dei “cannot well refer to man’s body”(The Christian View of Man, [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965], p. 145.)

This point is tacitly conceded by Bavinck, who notes that the “human body is a part of the image of God in its organization as instrument of the soul . . . not in its material substance as flesh (sarx).”(Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], pp. 559-560.) However, in making this concession he seems to undermine his entire argument. If it is not the corporeality of the human body which constitutes the Imago Dei, but rather the analogical relationship which underlies it—“God sees and hears, and man who is his image also sees and hears”(Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology: Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], p. 238.)—e.g. Psalm 94:9—then the same is true of the Angels, regardless of whether they have spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44; cf. Luke 20:36) or are pure spirits like God. For Angels too, see and hear and communicate (Genesis 18:2-8; 19:1-3). And while the Angels may not see, hear and communicate via the same mechanism as Humans or in the same manner, this mechanism—or more accurately, that analogical relationship which underlies the mechanism, i.e., that God sees, etc.—whatever it may be, exists in Angels just as it does in Humankind.

Question. If corporeality forms a constituent part of the Imago Dei then what happens when a person dies and goes to be with Christ to await the second coming? Do they cease to be an image bearer until their body is resurrected?

(3.) (a.) It is not at all certain that Mankind’s dominion over the lower Creation is a constituent part of the Imago Dei (see §. 6.2. above). (b.) Angels do exercise “dominion” (cf. §. 6.2. “Excursus: Angelic Dominion,” above).

Excursus: Angelic “Bodies.”

A. A. Hodge:

(Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology: Rewritten and Enlarged, [New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1878], p. 252.)

W. G. T. Shedd:

While the spiritual essence of God is incorporeal and formless, it is at the same time the most real substance of all. Mere body or form does not add to the reality of an essence, because the form itself derives its characteristics and its reality from the informing spirit. “The things which are seen were not made of things which do appear,” Heb. 11:3. Visibles were not made of visibles, but of invisibles. The phenomenon, consequently, is less real than the noumenon; the visible than the invisible. God’s incorporeal and formless being is so intensely and eminently real, that all formed and corporeal being, in comparison, is unreal.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888], p. 154.)

St. Augustine of Hippo:

From this arises the question as to angels, whether they have bodies adapted to their duties and their swift motions from place to place, or are only spirits? For if we say that they have bodies, we are met by the passage: “He maketh His angels spirits;”[Ps. civ. 4 and Heb. i. 7.] and if we say that they have not bodies, a still greater difficulty meets us in explaining how, if they are without bodily form, it is written that they appeared to the bodily senses of men, accepted offers of hospitality, permitted their feet to be washed, and used the meat and drink which was provided for them.[Gen. xviii. 2-9 and Gen. xix. 1-3.] For it seems to involve us in less difficulty, if we suppose that the angels are there called spirits in the same manner as men are called souls, e.g. in the statement that so many souls (not signifying that they had not bodies also) went down with Jacob into Egypt,[Gen. xlvi. 27.] than if we suppose that, without bodily form, all these things were done by angels. Again, a certain definite height is named in the Apocalypse as the stature of an angel, in dimensions which could apply only to bodies, proving that that which appeared to the eyes of men is to be explained, not as an illusion, but as resulting from the power which we have spoken of as easily put forth by spiritual bodies. But whether angels have bodies or not, and whether or not any one be able to show how without bodies they could do all these things, it is nevertheless certain, that in that city of the holy in which those of our race who have been redeemed by Christ shall be united for ever to thousands of angels, voices proceeding from organs of speech shall furnish expression to the thoughts of minds in which nothing is hidden; for in that divine fellowship it will not be possible for any thought in one to remain concealed from another, but there shall be complete harmony and oneness of heart in the praise of God, and this shall find utterance not only from the spirit, but through the spiritual body as its instrument; this, at least, is what I believe.

(Augustine of Hippo, Letter 95.8 [To Paulinus and Therasia]; trans. NPNF1, 1:404.) See also: ccel.org.

Francis Turretin:

I. Theologians hold two opinions about this question. The first denies that angels are mere spirits, free from all matter; the other affirms it. Many of the fathers (after the Platonists) followed the first, attributing proper bodies to angels: as Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ 3 (ANF 3:523) and ?Against Praxeas 7 (ANF 3:602), Augustine, CG 15.23 (FC 14:470-75) and The Trinity 2.7 (FC 45:66-67), Bernard, “Sermon 5,” Song of Solomon (trans. S.J. Eales, 1984 repr.), pp. 24–28, the author of the book De Ecclesiasticus Dogmatibus 12* (PL 42.1216) (which is preserved in volume 3 of the works of Augustine), who openly defines angels to be corporeal, whom Vorstius follows (Doct. Conradi Vorstii Apologetica Exegesis 7 [1611], pp. 29-33).

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1992], 7.2.1, p. 541.)

Note: Turretin does not espouse this position. I include his testimony only to serve as evidence of the long and prestigious pedigree which underlies this interpretative tradition.

Excursus: Corporeal Form and the Imago Dei.

Franz Delitzsch:

The angelic life in the divine presence is a never-ceasing festival; the angel choirs are represented in Scripture as perpetually engaged in antiphonal songs of praise, or in movements of a sacred dance to heavenly music;[fn. 1: Cant. vii. 1 [A. V. vi. 13].] for, though incorporeal and without bodily organs, they are yet not formless nor incapable of expressing themselves in manifold ways towards God and one another.

(Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews: Vol. II, Third Edition, trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876], p. 349.)

Thomas Aquinas:

Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, Let us make man in our image and likeness, it is added, And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea (Genesis i.26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.

(Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.3.1, Reply Obj. 2; In: The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. I.—XXVI.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1920], p. 31.)

John Calvin:

Osiander frivolously objects that it is not a part of the man, or the soul with its faculties, which is called the image of God, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the dust out of which he was taken. I call the objection frivolous, as all sound readers will judge. For though the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore liable to death, nor when he is called a rational animal is reason or intelligence thereby attributed to the body. Hence, although the soul is not the man, there is no absurdity in holding that he is called the image of God in respect of the soul…

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008], 1.15.3, p. 107.)

James Petigru Boyce:

1. There is certainly no reference to the bodily form of man. God, as pure spirit, has no body in the likeness or image of which man could be created. The body of man, although in many respects superior to that of the brutes, is in a great measure like theirs. The analogy between man and animals generally is very striking and especially that between him and those nearest to him in the stage of being. But there can be no analogy between him and God in this respect. In no way even could special honour be put on man in his physical nature, except as that nature gives evidence of the existence with it of those spiritual powers which elevate man above the brutes. It is as the dwelling-place of that spirit, and because of its intimate association with the life existent in that body, that any sacredness can be attached to the bodily form. It is this, therefore, that is doubtless meant by Gen. 9:6, where the shedding of the blood of man is made punishable on the ground that “in the image of God made he man.”

(James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, [Louisville: Chas. T. Dearing, 1882], p. 231.)

Cf. Pierre Du Moulin:

Among all the visible Workes of God, Man hath the precedencie; In man that part is of greatest excellence which is called the Soule, for a body is common to us with Beats, but a soule with Angels.

(Peter Du Moulin, A Treatise of the Knowledge of God, trans. Robert Codrington, [London: Printed by A. M., 1634], §. 1, p. 1.)

Robert Shaw:

Man was originally created after the image of God. This could not consist in a participation of the divine essence; for that is incommunicable to any creature. Neither did it consist in his external form; for God, having no bodily parts could not be represented by any material resemblance.

(Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1847], p. 80.]

Vincent Cheung:

…God made man in his own image: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him” (Genesis 1:27). Whatever is meant by the image of God, it cannot refer to something that God himself does not possess. Since God is incorporeal, since he is spirit and has no form, his image must be unrelated to man’s body.

(Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, [Vincent Cheung, 2010], p. 118.)

John Miley:

Very naturally differences of opinion respecting the likeness of man to God early appeared in Christian thought. With a common agreement that man himself was the image of God, there was still the cardinal question as to what really constituted man. Some could not dispense with the body as an essential part, and therefore assumed for it a likeness to God. This required the assumption of some form of corporeity in God; for it is not to be thought that a physical nature can bear the likeness of a purely spiritual being. With the burden of such an assumption, the notion of a bodily similitude could not command a wide acceptance; and the prevalent opinion placed the image of God in the spiritual nature of man.

(John Miley, Systematic Theology: Volume I, Pt. III, Ch. II, § II.5; In: Library of Biblical and Theological Literature: Vol. V.–Systematic Theology, [New York: Eaton & Mains, 1892], p. 406.)

Francis Turretin:

V. (2) Nor does it consist in any figure of the body or external bearing in which man resembles God (the delirium of the Anthropomorphites of old). For although we do not think that every relation of that image should be altogether denied of the body and see some rays of it glittering there, whether we regard man’s immortality of which his body is also in its own manner a partaker; or that majesty of bearing which Ovid thus elegantly expresses, “Whilst other animals look downwards upon the earth, he gave man a lofty face, and ordered him to look at heaven, and lift his countenance upwards towards the stars” (Metamorphoses 1.85 [Loeb, 3:8–9]); or attend to the admirable structure, symmetry and use of the organic body and all its members; still it is certain that image shone in the body not so much formally as consequently and effectively (inasmuch as both the figure of man itself and the majesty resulting from it testify to the power of man over the rest of creatures, and thus of his having a soul fitted for contemplation and knowledge; and thus the proper seat of the divine image is the soul and not the body). If human members are attributed to God in the Scriptures, it does not therefore follow that the image is to be placed properly in these, since they are ascribed to him after the manner of men (anthrōpopathōs) and must be understood in a manner becoming God (theoprepōs) not formally and properly, but figuratively and analogically.

(Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology: Volume One, trans. George M. Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., [Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1992], 5.10.5, pp. 465-466.

John Calvin:

For though the divine glory is displayed in man’s outward appearance, it cannot be doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul. …And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine.

(John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008], 1.15.3, pp. 106-107.)

B. B. Warfield:

Of the bodily nature of man, Calvin has (here at least) little to say. He is not insensible to the dignity of the human form and carriage, celebrating it in a familiar classical quotation; and he admits that by as much as it distinguishes and separates us from brute animals by that much it brings us nearer to God.[fn. 123: I.xv.3] Though he insists that the image of God is properly spiritual, and that even though it may be discerned sparkling in these external things it is only as they are informed by the spirit;[fn. 125: I.xv.3] he yet in this very statement seems in some sense to allow that it does “sparkle” at least in these external things, and indeed says plainly that “there is no part of man including the body itself, in which there is not some luminous spark of the divine image.”[fn. 126: “Institutes,” I.xv.3] What he objected to in Osiander’s view accordingly was not that he allowed to the body some share in the divine image but that he placed the image of God “promiscuously” and “equally” in the soul and body. Calvin might allow it to extend even to the body, but certainly he would not admit that it had its seat there in equal measure as in the soul. The only proper seat of the image of God was to him indeed precisely the soul itself, from which only it might shine into the body.

(B. B. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of Creation;” In: The Princeton Theological Review, xiii. 1915, pp. 190-255; Cited in: Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1931], pp. 337-338.)

Wilhelmus à Brakel:

The image of God does not consist in the perfection of the body, for God is a Spirit. It does not primarily consist in the exercise of dominion which was bestowed as a consequence of this image…

(Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: Volume 1: God, Man and Christ, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], p. 323.)

J. Gresham Machen:

The “image of God” cannot well refer to man’s body, because God is a spirit; it must therefore refer to man’s soul.

(J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man, [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965], p. 145.)

Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley:

Theologians in the orthodox Christian tradition did recognize, however, that the human body bears marks of nobility and uniqueness. Pagans saw this, too. The Roman poet Ovid (43 BC–c. AD 17) wrote that whereas animals look down at the ground, man has a majestic face that looks up at the skies. Christian theologians such as Augustine, Bede (c. 672–735), Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), John Calvin, and Francis Turretin accepted the idea that the human body indirectly expresses the image of God in this and other ways. However, as Aquinas said, the image most properly belongs to the soul of man, not his body.

(Joel R. Beeke, Paul M. Smalley, Reformed Systematic Theology: Vol. 2: Man and Christ, [Wheaton: Crossway 2020], pp. 177-178.)

Herman Bavinck:

The human body is a part of the image of God in its organization as instrument of the soul . . . not in its material substance as flesh (sarx).

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 292, pp. 559-560.)

Morton H. Smith:

Man has a body because he is the image of God. God sees and hears, and man who is his image also sees and hears, but he must have organs with which to do so. Of course, since he is not identical with God, but only his image, the necessity of his having a body is one of the differences of man from God.

(Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], p. 238.)

D. J. A. Clines:

As far as concerns this aspect of the image, namely that it denotes the corporeal existence of man, we have to stress that what makes man the image of God is not that corporeal man stands as an analogy of a corporeal God; for the image does not primarily mean similarity, but the representation of the one who is imaged in a place where he is not. If God wills His image to be corporeal man—union of physical and spiritual (or psychical)—He thereby wills the manner of His presence in the world to be the selfsame uniting of physical and spiritual. At this point, where the doctrine of the incarnation lies close at hand, together with the rejection of ultimate dichotomy between sacred and secular, we must leave the exploration of the repercussions of the image doctrine in so far as they stem from the corporeal aspect of the image.

2. Reference has already been made to the function of the image as representative of one who is really or spiritually present, though physically absent. The king puts his statue in a conquered land to signify his real, though not his physical, presence there. The god has his statue set up in the temple to signify his real presence there, though he may be in heaven, on the mountain of the gods, or located in some natural phenomenon, and so not physically present in the temple.

According to Genesis 1:26f. man is set on earth in order to be the representative there of the absent God who is nevertheless present by His image.

(D. J. A. Clines, “The Image of God in Man,” pp. 87-88; In: Tyndale Bulletin, 19, [1968]: 53-103.

Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks:

It is often said that the Bible represents God anthropomorphically (i.e., as a human being). More accurately, a human being is theomorphic, made like God so that God can communicate himself to people. He gave people ears to show that he hears the cry of the afflicted and eyes to show that he sees the plight of the pitiful (Ps. 94:9).

(Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], p. 65.)

Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu:

First, the human physical form reflects God. “Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?” (Ps. 94:9). When we look into a mirror, we see a certain reflection of God: eyes to see, ears to hear, a mouth to communicate. The biblical mirror of God validates this inference by using such anthropomorphisms (i.e., having the form of ʾāḏām) as “the eyes of God” and “the ears of God.” Yet God is spirit, not corporeal, and so in his substance he differs from us. In sum, our human structure faithfully and adequately shows that God, though spirit, sees the needy and hears the cry of the suffering.

(Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 217.) Preview.

Morton H. Smith:

The image is not a part of man, or an added feature to his basic nature. His basic nature is to be the image of God. Man is the image of God in the essence of his being. Because he is the image of God, he can know God and have communion with him. Just as the dominion over the earth is a consequence of man’s being the image of God, so also are other human attributes consequences of his being the image. Since man is the image of God, it is to be expected that he be rational, that he have a will, freedom, personality, etc., corresponding to those attributes of God. The same may even be said of the body. Man has a body because he is the image of God. God sees and hears, and man who is his image also sees and hears, but he must have organs with which to do so. Of course, since he is not identical with God, but only his image, the necessity of his having a body is one of the differences of man from God. Moral excellence in his original condition was also a consequence of the image.

(Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], p. 238.) Preview.

Petrus Van Mastricht:

How the image of God belongs to man

XXIX. Moreover, the image of God belongs to man: (1) not according to the distinction, structure, and figure of the parts and members of the body, as the Manicheans together with the Anthropomorphites imagined. For God is Spirit (John 4:24), thoroughly free from parts, members, and figure (Luke 24:39). Nor therefore, (2) because man is formed according to the human nature of Christ, assumed in an extraordinary way at the time when man was created, as some of the fathers assert. For that opinion not only has no foundation in Scripture, but also is manifestly contrary to Scripture, which asserts that we were created according to the image of God, not of Christ, and that Christ in his incarnation was made like us in all things, except for sin (Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:12, 17). Nor (3) do we bear an image of God that is perfect in every way, such an image as Christ bears according to the divine nature (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3), but one that is in some measure similar, not the same or equal.

Cf. Petrus Van Mastricht:

What the image of God in man is

XXX. Therefore, the image of God in man is nothing except a conformity of man whereby he in measure reflects the highest perfection of God. It is a conformity, in which it agrees with a vestige, and through this conformity, there concurs in the image every likeness of God in man, by which, in his own way, man reflects God, that is, he displays such things which are to a certain extent and by analogy common to him and God. Finally, this happens in a certain most noble perfection, which is seen first in the very essence of man, then in the first faculties of the soul, and finally in the virtues of these faculties.

6.4. Objection: United in Essence and Nature? Return to Outline.

Herman Bavinck:

Second, as purely spiritual beings the angels are not bound to each other by ties of blood. There is among them no father-son relationship, no physical bond, no common blood, no consanguinity. However intimately they may share an ethical bond, they are disconnected beings, so that when many fell, the others could remain standing. In human beings, on the other hand, there is an adumbration of the divine being, in which there are also persons, united not only in will and affection, but also in essence and nature.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 265, p. 462.)

Reply Objection.

(1.) The assertion that the Imago Dei is constituted in Humankind’s corporeal nature seems dubious (see §. 6.3, above). (2.) Bavinck’s assertion is highly speculative as the Scriptures tell us very little about Angels and the nature of their relations and being. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God” (Deuteronomy 29:29a NASB). (3.) Even if Bavinck’s assertion is true—and I see no evidence to suggest that it is—the Scriptures nowhere link our “unity in essence and nature” with the Imago Dei.

6.5. Objection: Grace and the Imago Dei. Return to Outline.

Herman Bavinck:

Third, there is consequently something called “humanity” but no “angelity” in that sense. In one man all humans fell, but the human race is also saved in one person. In humanity there could be an Adam and therefore also a Christ. The angels are witnesses, but humans are objects, of God’s most marvelous deeds, the works of his grace. The earth is the stage of God’s miraculous acts: here the war is fought, here the victory of God’s kingdom is won, and angels turn their faces to the earth, longing to look into the mysteries of salvation (Eph. 3:10; 1 Pet. 1:12).

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 265, p. 462.)

Reply Objection.

(1.) Angels are most assuredly recipients—objects and not merely witnesses—of both special grace (1 Timothy 5:21) and common grace (Psalm 145:9, 15-16; Matthew 5:43-45; Luke 6:35-36). (2.) The exact nature and manner of the grace received by Angels is not identical to that received by Humankind (Ephesians 3:10; 1 Peter 1:12). However, the grace received by the elect differs from the grace received by the reprobate, and yet both are image bearers. All this aside, the fact that the nature and manner of grace differ is ultimately irrelevant as the Scriptures nowhere identify the Imago Dei with anything Bavinck here speaks of.

Louis Berkhof:

The good angels are called elect angels in I Tim. 5:21. They evidently received, in addition to the grace with which all angels were endowed, and which was sufficient to enable them to retain their position, a special grace of perseverance, by which they were confirmed in their position.

(L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1976], p. 145.)

Excursus: Common Grace.

Petrus Van Mastricht:

(3) Through his own infinite goodness, God has dispensed and does dispense all good that all creatures—even the worst, down to the reprobate and the demons—possess, but by his goodness he is not strictly bound to dispense eternal salvation to each and every person. (4) Nor does it hinder the divine goodness that he dispenses his goodness in various ways and degrees among his own creatures and does not confer every good to every creature, that for example, the goodness he confers on angels he does not confer on men, and what he dispensed to man he does not cast to the beasts. Thus, it absolutely does not hinder the divine goodness that he does not dispense to dogs the good that belongs to his children (Matt. 15:24). Furthermore, (5) with his goodness not standing in the way, he wills to condemn most of mankind eternally (Prov. 1:26-27; Rom. 9:15, 18).

(Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 2: Faith in the Triune God, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2019], Book 2, Chapter 16, §. 14.) Preview.

John Gill:

All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, very good, Gen. i. 31; he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to rejoice in his works; Psalm civ. 81; he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works, Psalm xxxvi. 6, and cxlv. 9; and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shown his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21; by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, Col. ii. 10; and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, Matt. xviii. 10; yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence in common upon them, Acts xvii. 28, and xiv. 17, Matt. v. 45…

(John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: Or, A System of Evangelical Truths Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures: A New Edition: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978], pp. 113-114.)

William G. T. Shedd:

…Benevolence. . . . is the affection which the Creator feels towards the sentient and conscious creature, as such. . . . It grows out of the fact that the creature is his workmanship. God is interested in everything which he has made. He cannot hate any of his own handiwork. The wrath of God is not excited by anything that took its origin from him. It falls only upon something that has been added to his own work. Sin is no part of creation, but a quality introduced into creation by the creature himself. . . . Disobedience and ingratitude deaden and destroy the benevolent feeling of man towards man, but not that of God towards his creatures. Sinful men are the objects of God’s providential care, as well as renewed men. Even Satan and the fallen angels are treated with all the benevolence which their enmity to God will admit of. God feels no malevolence towards them.

(William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume I: Second Edition, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1889], pp. 385-386.)

James P. Boyce:

…the love of benevolence, which corresponds to the idea of God’s goodness towards his creatures. …is the product of his wishes for their happiness. It is not dependent on their character, as is the love of complacency, but is exercised towards both innocent and guilty. It . . . exists towards all, even towards devils, and wicked men, because God’s nature is benevolent, and, therefore, he must wish for the happiness of his creatures. That that happiness is not attained, nor attainable, is due, not to him, but to their own sin.

(James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology, [Louisville: Chas. T. Dearing, 1882], p. 104.)

Petrus Van Mastricht:

…love, which is nothing except goodness as it is communicative of itself…

Cf. John Murray:

In other words, the goodness bestowed is surely goodness expressed.

(John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray: Volume Two: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977], “Common Grace,” p. 105.)

Note: See further: Love of God (Extends Over All Creation, Including the Reprobate).

6.6. Objection: Compassion and the Imago Dei. Return to Outline.

Herman Bavinck:

Fourth, angels may be the mightier spirits, but humans are the richer of the two. In intellect and power angels far surpass humans. But in virtue of the marvelously rich relationships in which humans stand to God, the world, and humanity, they are psychologically deeper and mentally richer. The relations that sexuality and family life, life in the family and state and society, life devoted to labor and art and science, bring with them make every human a microcosm, which in multifacetedness, in depth, and in richness far surpasses the personality of angels. Consequently also, the richest and most glorious attributes of God are knowable and enjoyable only by humans. Angels experience God’s power, wisdom, goodness, holiness, and majesty; but the depths of God’s compassions only disclose themselves to humans. The full image of God, therefore, is only unfolded in creaturely fashion in humans—better still, in humanity.

(Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004], §. 265, p. 462.)

Reply Objection.

(1.) Bavinck’s assertion that “in virtue of the marvelously rich relationships in which humans stand to God, the world, and humanity, they are psychologically deeper and mentally richer” appears to be very speculative. The Scriptures tell us very little about Angels and the nature of their relations. “The secret things belong to the Lord our God” (Deuteronomy 29:29a NASB). (2.) The claim that “the depths of God’s compassions only disclose themselves to humans. The full image of God, therefore, is only unfolded in creaturely fashion in humans” appears to be quite illogical. How does it follow that: because God’s compassion is more fully poured out upon Humankind (as compared to Angelic beings), therefore Angels are not image bearers? God’s compassion is more fully poured out upon the elect than upon the reprobate, does it follow from this that the reprobate are not image bearers?

6.7. Objection: The Bible Never Says “Angels are Made in the Image of God.” Return to Outline.

Wayne Grudem:

The first distinction to be noted is that angels are never said to be made “in the image of God,” while human beings are several times said to be in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-27; 9:6). Since being in the image of God means to be like God, it seems fair to conclude that we are more like God even than the angels are.

(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, [Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994,] p. 402.)

Reply Objection.

Many doctrinal truths which are believed by Christians are not set down explicitly in Scripture but are rather drawn from what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “good and necessary consequence” (1.6). “For example, the duty of females to commemorate the Lord’s death at His table . . . [is] not, it has often been remarked, expressly enjoined by any separate formula in the New Testament Scriptures. The duty of females to join in the Lord’s Supper is only to be gathered inferentially by a process of reasoning”.(James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868], p. 102.)

That Angels bear the Imago Dei is evident from the fact that the old testament speaks repeatedly of Angels as bĕnê hā’ĕlōhîm—sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Daniel 3:25)—which would be a wholly inappropriate epithet to ascribe to beings who were not image bearers. To be a “son” is, by definition, to bear the image of your father (cf. Genesis 5:3—“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.” NASB).

Excursus: Good and Necessary Consequence.

James Bannerman:

“The whole counsel of God,” says the Confession of Faith, “concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or, by good and necessary consequence, may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

A right understanding of the truths contained in this weighty sentence may be said to form the basis of all sound and Scriptural Theology, and of all lawful and orthodox Confessions of Faith. The challenge has been thrown down again and again by heretics in all ages: “Give us an express text of Scripture contradicting our views, and asserting yours. We refuse to submit to mere human inferences in place of Scripture statement.”

It was on this ground that the Arians of the fourth century built their favourite and most plausible arguments against the Nicene definition of the ὁμοούσιον. It was on this ground that the Macedonians denied the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and the Apollinarians and Monophysites the true and distinct humanity of Christ. In like manner, after the Reformation, the Socinian party opposed all the leading doctrines held by the Protestant Churches, on the score of their being based on Scripture consequences, and not on Scripture texts. In fact, in almost every case in which any show of reverence for the Word of God has been preserved at all, the errors of false teachers—from Unitarianism to transubstantiation—have been covered by an appeal to the letter of Scripture, while the real sense and meaning of it have been evaded or denied.

The importance of the question may be illustrated by an example. Take the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” What conclusions may be drawn “by good and necessary consequence” from these words? In the first place, this, that God and nature are essentially distinct and different, as against the various forms of Pantheism. In the second place,—although the passage does not fix the antiquity of the present order of things upon the earth, and does not hinder us from believing, if the fact should be established by other evidence, that an indefinite series of ages may have elapsed between the events recorded in the first verse of this chapter and those recorded in the second,—yet these words prove that, at some far-off date in the past eternity, matter had its beginning, that God only is from everlasting to everlasting, and that the eternity of matter is a fiction of the Materialists. In the third place, these words teach us that matter was at the first created out of nothing by God, as against the various theories of Emanation. “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

Again, take such verses as, “The Word was made flesh,” “The man Christ Jesus.” From these words of Scripture we learn, “by good and necessary consequence,” first, that our Lord Jesus Christ had a true body, as against the speculations of the early Gnostics; second, that He had a reasonable soul and a human will, as against the Monothelites; and third, that He united in His person a Divine and a human nature, as against the Socinians.

(James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868], pp. 409-410.)

James Bannerman:

For example, the duty of females to commemorate the Lord’s death at His table . . . [is] not, it has often been remarked, expressly enjoined by any separate formula in the New Testament Scriptures. The duty of females to join in the Lord’s Supper is only to be gathered inferentially by a process of reasoning…

(James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868], p. 102.)

Robert Letham:

…extended reflection on the implications and interconnections of the Bible’s content, are imperative. The whole counsel of God includes legitimate deductions from the Bible. Orderly thought is a sine qua non. Anti-intellectualism undermines Scripture…

(Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, [Wheaton: Crossway, 2019], 6.5.1, 201.)

B. B. Warfield:

Men are required to believe and to obey not only what is “expressly set down in Scripture,” but also what “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.” This is the strenuous and universal contention of the Reformed theology against Socinians and Arminians, who desired to confine the authority of Scripture to its literal asseverations; and it involves a characteristic honoring of reason as the instrument for the ascertainment of truth. We must depend upon our human faculties to ascertain what Scripture says; we cannot suddenly abnegate them and refuse their guidance in determining what Scripture means. This is not, of course, to make reason the ground of the authority of inferred doctrines and duties. Reason is the instrument of discovery of all doctrines and duties, whether “expressly set down in Scripture” or “by good and necessary consequence deduced from Scripture”: but their authority, when once discovered, is derived from God, who reveals and prescribes them in Scripture, either by literal assertion or by necessary implication. The Confession is only zealous, as it declares that only Scripture is the authoritative rule of faith and practice, so to declare that the whole of Scripture is authoritative, in the whole stretch of its involved meaning. It is the Reformed contention, reflected here by the Confession, that the sense of Scripture is Scripture, and that men are bound by its whole sense in all its implications. The reëmergence in recent controversies of the plea that the authority of Scripture is to be confined to its expressed declarations, and that human logic is not to be trusted in divine things, is, therefore, a direct denial of a fundamental position of Reformed theology, explicitly affirmed in the Confession, as well as an abnegation of fundamental reason, which would not only render thinking in a system impossible, but would discredit at a stroke many of the fundamentals of the faith, such e.g. as the doctrine of the Trinity, and would logically involve the denial of the authority of all doctrine whatsoever, since no single doctrine of whatever simplicity can be ascertained from Scripture except by the use of the processes of the understanding. It is, therefore, an unimportant incident that the recent plea against the use of human logic in determining doctrine has been most sharply put forward in order to justify the rejection of a doctrine which is explicitly taught, and that repeatedly, in the very letter of Scripture; if the plea is valid at all, it destroys at once our confidence in all doctrines, no one of which is ascertained or formulated without the aid of human logic.

(Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1931], pp. 226-227.)

6.8. Objection: Do You Not Know That We Are To Judge Angels? Return to Outline.

Wayne Grudem:

This is supported by the fact that God will someday give us authority over angels, to judge them: “Do you not know that we are to judge angels?” (1 Cor. 6:3). Though we are “for a little while lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:7), when our salvation is complete we will be exalted above angels and rule over them. In fact, even now, angels already serve us: “Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?” (Heb. 1:14).

(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, [Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994,] p. 402.)

Reply Objection.

(1.) Judgment.

(a.) Will all angels be judged by all humans? What about “Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God” (Luke 1:19 NASB) or Michael, the “prince” of Israel (Daniel 12:1—the name Michael means “he who is like God”)?

(b.) The apostles will “sit upon twelve thrones, judging [κρίνοντες] the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28 NASB). Are the members of the twelve tribes of Israel image bearers? All human beings will appear before the judgment seat of God (Hebrews 9:27; Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10), this does nothing to negate the Imago Dei.

(c.) Position. Human beings are described as being made “a little lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:7; Psalm 8:5). This description would seem to be wholly inappropriate were not angels also bearers of the Imago Dei (cf. 2 Peter 2:10-11).

(2.) Servants.

(a.) Angels are described as those who “render service” (Hebrews 1:14–διακονίαν), yet the same is said of Barnabas and Paul (Acts 12:25–διακονίαν) and even of the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:8–διακονία). All Christians are called to be servants of others (Matthew 20:26–διάκονος; Mark 9:35–διάκονος) and even the Lord Jesus Himself said that He did not come to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:28–διακονηθῆναι). Those who are greatest are those who serve others (Matthew 20:24-28). The status of servant does nothing to negate the status of image bearer.

(b.) Angels are called “Sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7); they are called “gods” (cf. Psalm 97:7 with Hebrews 1:6); they are called “Holy ones” (Job 15:15; Daniel 4:13, 17); they are called “rulers” and “authorities” (Ephesians 3:10; cf. 1:21; 6:12; Colossians 1:16), the Archangel Michael is described as the “prince” of Israel (Daniel 12:1—the name Michael means “he who is like God”); the Satan is described as the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), the “prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2) and the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4); Angels are described as passing “sentences,” “commands” and “decrees” over Humanity (Daniel 4:17); Angels are described as “ruling” over Humankind (Daniel 4:26-27—both שְׁמַיָּא [Heaven] and שַׁלִּטִן [rules] are plural. ‘Verse 25 says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase “heaven is sovereign” is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier in Daniel 4.’(Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.)). Such descriptions hardly seem appropriate of beings who do not bear the Imago Dei.

6.9. Objection: Procreation. Return to Outline.

Wayne Grudem:

The ability of human beings to bear children like themselves (Adam “became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image,” Gen. 5:3) is another element of our superiority to angels, who apparently cannot bear children (cf. Matt. 22:30; Luke 20:34-36).

(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, [Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994,] p. 402.)

Reply Objection.

(1.) There are human beings now who are physically incapable of procreation—either as the result of infirmity or by birth—are they not also image bearers?

(2.) What about those who are unmarried, and subsequently are incapable of bearing children?

(3.) Human beings will no longer procreate in the world to come (Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:34-36), will we then cease to be image bearers?

(4.) Since we find that Human relationships will one day resemble Angelic relationships—“For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30 NASB)—such that, as John Calvin says, “our highest perfection will consist in being like them” in this respect (Institutes, 1.15.3; cf. Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35-36), it seems reasonable to infer that Angels are bearers of the Imago Dei.

6.10. Objection: Athanasius of Alexandria? Return to Outline.

Athanasius of Alexandria:

What, then, was God to do? What else could He possibly do, being God, but renew His Image in mankind, so that through it men might once more come to know Him? And how could this be done save by the coming of the very Image Himself [τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνος], our Savior Jesus Christ? Men could not have done it, for they are only made after the Image [αὐτοὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα]; nor could angels have done it, for they are not the images of God [οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ αὐτοί εἰσιν εἰκόνες]. The Word of God came in His own Person, because it was He alone, the Image of the Father [τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν κατ’ εἰκόνα] Who could recreate man made after the Image.

(Athanasius of Alexandria, The Incarnation of the Word of God, 3.13; PG, 25:120b; trans. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Incarnation of the Word of God, trans. A Religious of C.S.M.V., [New York: The Macmillan Company, 1957], p. 41.)

Cf. Athanasius of Alexandria:

Τί οὖν ἔδει ποιεῖν τὸν Θεόν; Ἢ τί ἔδει γενέσθαι, ἀλλ’ ἢ τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα πάλιν ἀνανεῶσαι, ἵνα δι’ αὐτοῦ πάλιν αὐτὸν γνῶναι δυνηθῶσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι; Τοῦτο δὲ πῶς ἂν ἐγεγόνει, εἰ μὴ αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνος παραγενομένης τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; ∆ι’ ἀνθρώπων μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἦν δυνατόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτοὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα γεγόνασιν· ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ δι’ ἀγγέλων· οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ αὐτοί εἰσιν εἰκόνες. Ὅθεν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος δι’ ἑαυτοῦ παρεγένετο, ἵνα ὡς Εἰκὼν ὢν τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν κατ’ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπον ἀνακτίσαι δυνηθῇ.

(S. Athanasii, Oratio de Incarnatione Verbi, 13; PG, 25:120b.)

Reply Objection.

This text has no bearing upon the question at hand. Accordingly to Athanasius, Jesus Himself is the Image of God (τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνος). Humankind is not the Image of God, but rather made after the Image (αὐτοὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα). Athanasius tells us that Angels are not the images of God (οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐδὲ αὐτοί εἰσιν εἰκόνες), he says nothing regarding whether or not Angels are made after the Image (αὐτοὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα) of God—as Humans are.

7. Summary Notes. Return to Outline.

Note: The information in these notes is mostly available in full above.

[1.] Imago Dei in creaturis rationalibus, est similitudo naturæ divinæ creaturis rationalibus impressa à Deo, ut ipsum tanquam archetypum & patrem referant atque repræsentant. (Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 508.) Cf. Amandus Polanus: The image of God is that dignity and excellence in which the reasonable creatures being created like unto God, do excel other creatures. Or else it is the agreement of the reasonable creatures with the most high and blessed God. (Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], p. 55.) [spelling modernized] Cf. John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13; Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228; William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.8.66-67, 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 43, 50-51, 52; cf. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.8.66-67, 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 105, 110-111; Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], pp. 239-240; Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 41. Return to Article.

[2.] Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 3: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021], Part 1, Book 3, Chapter 9, §. 30. Cf. Amandus Polanus: Imago Dei ad quam homo conditus fuit, est similitudo illa, quâ homo naturam sui Creatoris referebat modo convenienti naturæ suæ, ad gloriam Creatoris & hominis ipsius bonum. [The image of God in which man was created is that likeness by which man reflected the nature of his Creator in a manner appropriate to his own nature, for the glory of the Creator and the good of man himself.] (Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.34, p. 605.) Note: Similarly, the Anglican theologian Arthur James Mason writes: “We cannot say what special faculties or special grouping of faculties in man constitutes the image of God in him; for man, with all his complexity, is a single and undivided whole. There is something in him corresponding to everything that is in God. The uncreated Image of God contains explicitly, in one comprehensive consciousness, every motion of the Divine life; the created image contains the same implicitly, in a consciousness destined to expand for ever, drawing for ever nearer to the Divine fulness, while for ever finding an unexhausted ocean beyond him (Eph. iii. 19, reading πληρώθητε).” (Arthur James Mason, The Faith of the Gospel: A Manual of Christian Doctrine, Third Edition, Revised, [New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1891], pp. 94-95.) Return to Article.

[3.] The divine, or heavenly, council of Angelic beings is a concept which is widely attested to in the Scriptures (Job 1:6, 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 82:1; 89:5-7; Isaiah 6:1-3, 8; Daniel 4:13-17, 24-26; 7:9-10; 1 Kings 22:19-22; 2 Chronicles 18:18-22; Nehemiah 9:6; etc.). Return to Article.

[4.] Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu: Most scholars rightly interpret the “us” as a reference to the heavenly court that surrounds God’s throne. This view has linguistic, contextual, and theological support. (Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 213.) Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, [Waco: Word Books, 1987], pp. 27-28, 31-32; Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis;” In: Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, gen. eds., James D. G. Dunn, John W. Rogerson, [Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2003], p. 39; Gordon J. Wenham, “Genesis;” In: New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition: Fourth Edition, eds. D. A. Carson, et al., [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994], p. 61; Bruce K. Waltke, Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], pp. 64-65, 91, 95, 180; Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], pp. 213-215; Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], pp. 22-23, 27; Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], p. 277; NET Bible: Full-Notes Edition, [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019], n. B, on Genesis 1:26, p. 4; Tremper Longman III, The Story of God Bible Commentary: Genesis, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016], p. 42; Tremper Longman III, “Genesis;” In: The Baker Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, eds. J. Scott Duvall, J. Daniel Hays, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2020], on Genesis 1:26; John H. Walton, The NIV Application Commentary: Genesis, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], on Genesis 1:26; Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis: Vol. I, trans. Sophia Taylor, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888], pp. 98-99, 171-172, 351; Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 39-40, 41; A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, ed. S. D. F. Salmond, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907], pp. 293, 294, 295; Robert Davidson, The Cambridge Bible Commentary: Genesis 1-11, [Cambridge: At the University Press, 1973], p. 24; Nahum M. Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], pp. 12, 353; Gerhard von Rad, The Old Testament Library: Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961], p. 57; Paul Kissling, The College Press NIV Commentary: Genesis: Volume 1, [Joplin: College Press, 2004], p. 123 (Kissling also sees the “plural of self-deliberation” and the “view that God is here addressing his Spirit” as possible alternative interpretations. He concludes: “Perhaps the three views are not mutually exclusive; the imagined audience might well have read this text in more than one way.”(Ibid.)). Return to Article.

[5.] Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu: Most scholars rightly interpret the “us” as a reference to the heavenly court that surrounds God’s throne. This view has linguistic, contextual, and theological support. As for its linguistic support, ʾelōhîm means “divine beings” in 1 Samuel 28:13, though the TNIV renders it “a ghostly figure.” The point, however, is not whether it means “divine beings” or “a ghostly figure”; rather, that it does not refer to God, or “gods” in a polytheistic sense.

Keil and Delitzsch justly urge that in the report humanity is represented as in God’s image, not in the image of divine beings. However, although the command assumes humanity’s correspondence to divine beings, the report emphasizes its correspondence to God, the greater entailing the latter. Also in Isaiah 6:8, “Whom shall I send? Who will go for us?” God is represented as primus inter pares; God sends Isaiah on behalf of the heavenly court. Similarly, God makes humanity in his image to establish its connection with the divine realm. In his commentary on the Psalms, Franz Delitzsch rightly says, “But when God says: ‘Let us make man in our image after our likeness,’ He then connects Himself with the angels.” (Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], pp. 213-215.) Return to Article.

[6.] Many doctrinal truths which are believed by Christians are not set down explicitly in Scripture but are rather drawn from what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “good and necessary consequence” (1.6). Cf. James Bannerman: For example, the duty of females to commemorate the Lord’s death at His table . . . [is] not, it has often been remarked, expressly enjoined by any separate formula in the New Testament Scriptures. The duty of females to join in the Lord’s Supper is only to be gathered inferentially by a process of reasoning… (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868], p. 102.) See further: James Bannerman, The Church of Christ: Vol. II, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1868], pp. 409-410; Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and Its Work, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1931], pp. 226-227. Return to Article.

[7.] For example: Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 34.7; PL, 76:1250; trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst, [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990], Homily 34, p. 286; John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.3; trans. NPNF2, 9:18-19; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.93.3; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. LXXV.—CII.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922], P. I, Q. 93, A. 3, p. 287. Return to Article.

[8.] For example: William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100; Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], pp. 55, 57; Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509; Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 3: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021], Part 1, Book 3, Chapter 9, §. 26; Archibald Alexander Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1887], pp. 182-183; Johannes Wollebius, Compendium Theologiae Christianae, Bk. 1, Ch. 5, §. 2.1-2; trans. A Library of Protestant Thought: Reformed Dogmatics: J. Wollebius, G. Voetius, F. Turretin, ed. & trans. John W. Beardslee III, [New York: Oxford University Press, 1965], p. 56; Thomas Ridgeley (Ridgley), A Body of Divinity: In Two Volumes: Vol. I, [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855], p. 80; John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, [Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1971], Book 3, Chapter 3, §. 4, pp. 274-275; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XX: Books I.i To III.xix), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], p. 471; John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 1.15.3, p. 221; William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology: Volume III, [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894], p. 90; cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6; Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans G. T. Thomson, [London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1950], p. 207; Antonius Walaeus, “Disputation 12: Concerning the Good and Bad Angels,” §. 7; trans. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae: Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation: Volume 1: Disputations 1-23, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, [Leiden: Brill, 2014], pp. 287, 289; Gisberto Voetio, Syllabus Problematum Theologicorum, [Ultrajecti: Ex Officina Ægidii Roman, Academiæ Typographi, 1643], Prioris Partis Theologiæ, Sectio Prior, Tractatus III, Titulus IV, Subtitulus III: De Imagine Dei in Angelis, p. Z3a; Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Medulla Theologiæ Christianæ: Corporis Theologia: Prævia Epitome, [Tiguri: Typis Henrici Bodmeri 1713], Locus VIII: De Angelis, p. 173; Antonio Walæo, Loci Communes S. Theologiæ, De Providentia Dei, De Angelis; In: Antonii Walæi, Opera Omnia: Tomus Primus, [Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officina Francisci Hackii, 1643], p. 192; Johannes Maccovius, Distinction et Regulæ Theologicæ ac Philofophicæ, [Franequeræ: Sumptibus Joannis Archerii, 1653], 4.13, p. 43; trans. Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. & ed. Willem J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, Rein Ferwerda, [Apeldoorn: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009], 4.13, p. 113; Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228; William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.8.66-67, 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 43, 50-51, 52; cf. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.8.66-67, 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 105, 110-111; John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13; John Ball, A Short Treatise Containing all the Principal Grounds of Christian Religion, [London: For John Wright, 1656], pp. 87-88; William Perkins, An Exposition of the Symbole or Creed of the Apostles, [London: Printed by John Legatt, 1616], pp. 70-71; Zacharias Ursinus, The Summe of Christian Religion, trans. Henry Parry, [Oxford: Printed by Joseph Barnes, 1595], Part I, “Of the Image of God in Man,” p. 128; Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service: Volume 1: God, Man and Christ, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1992], pp. 323-324; Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. IV, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1860], on Luke 20:36, pp. 529-530. Return to Article.

[9.] While this is an argumentum ad populum (appeal to the people or appeal to popularity), it is not fallacious. I am not asserting that this definitely proves the point, rather it serves as ancillary evidence to bolster my conclusion. Additionally, I concede that this is an argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority or appeal to reverence). However, it is not a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam. The “authorities” referenced are experts in their respective field of study (theology), and therefore their testimony should carry a greater weight. This does not “prove” that they are correct, however, their assessment of the same information and their agreement with my conclusion increases my confidence in the veracity of my own assessment. Cf. Lionel Ruby: Now, to say that “the appeal to authority” is an evasion of the law of rationality is not to say that we are guilty of this evasion whenever we cite an authority for our beliefs. There is no doubt that sensible people must rely on authorities for many, if not most, of their important decisions and for the beliefs on which these decisions are based. …No belief is true merely because someone says so. It is true because of the evidence in its behalf. When we trust an authority, we merely place credence in the fact that he has evidence. And if we wish to know, rather than merely to believe, we should inquire into the evidence on which his conclusions are based. …In general, three questions should be kept in mind when considering the statements of an authority: Is the cited authority an authority in the specific field in which he has made his pronouncements? Does the authority have evidence to prove his statements? Do all qualified investigators agree on the general soundness of the type of proof offered? (Lionel Ruby, Logic, An Introduction, Second Edition, [Chicago: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1960], pp. 132-133.) Return to Article.

[10.] The LXX renders Job 1:6; 2:1; and 38:7 with ἄγγελος and Daniel 3:25 (LXX 3:92) as υἱῷ θεοῦ; additionally the LXX renders Deuteronomy 32:8 as ἀγγέλων θεοῦ [a fragment from Qumran has “sons of God,” which most scholars believe to be the original reading]; and several extant manuscripts of the LXX render Genesis 6:2 with ἄγγελος. See further: Psalm 29:1; 82:1-8; 89:6; Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Luke 20:36. Return to Article.

[11.] The same argument is made in: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XX: Books I.i To III.xix), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], p. 471; William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100; Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509; Joh. Henrici Heideggeri, Medulla Theologiæ Christianæ: Corporis Theologia: Prævia Epitome, [Tiguri: Typis Henrici Bodmeri 1713], Locus VIII: De Angelis, p. 173; Antonio Walæo, Loci Communes S. Theologiæ, De Providentia Dei, De Angelis; In: Antonii Walæi, Opera Omnia: Tomus Primus, [Lugduni Batavorum: Ex officina Francisci Hackii, 1643], p. 192; Antonius Walaeus, “Disputation 12: Concerning the Good and Bad Angels,” §. 7; trans. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae: Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation: Volume 1: Disputations 1-23, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, [Leiden: Brill, 2014], pp. 287, 289. Return to Article.

[12.] Cf. Luke 3:38; Genesis 1:26. Cf. Meredith G. Kline: Since the Spirit’s act of creating man is thus presented as the fathering of a son and that man-son is identified as the image-likeness of God, it is evident that image of God and son of God are mutually explanatory concepts. Clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is to be understood as the likeness which a son bears to his father. And that understanding of the image concept, according to which the fundamental idea is one of representational similarity, not representative agency, is further and unmistakably corroborated by Genesis 5:1-3 as it brings together God’s creation of Adam and Adam’s begetting of Seth, expressing the relation of the human father and son in terms of the image-likeness that defines man’s relation to the Creator. To be the image of God is to be the son of God. (Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 45-46.) Cf. Meredith G. Kline: As Genesis 2:7 pictures it, the Spirit-Archetype actively fathered his human ectype. Image of God and son of God are thus twin concepts. This reading of that event in terms of a father-son model and the conceptual bond of the image and son ideas are put beyond doubt by the record of the birth of Seth in Genesis 5:1-3. There, a restatement of Adam’s creation in the likeness of God is juxtaposed to a statement that Adam begat a son in his own likeness. Unmistakably, the father-son relationship of Adam and Seth is presented as a proper analogue for understanding the Creator-man relationship[fn. 33: Cf. Luke 3:38.] and clearly man’s likeness to the Creator-Spirit is thus identified as the likeness of a son derived from his father.[fn. 34: For the connection between the divine image and fatherhood-sonship see Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:2f.; James 3:9; 1 John 3:2; cf. Luke 20:36. By setting the image-likeness formula in the context of sonship, Genesis 5:1-3 contradicts the suggestion that the image idea is a matter of representative status rather than of representational likeness or resemblance. For Seth was not Adam’s representative, but as Adam’s son he did resemble his father. The terminology “in his likeness” serves as the equivalent in human procreation of the phrase “after its kind” which is used for plant and animal reproduction and of course refers to resemblance.] (Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit, [Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999], p. 23.) Return to Article.

[13.] Derek Kidner: The crux for the interpreter is the repeated reference to ‘gods’, who are reprimanded for injustice. Our Lord’s reference to verse 6 in John 10:34f. leaves their identity an open question. On one view (e.g., Delitzsch, Perowne, Briggs) they are human judges, given this title as God’s deputies. This rests chiefly on Exodus 21:6; 22:8f, where for certain legal procedures the parties were required to come before ‘God’ (or ‘the god’); also on Exodus 22:28 (‘You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people’), taking ‘God’ and ‘ruler’ to be synonymous. But these passages are far from conclusive. While the last reference does not exclude a synonym, it does not require it; and the former group need claim no more for the magistrates than what Moses claimed for himself: ‘the people come to me to inquire of God; . . . and I make them know the statutes of God and his decisions’ (Ex. 18:15f.).

A third interpretation sees here a relic of polytheism, that these are the gods of the heathen, not yet denied but domesticated and brought to account. It is true that 1 Corinthians 10:20 speaks of pagan worship as the worship of demons, but this is to make the point that idolatry is never neutral but a surrender to Belial and his hosts; it is not an acceptance by Paul of heathen mythologies. Likewise the Old Testament never wavers in its abhorrence of heathen gods. For Yahweh to authenticate their claim with the words, ‘I say, “You are gods”’ (6), would be totally out of character. …Verse 7, with its simile, like men,[fn. 1: This could be translated ‘like Adam’, but the parallel expression, ‘like any prince’, is too general to make this likely. ‘Like man’ (Twenty-five Psalms, Church Information Office, 1973) is nearer the mark.] seems fatal to the view that these are human judges; and there is no reason whatever to make them Canaanite gods by taking the Most High in its Canaanite rather than its biblical sense, as in NEB. See on 7:17. As for their death sentence, the New Testament confirms that the devil and his angels will share the fate of human rebels (Mt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10, 14f.), which is ‘the second death’. (Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975], on Psalm 82, pp. 296-297, 299.) Return to Article.

[14.] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2.12.6; trans. The Library of Christian Classics: Volume XX: Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion: In Two Volumes (Vol. XX: Books I.i To III.xix), ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, [Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960], p. 471. Note: Angels are similarly called sons of the Mighty (’ēl)—Psalm 89:6—though this may be a reference to their power rather than their filial relationship to God. Cf. Edward Arthur Litton: The angels collectively were created in the image of God, and perhaps in a higher sense than that in which Adam was . . . they are called ‘sons of God’ (Job i. 6; xxxviii. 7), as, in the writer’s view, specially related to God, and ‘sons of the mighty’ (Ps. Ixxxix. 6), as excelling in strength. (E. A. Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology: On the Basis of the Thirty-Nine Articles, Third Edition, ed. H. G. Grey, [London: Robert Scott, 1912], pp. 126, 124.) Return to Article.

[14.5.] Cf. Psalm 89:5, LXX 88:6 — ἐκκλησίᾳ ἁγίων “the assembly of the holy ones,” or “the church of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33 — ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων). Cf. Derek Kidner: The biblical universe is not empty, but peopled with myriads [fn. 1: E.g. Dt. 33:2; Dn. 7:10.] of angels, here called holy ones (5, 7) and heavenly beings (6, lit. ‘sons of ’ēlîm’; cf. on 29:1; 82, opening). The word ‘holy’ is used of them in what is probably its primary sense, namely ‘belonging to God’s realm, not man’s’ (cf. Ex. 3:5); its ethical sense of ‘morally perfect’ follows from this, taking its colour from God’s character, just as ‘sons of God’ can be used with or without its ethical implications (cf. Jb. 1:6; Mt. 5:45). Here the angels are seen as a company called together (assembly, 5, is a frequent term for Israel as God’s church: e.g. Dt. 23:1-3, 8), and as a council (7), but this great host only throws into relief the majesty of God before whom the mightiest tremble (7) and with whom none begins to compare either in greatness or (5b, 8b) in goodness. (Derek Kidner, Psalms 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1975], on Psalm 89, p. 321.) Return to Article.

[15.] A. H. Strong: (d) by guiding the affairs of nations; Dan. 10:12, 13, 21 — “I come for thy words’ sake. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me . . . Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me . . . Michael your prince”; 11:1 — “And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him”; 12:1 — “at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people.” Mason, Faith of the Gospel, 87, suggests the question whether “the spirit of the age” or “the national character” in any particular case may not be due to the unseen “principalities” under which men live. Paul certainly recognizes, in Eph. 2:2, “the prince of the powers of the air, . . . the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience.” May not good angels be entrusted with influence over nations’ affairs to counteract the evil and help the good? (Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: Three Volumes in One, [Philadelphia: The Griffith & Rowland Press, 1912], p. 451.) Return to Article.

[16.] Arthur James Mason: The angels are not a mere multitude of isolated spirits. They are camps, hosts, armies—Mahanaim, Sabaoth (Gen. xxxii. 2; Ps. xxiv. 10). There are Archangels as well as angels. S. Paul and S. Peter half adopt a still larger nomenclature of angelic ranks, though it is plain that they only borrow the nomenclature from teachers whose teaching they are in part combating. “Principalities and Authorities” is a frequent phrase with them; and at other times S. Paul adds the titles of Thrones and Dominions and Powers (Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16). The extent of their sway it is impossible to guess; but they appear in some way to have not only individual persons, but large bodies of men and whole nations, subject to them. There are “Princes” of Persia and Grecia, as well as of the Chosen People (Dan. x. 20, 21); and in something of the same way, it may be, the seven Churches of Asia are represented as under the management of seven “angels,” whose character is mysteriously one with that of the Churches under them. Their power over men is not such as to destroy human free will and responsibility; yet it forms one of the many conditions under which our freedom acts. Those great moulding influences of which we speak under such terms as the “spirit of the age” or “national character” may well be due to the unseen “Principalities” under whom we live. (Arthur James Mason, The Faith of the Gospel: A Manual of Christian Doctrine: Third Edition, [London: Rivingtons, 1889], p. 87.) Return to Article.

[17.] Michael S. Heiser: Verse 25 says very plainly that the Most High is sovereign. It is clearly singular. The phrase “heaven is sovereign” is interesting because the Aramaic word translated heaven (shemayin) is plural and is accompanied by a plural verb. The plurality of shemayin can point to either the members of the council or the council as a collective. In any event, the wording is suggestive of the interchange between council and Most High earlier in Daniel 4. (Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 54.) Cf. Hebrews 2:5: For He did not subject to angels the world to come, about which we are speaking. (New American Standard Bible.) Cf. John Owen: …the apostle . . . seems to grant that the old church and worship were in a sort made subject unto angels; this of the world to come being solely and immediately in his power who in all things was to have the preeminence. (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: In Four Volumes: Vol. II, [London: Thomas Tegg, 1840], p. 288.) Return to Article.

[18.] The divine, or heavenly, council of Angelic beings is a concept which is widely attested to in the Scriptures (Job 1:6, 2:1; 38:7; Psalm 82:1; 89:5-7; Isaiah 6:1-3, 8; Daniel 4:13-17, 24-26; 7:9-10; 1 Kings 22:19-22; 2 Chronicles 18:18-22; Nehemiah 9:6; etc.). Return to Article.

[19.] מֵאֱלֹהִים, ἀγγέλους in the LXX; cf. Hebrews 2:7. Cf. John Gill: …since the word is rendered angels by the Chaldee paraphrase, the Septuagint interpreters, the Jewish commentators, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, and Ben Melech, and in the Arabic, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, and above all by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, it is best to interpret it of them… (John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament: Vol. III, [London: Printed for the author; And sold by George Keith, 1765], on Psalm 8:5, p. 521.) Return to Article.

[20.] Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 3: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021], Part 1, Book 3, Chapter 9, §. 26. Cf. Meredith G. Kline: The very form of the creative fiat of Genesis 1:26 calling for the making of man in God’s image tells us that we have to do here with the Glory-theophany, and thus with the heavenly assembly or council. For the Creator speaks in the deliberative plural idiomatic of the council: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” …Coupled with the image-of-God concept in both the fiat and fulfillment sections of the record of the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-28 is the idea of man’s dominion over the world, the dominion that images the dominion of the God-King enthroned in the divine council of the Glory temple. Commenting on this Genesis 1 passage, Psalm 8 expresses the imago Dei idea as a likeness of man to the members of that divine council — “Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels” (v. 5a[6]) — and then expounds this status as a royal crowning with glory and a dominion over all the earth (vv. 5b-8[6-9]). (Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006], pp. 42-43, 44.) Return to Article.

[21.] Quia Angelorum bonorum sanctitatem & justitiam imitari debemus, ut tales in terris sumus, quales sunt Angeli in cœlo, Matth. 6.v.10. (Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509.) Cf. Michael S. Heiser: Angelic beings are also divine imagers—representatives of their Creator. While humans image God on earth, angelic beings image God in the spiritual world. They do God’s bidding in their own sphere of influence. The Old Testament and New Testament describe angelic beings with administrative terminology, such as: “Prince” (Dan 10:13, 20-21) “Thrones” (Col 1:16) “Rulers” (Eph 3:10) “Authorities” (1 Pet 3:22; Col 1:16) First Kings 22:19-23 illustrates the heavenly bureaucracy at work. Angelic beings were created before the earth, and therefore before humans (Job 38:7-8). The notion that God decided to make humans to represent Him and His will on earth mirrors what God had already done in the spiritual world. God announces that, as things are in the heavenly realm, so they will be on earth. (Michael S. Heiser, “Image of God,” §. The Plural Language Associated with the Image of God; In: The Lexham Bible Dictionary, eds., J. D. Barry, L. Wentz, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2012].) Return to Article.

[22.] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: Volume First, trans. Henry Beveridge, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1845], 1.15.3, p. 221. Cf. William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100; Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 509. (Quia Angelis bonis similes erimus post universalem resurrectionem, Matt. 22.v.30.) Note: Regarding the context of Matthew 22:30, it should be noted that while it is true that the context is eschatological, this does not necessarily invalidate Calvin’s point. Calvin is not attempting to draw his conclusion from the sociocultural, rhetorical or historical context of Matthew 22:30; rather he is deducing an inference from the text as a whole by means of what the Westminster Confession of Faith calls “good and necessary consequence” (1.6). For example, Exodus 3:6 has nothing to do with the resurrection—in terms of sociocultural, rhetorical or historical context—and yet our Lord Jesus Christ makes a “good and necessary” inference from this text to refute the Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection, cf. Luke 20:37-38; Matthew 22:31-32; Mark 12:26-27). Return to Article.

[23.] E. H. Plumptre, “The Gospel According to St. Luke;” In: A New Testament Commentary for English Readers: Vol. I, ed. Charles John Ellicott, [London: Cassell & Company, Limited, 1884], on Luke 20:36, p. 342. Cf. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to St. Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, [Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1977], p. 292; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Anchor Bible: Volume 28A: The Gospel According To Luke (X-XXIV), [Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986], p. 1306; John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 35c: Luke 18:35-24:53, [Dallas: Word Books, 1993], pp. 965-966. Cf. Alvah Hovey: …the words of Christ . . . prove that glorified saints will not marry, because they cannot die; and they cannot die because they are like angels, being sons of God. (Alvah Hovey, Manual of Systematic Theology, and Christian Ethics, [Boston: Alvah Hovey, 1877], p. 106.) Return to Article.

[24.] Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. IV, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1860], on Luke 20:36, pp. 529-530. Return to Article.

[25.] Archibald Alexander, A Brief Compend of Bible Truth, [Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1846], p. 61. Cf. William Ames: 1. Special government is God’s government of rational creatures in a moral way. 2. The unique character of these creatures makes the difference. Since they are created after the image of God, are in some way immortal, and decide their actions in accord with their own counsel, they are to be directed towards an eternal state of happiness or unhappiness in accordance with their own counsel and freedom. …14. The special government of rational creatures applies to angels and men. (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 110-111; cf. William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 50-51, 52.) Note: Similarly, the Wesleyan theologian William Burt Pope writes that: “All spirits were created in the image of God and their first estate[Jude 6] was probationary: this law of the moral government of the Most High seems to be universal. In the constitution of their nature lay the possibility of falling from their allegiance. …The great majority—not of the angels that sinned[2 Pet. ii. 4.]—were confirmed in their state of holiness for ever: they are, therefore, elect angels;[1 Tim. v. 21.] elect, as in the case of man, not through pre-ordination, but through approval and separation from the doomed of their own order. Hence, they are also termed Saints: He came with ten thousands of saints.[Deut. xxxiii. 2.]” (William Burt Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology: Vol. I, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, [New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1889], p. 410.) Return to Article.

[26.] Amandus Polanus: Partes imaginis Dei, ad quam creaturæ rationales sunt factæ, duæ sunt: prima, est ipsa spiritualis substantia incorporea & immortalis, Joh.4.v.24.1. Tim.6.16. …Secunda pars sunt dotes seu proprietates creaturæ rationali attributæ. [There are two parts of the image of God to which rational creatures are made: the first is the very spiritual substance, incorporeal and immortal (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:16). …The second part consists of the qualities or properties attributed to rational creatures.] (Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, pp. 508, 509.) E.g. Morton H. Smith: Various passages in the Scripture refer to man, even in his fallen state as the image of God (Genesis 5:3; 9:6; James 3:9; 1 Corinthians 11:7; compare Psalm 8). As we study these passages, we see that the usage of the term “image” does not distinguish between man as unfallen and fallen, but between man and other creatures. The Scriptures do not hesitate to speak of the terrible effects of sin on man, and yet they do not apply this language to the image. The implication is that the fact that man is the image is not directly affected by sin. The image though not lost has been terribly marred, and thus man suffers the loss of some of the consequences of being the image of God, such as the loss of moral excellence, and the darkening of his reason, and the corruption of all his members. He still remains, however, the image of God. (Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], pp. 239-240.) Cf. Amandus Polanus: The image of God is that dignity and excellence in which the reasonable creatures being created like unto God, do excel other creatures. Or else it is the agreement of the reasonable creatures with the most high and blessed God. (Amandus Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, trans. Thomas Wilcocks, [London: Printed by Arn. Hatfield for William Aspley, 1608], p. 55. [spelling modernized] Cf. Amando Polano a Polansdorf, Syntagma Theologiæ Christianæ, [Francofurti et Hanoviæ: Apud Casparum Wechtlerum & Sebastianum Rhonerum, 1655], 5.10, p. 508; John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter I, p. 13; Edward Leigh, A System or Body of Divinity, [London: Printed by A. M. for William Lee, 1654], 3.2, p. 228; William Ames, The Marrow of Sacred Divinity, [London: Printed by Edward Griffin, 1642], 1.8.66-67, 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 43, 50-51, 52; cf. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden, [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997], 1.8.66-67, 1.10.1-2, 14, pp. 105, 110-111; Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], p. 41.) Cf. Morton H. Smith: The image is not a part of man, or an added feature to his basic nature. His basic nature is to be the image of God. Man is the image of God in the essence of his being. Because he is the image of God, he can know God and have communion with him. Just as the dominion over the earth is a consequence of man’s being the image of God, so also are other human attributes consequences of his being the image. Since man is the image of God, it is to be expected that he be rational, that he have a will, freedom, personality, etc., corresponding to those attributes of God. The same may even be said of the body. Man has a body because he is the image of God. God sees and hears, and man who is his image also sees and hears, but he must have organs with which to do so. Of course, since he is not identical with God, but only his image, the necessity of his having a body is one of the differences of man from God. (Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology Volume One, [Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019], p. 238. Cf. Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 42, 59.) Note: The corporeality of the human body does not constitute the Imago Dei (John 4:24), rather it is a consequence of the analogical relationship which underlies it—“God sees and hears, and man who is his image also sees and hears”—e.g. Psalm 94:9—the same is true of the Angels, regardless of whether they have spiritual bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44; cf. Luke 20:36) or are pure spirits like God. For Angels too, see and hear and communicate (Genesis 18:2-8; 19:1-3). And while the Angels may not see, hear, and communicate via the same mechanism as human beings or in the same manner, this mechanism—or more accurately, the analogical relationship which underlies the mechanism, i.e., that God sees, etc.—whatever it may be, exists in Angels just as it does in humankind. Cf. Franz Delitzsch: The angelic life in the divine presence is a never-ceasing festival; the angel choirs are represented in Scripture as perpetually engaged in antiphonal songs of praise, or in movements of a sacred dance to heavenly music;[fn. 1: Cant. vii. 1 [A. V. vi. 13].] for, though incorporeal and without bodily organs, they are yet not formless nor incapable of expressing themselves in manifold ways towards God and one another. (Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews: Vol. II, Third Edition, trans. Thomas L. Kingsbury, [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1876], p. 349.) Return to Article.

[27.] For a summary of the arguments in favor of the Angelic reading see: Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible, [Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2015], pp. 77-78. 79-81; Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], p. 274. Return to Article.

[28.] Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, 34.7; PL, 76:1250; trans. Gregory the Great, Forty Gospel Homilies, trans. Dom David Hurst, [Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1990], Homily 34, p. 286. Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.93.3; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. LXXV.—CII.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1922], P. I, Q. 93, A. 3, p. 287. Note: See similar statements (regarding the Angelic interpretation of Ezekiel 28) in: Tertullian (The Five Books Against Marcion, 2.10; ANF, 3:305-306.), Origen (De Principiis (On First Principles), 1.5.4; ANF, 4:259.), John Cassian (Conferences, 8.8; NPNF2, 11:378.), Cyril of Jerusalem (The Catechetical Lectures, 2.4; NPNF2, 7:9.) and Jerome (Commentariorum In Ezechielem Prophetam Libri Quatuordecim, Lib. IX. Cap. XXVIII, Vers. 11-19; PL, 25:272-273.). Return to Article.

[28.5.] Cf. John Owen: In the next place the apostle affirms, that believers are come μυριάσιν αγγελων, ‘to an innumerable company of angels.’ For having declared that they are come to the city of God, he shows in the next place, who are the inhabitants of that city besides themselves. And these he distributes into several sorts, (as we shall see) whereof the first are ‘angels.’ We are come to them as our fellow-citizens. To myriads of angels. Μυριας, is ‘ten thousand,’ and when it is used in the plural number, it signifies ‘an innumerable company,’ as we here render it. Possibly he hath respect to the angels that attended the presence of God in the giving of the law, whereof the Psalmist says, ‘The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels; the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place,’ Ps. lxviii. 17; or the account of them given by Daniel, ‘Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him,’ Dan. vii. 10, that is, ‘an innumerable company.’
This access to angels is spiritual. The access of the people to their ministry in Sinai was corporeal only, nor had they any communion with them thereby. But ours is spiritual, which needs no local access to it. We come thereby to them whilst we are on the earth, and they in heaven. We do not so with our prayers, which is the doting superstition of the church of Rome, utterly destructive of the communion here asserted. For although there be a difference and distance between their persons and ours, as to dignity and power, yet as to this communion we are equal in it with them, as one of them directly declares, saying to John, ‘Worship me not, I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus,’ Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9. Nothing can be more groundless, than that fellow-servants should worship one another. But we have an access to them all; not to this or that tutelar angel, but to the whole innumerable company of them. And this we have, 1. By the recapitulation of them and us in Christ, Eph. i. 10. They and we are brought into one mystical body, whereof Christ is head; one family which is in heaven and earth, called after his name, Eph. iii. 14, 15. We are brought together into one society. The nature of which effect of infinite wisdom I have elsewhere declared. 2. In that they and we are constantly engaged in the same worship of Jesus Christ. Hence they call themselves our fellow-servants. This God hath given in command to them, as well as to us. For he saith, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him,’ ch. i. 6, which they do accordingly, Rev. v. 11, 12. 3. We have so on the account of the ministry committed to them for the service of the church, ch. i. 14. See the exposition of that place. 4. In that the fear and dread of their ministry is now taken from us; which was so great under the old testament, that those to whom they appeared, thought they must die immediately. There is a perfect reconciliation between the church on the earth and the angels above. The distance and enmity that was between them and us by reason of sin, is taken away, Col. i. 20. There is a oneness in design and communion in service between them and us; as we rejoice in their happiness and glory, so they seek ours continually; their ascription of praise and glory to God, is mingled with the praises of the church, so as to compose an entire worship, Rev. v. 9-12. (John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: In Four Volumes: Vol. IV, [London: Thomas Tegg, 1840], pp. 641-642.) Cf. John Norton, The Orthodox Evangelist, [London: Printed by John Macock, 1654], Chapter 13, pp. 293, 295; A. W. Pink, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, [Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1971], p. 114; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, trans. John Owen, [Edinburgh: Printed for the Calvin Translation Society, 1853], pp. 333-334; Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament: In Five Volumes: Vol. V, [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856], on Hebrews 12:22, p. 651; Matthew Pool[e], Annotations Upon the Holy Bible: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [London: James Nisbet and Co., 1853], on Hebrews 12:22, p. 872; John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament: In Three Volumes: Vol. III, [Philadelphia: Printed by and for William W. Woodward, 1811], on Hebrews 12:22, p. 486; Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the Book of Hebrews, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976], p. 239. Cf. John Calvin: (Ephesians 1:10, 22; 2:19; 3:14-15) That he might gather together in one. …But why are heavenly beings included in the number? The angels were never separated from God, and cannot be said to have been scattered. Some explain it in this manner. Angels are said to be gathered together, because men have become members of the same society, are admitted equally with them to fellowship with God, and enjoy happiness in common with them by means of this blessed unity. The mode of expression is supposed to resemble one frequently used, when we speak of a whole building as repaired, many parts of which were ruinous or decayed, though some parts remained entire.

[29.] Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology: Volume 3: The Works of God and the Fall of Man, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke, [Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2021], Part 1, Book 3, Chapter 9, §. 29. Return to Article.

[30.] See, for example, the Roman Catholic theologians Joseph Wilhelm and Thomas B. Scannell, who write: “A comparison of man with the Angels as to the perfection of representing the image and likeness of God, shows that, in several respects, man is a more perfect likeness of his Maker than even the Angels. The latter, of course, represent the Divine Substance and the Divine intellectual life in greater perfection; but man has several points in his favour.” (Joseph Wilhelm, Thomas B. Scannell, A Manual of Catholic Theology: Based on Scheeben’s “Dogmatik,” Vol. I, Fourth Edition, Revised, [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., 1909], p. 393.) Note: I realize that there is some debate as to whether humankind is the image of God or is according to the image of God, however for the purposes of my analogy the point is irrelevant. (E.g. St. Athanasius distinguishes between Christ as τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰκόνος and humankind as αὐτοὶ κατ’ εἰκόνα. (The Incarnation of the Word of God, 13; PG, 25:120b.)) Cf. Thomas Aquinas: The image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king’s image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but “to the image,” whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is “to the image,” because He is the perfect Image of the Father.’ (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I.35.2, Reply Obj. 3; trans. The “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas: Part I: QQ. XXVII.—XLIX.: Second and Revised Edition, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, [London: Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1921], P. I, Q. 35, A. 2, Reply Obj. 3, p. 96.) Cf. William [Gulielmus] Bucanus: Why is man called the image of God? Because of the true likeness which he hath with God. Why after his image? Because of the imperfection of this likeness, in that he did not perfectly represent God, as Christ doth perfectly represent the Father. (William [Gulielmus] Bucanus, Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill, [London: George Snowdon and Leonell Snowdon, 1606], The Ninth Common Place: Of the Image of God in Man, p. 100.) [spelling modernized] Return to Article.

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria

Evangelical Answers

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Angels and the Image of God (Imago Dei)

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Patristic Understanding of the Sixth Chapter of the Gospel According to John as Spiritual not Carnal/Corporeal

Transubstantiation Refuted From Church History (By Individual, In Chronological Order)