Question. What is the Imago Dei (Image of God)?
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.
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
[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.
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.
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 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).
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.
[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.
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.) Return to Article.[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
