part0011

We will now continue to explore the Adam—Christ parallel as it relates to the original destiny of mankind and the concept of the “image of God.” In America, “Madison Avenue” advertising moguls would have us believe that “image is everything.” All too often, however, the “images” that advertisers create make people look like something they really are not, enabling them to misrepresent themselves. God, because He is invisible, is especially concerned about His image, but in His case He wants this image to exactly represent His true nature. Who was the first “image” of God? The First Adam . And, in the beginning, Adam was an able representation or “image” of God.

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Adam was the absolute pinnacle of God’s creative activities during the six days recorded in Genesis 1. In fact, Adam (and therefore mankind) was designed to be “the image of God,” the glorious head of a race of people who would serve as the overlords of God’s creation, sharing authority and dominion with Him over all that He had made. Man was equipped with godly attributes that enabled him to speak and act on God’s behalf. Thus, he began his tenure on earth “…crowned with glory and honor,” as the following verses show:

What we read in Psalm 8 (then quoted in Heb. 2) is exactly what Scripture tells us in Genesis 1 and 2, and the writer of Psalms is in awe that God would put “a little dirt man” in charge of His magnificent creation.[1] In other words, that God would have such gracious regard for man is to His glory, and not due to man’s intrinsic greatness. It is evident that from God’s perspective, man was a lot more than a mere upright, animated dustball with opposable thumbs. God had big plans for him. But this first man, Adam, fell from his glorious position of responsibility and authority and ended up bringing suffering upon himself and all mankind. Thus, God’s intention to glorify man was cut short because Adam disobeyed, but it would later be fulfilled and amplified in the Man Jesus Christ. If we are ever going to understand the nature and role of Jesus Christ, we must first clearly understand God’s exalted purpose for mankind.

We have found that when we assert that Christ is the Last Adam, a fully human being and not God, orthodox Christians accuse us of making Christ a “mere man.”[2] This argument has force, but only because of what the word “man” has come to mean. To clarify the issue biblically, we must look past mankind’s present sorry state and see the awesome beauty and perfection of what God originally intended “man” to be. He never intended for people to be dominated by sin nature—stubborn and rebellious against Him. God created mankind to be a race that would represent Him well, reflect His character and rule the world in loving submission to Him. Although today we speak of a “mere man” because sin so dominates our lives, God’s original intention was not to create a “mere man,” but a masterpiece .

Adam was intended as a prototype of that new model of creature that God unveiled in Genesis 1. But, like many prototypes, he failed to pass the test. However, God did not throw away the drawings. He hung onto them until the time when He could create another prototype patterned like the first one, a man who would fulfill mankind’s destiny to be the crowning achievement of God’s creation. Jesus Christ was God’s second attempt at creating a masterpiece, the ultimate representation of that “masterpiece race” made in the image of God. There was nothing “mere” about Adam as conceived by God, and nothing “mere” about Christ who was made according to the same design.

Thus, by his sin, Adam turned the image of God into an image of sinful man.[3] Although that ended his rulership and dominion, Adam and his progeny continued to dimly reflect “the image of God.” Although mankind no longer really lives up to the title of “image of God,” God continued to use it as a reminder of man’s destiny and purpose, and to communicate the value of man from His perspective.[4] It also served to point to the coming one, the Messiah, who would ultimately fulfill this destiny. Indicative of this is the following verse in Genesis 9, which occurs many hundreds of years after Adam’s sin, in the context of God instructing Noah about the new arrangement He would have with mankind after the Flood.

Immortality is a fundamental aspect of God’s being and nature, and man, as “the image of God,” was also made to be immortal. Though he lost this privilege, it is clear that man still reflected other aspects of God’s “image,” no matter how dimly. He can appreciate beauty and manifest artistic and musical creativity.[5] He has a moral sense of right and wrong, and can choose to do right. He can reason from the known to the unknown. He can use language and other symbols to communicate his thoughts and intentions. In short, man can exhibit qualities that are more like those that God has than those that animals have.[6]

Because man was still the bearer of His image, God expected him to govern himself in a godly manner. Once all unrighteous people had been eliminated by the Flood, God held man accountable to maintain order by investing him with the ultimate civil authority, that of punishing murderers by putting them to death. God did not tolerate man murdering his fellow man, because He had invested a lot of Himself in man, and was committed to preserving the species. Why? Because it was to be through mankind that the Messiah, true Man, the Last Adam, the Redeemer would come. He would be everything God had hoped for man, fulfill man’s destiny of co-rulership of Creation and become God’s true and ultimate “image.”

Sadly, man’s spiritually childish inclination is to play God, in ways that range from the subtle to the blatant. Indeed, the essence of “religion” is that man is the subject , the “creator,” if you will, and what he calls “God” is simply the object of his own vain reasonings. Since this “god” comes from the mind of man (often with help from Satan), it usually takes on an image made to look like mortal man” (Rom. 1:23). In other words, man brings God down to his level, or even beneath himself. The irony of this is that man ends up groveling before the very things over which God originally gave him dominion. Because of His love for Man, God strictly forbade the Israelites to make “graven images” of Him, knowing that any such attempt would result in at best a grossly distorted representation of Him. But even the Israelites, like the pagans around them, often made statues and other images of “God.”

God’s incredible handiwork, which is often called “nature,” is in reality displaying His nature and goodness. The wonders of creation, which beg awe and thankfulness, are God’s continual advertising campaign designed to alert people to both His existence and His beneficence (see also Heb. 11:6). No statue is big enough to block out a sunset. Psalm 115:1–8 compares the living God with dead pagan idols:

The pagan nations surrounding Israel designed their idols just as we read in Romans—in the image of mortal men. As such, these senseless idols were always idle. No image of God fashioned by human hands would ever be sufficient to make known His glory. Through the Law that God gave to Moses for Israel, He provided a foreshadowing of His magnificent blessings yet to come.

A shadow is only a dark shape, with few defining characteristics. It is not at all a detailed image. This verse compares a shadow to the “very image [eikon ].” Barclay describes the force of the word eikon in this verse: “a real, true, accurate, essential reproduction and representation, as contrasted with that which is shadowy, vague, nebulous, unreal and essentially imperfect. It is the complete perfection of the reproduction…”[7]

The New Testament Greek word eikon , translated “image,” means “that which resembles an object, or which represents it, hence, image, likeness.”[8] Our corresponding English derivative, “icon,” is “a sacred image usually painted on wood or metal,” or “an object of religious devotion.”

In the Old Testament, God was adamant that His people not attempt to fashion an image of His likeness. He gave His people His Word, both spoken and written, by way of prophets who represented Him. From His Word they could know about Him and His love for them, yet all His revelation to them was but an introduction to His heart, a foreshadowing of a coming reality. It all pointed toward His ultimate communication to mankind—the Messiah, Jesus, the Christ, the living Word.

The New Testament book of Hebrews provides an important and foundational understanding of Man as he was made in the image of God, and this insight is crucial to understanding the identity of the Last Adam. Hebrews 1:4–2:4 establishes the superiority of the post-resurrection Christ over the angels.[9] Then, Hebrews 2:5–18 elaborates on the necessity that the Redeemer had to be a true man, another Adam. As we begin to look at this section, the subject in question is who will be in charge in the world to come.

We must look at Hebrews 2:8b again carefully: “…In putting everything under him [the First Adam], God left nothing that is not subject to him.[10] Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him [mankind].” By revelation, the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews refers back to Psalm 8, but after quoting it, he makes it clear that something has happened to change things from the way God originally set them up. The word “yet” is a contrasting conjunction, informing us that something has drastically changed. We can see now that mankind no longer has dominion over creation, but rather is at its mercy in many ways.[11] Paradise is definitely “lost,” and the devastating evidence of that is all around us each day. Thank God that the next verse in Hebrews begins with another contrasting conjunction.

What do we have in verses 8 and 9 but, once again, the two Adams ? The First Adam wrecked everything, and the Last Adam is fixing it. The phrase set off by commas, “…now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered…,” ought to be considered as a parenthetical insertion, but let us hold that in abeyance for a moment while we consider the verse by reading around that phrase. What it clearly says is that Jesus Christ had to be a man like the First Adam (each was “made a little lower than the angels”) so that he could die in place of all men. Had Jesus not been a man , he could not have died . The parenthesis tells us what we have already seen: because Jesus was obedient unto death , God has highly exalted him (Phil. 2:8ff). In contrast to Jesus who died, God is “immortal” and therefore cannot die.

Not only did Adam die, he brought death upon all men. He also brought suffering to himself and all human beings after him. Adam began in glory and ended in suffering; Jesus began in suffering, but was glorified in his resurrection and thereby led many “sons to glory,” as the next verse shows:

Here again is the critical truth that we have seen before. The first “son of God,” Adam (Luke 3:38), was intended to be the source of many sons living a glorious everlasting life, but he disobeyed God and became the “author” of death instead.[12] So it would be the other “son of God,” Jesus Christ, the Last Adam, who would be the “author of salvation” for people who believe in him. The Greek word archegos , here translated “author,” means the “first one in line in a rank or file.”[13] Jesus Christ has blazed a trail of perfect faith to the heart of God, and thus he has become “the way” to life everlasting.

There is another great truth in verse 10: Jesus was “made perfect” through suffering. Although through the virgin birth Jesus was given genetic perfection by his heavenly Father, he was not given moral (behavioral) perfection, which he had to learn and earn by obedience, as the following verses make crystal clear:

The obvious and necessary conclusion of this truth is that it was possible for Jesus to sin. Just as he had to be able to die to be the Redeemer, so he had to be able to sin, but then resist the temptation to do so. This rounds out the parallel between Adam and Jesus, because if Jesus could not have sinned, he would not have truly been a man like Adam, who could and did sin. Neither Adam nor Jesus had a sin nature from birth, that is, a predisposition to sin, but each had the freedom and responsibility to choose between obedience and sin. Satan knew this, and thus unleashed his full arsenal of temptations upon Jesus.

We must repeat this truth for emphasis: without having the potential for moral imperfection, Jesus would not have truly been like the First Adam . Although it was possible for Jesus to have sinned like the First Adam, he chose instead to obey his Father.[14] If Jesus Christ could not have sinned, then he could not have genuinely been tempted in all ways, as Scripture says, and certainly not in any way that we , as human beings, can identify with. God’s Word makes it clear that we are to draw strength from his example, so we must be able to relate to his experience of temptation. How could we possibly draw strength from knowing that “God in human flesh” resisted temptation? How could anyone be encouraged to overcome temptation from the example of God doing so? God’s Word in Hebrews continues to reinforce this point:

If Jesus had a “divine side” that equipped him to avoid temptation, as tradition teaches, then he was not tempted “[exactly] as we are.” The rest of humanity must face temptation without such an advantage, for we are not “100 percent God and 100 percent man.” If Jesus were “God,” in any sense that affected his experience, could he really have been tempted just as we are? James 1:13 says that God cannot be tempted, much less succumb to any temptation. If Jesus could not have actually given in to temptation, then his “temptation” is neither genuine temptation nor a real test of character. In fact, if Jesus were “God,” to say that he was able to resist temptation is to say nothing about him at all. In that case, his moral courage and sterling character become presupposed as a necessary part of his “deity,” a concept that actually demeans Jesus rather than exalts him. In fact, in our experience, the more the identity of Christ is pushed toward “deity,” the less meritorious his accomplishments become. They then become the anticlimactic work of a “God-man” for whom nothing is particularly difficult, and whose experience is certainly not an authentic struggle against sin to which we “mere humans” can relate.[15]

Hebrews 5:8 and 9 is God’s Word, and it clearly says that He made Jesus Christ perfect through suffering . In other words, Jesus had to go through a process of purification and trial before he could be properly termed “perfected.” He did not have this status by virtue of some intrinsic “deity” derived from his “incarnation,” independent and transcendent of how he lived and behaved. If that were the case, the monumental heroism of his dogged obedience in the face of relentless, diabolical opposition would fade into mystical insignificance.

Let us continue to follow the logic of Hebrews 2, looking again at verse 14. God’s Word continues to hammer home the truth that Jesus Christ had to be a one-hundred-percent, red-blooded human being like Adam was in order to save fallen humanity from the destruction wrought by the first man.

Verse 17 clearly tells us that Jesus is not a spirit being like angels are, but rather a human being like unto the “brothers” he came to save. This likeness was not just superficial, or in appearance only. He was made like his brothers “in every respect.” He was a partaker of man’s limitations and need for dependence upon his Maker to avoid sin and find fulfillment. The only exception to this statement is that Jesus did not inherit man’s sinful nature.

It is common even for people who do not believe in the Trinity to think there is a big difference between themselves and Jesus Christ, because they know that he did not have the sin nature they inherited from Adam. Most people are so dominated by their sin nature that they cannot even imagine what life would be like without it. But we must remember that the sin nature was not part of our humanity as God designed it. Adam and Eve did not originally have it, yet they were fully human, just as we are. The sin now inherent in us is an intrusion into our lives, like a virus in our blood. Although it is infecting us, it is not an intrinsic part of who we are. It is common for Christians to believe that they are tempted only because of their sin nature, but this is clearly not the case. Both Adam and Jesus Christ were tempted, and Scripture also speaks of things such as “the lust of the flesh” and the “lust of the eyes.” The fact that we are in a human body means that we become tempted by hunger, tiredness, wanting more than we need and by many other things as well.

God’s Word tells us that as a young man, Jesus “grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). It also tells us that Jesus “learned obedience by what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Heb. 5:9). These truths are important in light of the word “become” in Hebrews 2:17 above. It took Jesus living a life of perfect obedience unto his death on the Cross for God to be able to raise him and make him the perfect High Priest who is “…touched with the feeling of our infirmities…” (Heb. 4:15 - KJV). We have now reached the apex of this magnificent section of Scripture describing the true humanity of Christ. It is because he actually suffered when tempted that he can now relate to our suffering and help us in the hour of our need.

The truths of God’s Word that we have thus far set forth in these first two chapters are the foundation of our redemption, that is, “Christianity 101.” Only a man could redeem fallen mankind , but that man would have to be a perfect sacrifice, one who could fully atone for both the sin nature and the sinful behavior of all the descendants of the First Adam. Only one man in history could have filled the bill: Jesus of Nazareth. God created him with genetic perfection just like the First Adam had. In contrast to the First Adam, however, Jesus Christ chose to obey his heavenly Father all the way to his death on the Cross. God then crowned him with glory and honor because of the things he suffered, raising him from the dead. He also made him the perfect High Priest, the Head of the Body of Christ and the Lord over all. Truly, Jesus Christ has blazed a trail of perfect faith for us to follow, and, as the Savior, he invites all men to walk in his steps. Those who accept his invitation are born into the family of God and can mature into dynamic representatives of his character and love.

Since we have been arguing for a precise parallel between the First Adam and the Last Adam, and have asserted that neither had a “sin nature,” we must address the issue of what kind of “nature” each had. This subject has been hotly debated for centuries, before and after the “orthodox” position of the “dual nature” of Christ was formulated at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. [16] There it was decided that the official position of the Church was that Christ had both a human and a divine nature. That is to say, he was 100 percent God and 100 percent man. The orthodox believers asserted his complete humanity against the Gnostics and Docetics, who argued that Christ was not really a man at all, but only appeared to be a man. On the other hand, they asserted his “divinity” against the Arians, who argued that he was not God, but rather a created being. They also defended his divinity against those who questioned his virgin birth and divine Sonship.

We have already discussed some of what is wrong with the “orthodox” position, namely that Jesus could not have been truly tempted if he were in some way “God.” But let us add a few other objections to this doctrine before attempting to determine a more biblical and rational alternative. First, the Chalcedonian formula is guilty of a logical fallacy called “equivocation.” Equivocation involves the changing of the meaning of a term in the middle of an argument.[17] In equivocating the terms “man” and “God,” Trinitarians create a separate category of being for Jesus Christ and remove him from the normal and customary meaning of each term as it is understood both biblically and experientially. Furthermore, what is asserted about Jesus Christ could not be asserted about Adam, who was truly the archetypal “man.” Unless Jesus’ nature before his resurrection was completely comparable to Adam’s, he cannot properly and without equivocation be categorized as “man.” To teach that Jesus is “100 percent God and 100 percent man” is 200 percent logical equivocation.

But merely to say that both Adam and Jesus had a “human nature” is inadequate, particularly since this term has become identified with the sinful aspects of man’s being. We often say, “That’s human nature,” after someone has just done something wrong. Without getting mystical, theological or too speculative, we need to assess what we know about this thing called “human nature.” There are no Scriptures that definitively answer the question, so we must begin our reasoning from a clear conception of what it means that Adam was made in “the image of God.”

We know that Adam was designed to represent his Maker and be able to have intimate fellowship with Him. This means that he would have to have known God well enough to act on His behalf. It seems logical that Adam would also had to have been able to relate to who God was by sharing some of His attributes and capabilities. We can see from the context of Genesis 1 that God endowed Adam with the capacity to rule and have dominion over the animals. God gave Adam a personality[18] and a temperament, or disposition.[19] As anyone who has raised animals knows, most have characteristics individual to their personalities. Some are more dominant than others, some are more playful, some more trainable, etc. Every human parent learns that his or her children are each unique from the womb with a particular temperament or “nature” right from “the factory.”

Medieval physiology proposed four basic conditions of body and mind: the sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric and melancholic. Each was a basic kind of temperament that human beings manifest, with both good and bad qualities. For instance, one with a choleric temperament is a “take-charge” kind of person. However, he may lack sensitivity toward the feelings of those he attempts to lead. One with a phlegmatic temperament is very calm and unruffled, but may be slow to act, and tend toward laziness. Though the systems vary, human personality research continues to support the basic concept that people fall loosely into these general categories of temperament types. That is, every human being has a particular nature that predisposes him toward certain kinds of behavior. We should note that this “predisposition” does not cause one to act in a certain way, but it does mean that in the absence of any determination or will to the contrary, the odds are good that the predisposed behavior will be carried out, often unconsciously.[20]

These behaviors can be evaluated biblically and morally to determine whether they are right or wrong, but much sinful behavior occurs by impulse without reflection. This is the influence of what Scripture calls “the flesh,” that is, the sin nature inherent in all men. In the absence of strong moral training and education as children, humans tend toward selfish and careless behavior that the Bible defines as sinful. Also, we should note that whether people choose the kind of behavior for which they have a predisposition or whether they choose something else is a function of their free choice. Yet there seems to be nearly universal agreement among modern researchers about the influence of the genetic component on human personality and temperament. This “nature versus nurture” debate will continue to rage on, however, because of the intricate and delicate balance that seems to exist within the various aspects of human beings and their environments.

Since a genetic “nature” or “temperament” is so clearly an ongoing part of human being and personality, it stands to reason that it was also a part of the first human’s being. Before he fell, Adam had a nature perfectly suited to bearing the image of God. Therefore, he had a “divine” nature, meaning that he shared some of the qualities and attributes of God, who was his source. By studying the character of God in His dealings with man, and also in the actions of Jesus and other men representing God, we can conclude that God is loving, peaceful, joyful, slow to anger, kind, good, faithful, gentle and self-disciplined, just to name a few. These qualities must have been in abundance in Adam, who was the son and image of God, as he administered Paradise and carried out the will of his Creator. He had every quality in whatever measure necessary for him to exercise his dominion over the earth. And because there was no sin, there was nothing sinful in his disposition, that is, nothing that would cause him to act contrary to the will of God.

If we think of Adam as a perfect image of God’s character, one of the consequences of the Fall was to shatter that “mirror” into pieces. Now, instead of one man exhibiting the totality of God’s attributes without sin, mankind would continue to reflect these qualities in a collective way, but mixed with sin. This explains why we continue to see human beings demonstrating compassion, creativity, moral strength, intellectual and scientific brilliance and feats of selfless courage. These godly qualities in man are consistent with what we would predict if mankind were in fact made in the image of God. Obscuring these godly qualities, however, are traits such as sinful self-interest, cruelty and indifference. These seem to often characterize man’s behavior and experience, which is predicted by the Bible as a result of the consequences of sin.

Based upon this reasoning then, we believe that Jesus Christ had a perfect human nature, just as Adam originally had before it became fragmented and stained by sin. This means that Jesus exemplified in a single person every godly quality ever seen in mankind collectively. These qualities were present in his nature from his mother’s womb, even as our children’s temperaments are. He was the perfect blend of qualities and characteristics that God intended for man, as His “image,” to manifest. In observing Jesus’ behavior, we see his ability to be tough, yet tender; patient and slow to anger, yet appropriately aggressive and passionate. In short, Jesus Christ was a man as Man was intended to be—the reflection of his Creator and his Father—like Father, like Son.

One further note: Jesus Christ did not fulfill his ministry by virtue of some inherently divine nature that he brought with him through an “incarnation.” The New Testament makes it very clear how he was able to do the Messianic works that he did—by being anointed with holy spirit at the baptism of John.

As wonderful a human being as Jesus was, it is not recorded that he performed any miracle or preached a word until he was empowered by holy spirit. It was this spirit , then, and not his temperament, personality or intrinsic “divinity,” that enabled him to do the works that he did. This is crucial to understand, and yet few Christians recognize this important point.[21] This is yet another truth that should profoundly encourage us as Christians, because it explains how we can do the works that Jesus Christ did.

This verse is brimming with truth. It clearly states that God is the original author of life for both Jesus Christ and all who believe in him. Yet Jesus Christ is the one who sanctifies those who believe in him. It was God who gave him the authority and the ability to do so. As Jesus is the Son of God, so those whom he sanctifies are “sons.” Jesus Christ is not ashamed to call us his brothers. Amen!

The first quote is from Psalm 22:22, found in one of the sections of the Old Testament most clearly referring to Jesus Christ. It is a prophecy that the Messiah will one day stand amidst a great congregation and praise God with them. Could those people be the “many sons in glory” of Hebrews 2:10? Absolutely. It is noteworthy that Psalm 22 is a prophecy of both the suffering and the glory of Christ. What was Jesus thinking about when the Roman soldiers pounded the first spike into his wrist? No doubt he was thinking about his future destiny, that is, “…the joy that was set before him…” (Heb. 12:2).

The second quote from the Old Testament (“…I will put my trust in him…”) is from Isaiah 8:17. Jesus Christ was the first man to perfectly trust God. He was the epitome of faith. Because he put his trust in God, we can put our trust in him. The NIV Study Bible note on Hebrews 2:13 recognizes that the point of this quotation is to assert the perfect manhood of Christ : “ ‘I will put my trust in Him.’ An expression of true dependence on God perfectly exemplified in Christ. In him, humanity is seen as it was intended to be.” Amen. We could not have said it any better. Jesus Christ was able to do what he did because of his “true dependence on God.” Man was originally made to have intimate communion with his Maker, trust in His superior wisdom and love and, through obedience to his Creator, share with Him in the management of His affairs on the earth. Jesus epitomized this dependency on his God, his Maker.

The third quote from the Old Testament in this section of Hebrews comes from Isaiah 8:18, and could hardly be extracted from a more pertinent context, which reveals that Isaiah and the people of God were surrounded by a much larger number of unbelievers bent on their destruction. Death was certain unless God delivered them. God did deliver them by way of Isaiah, who said in essence, “Stick with me and you will be saved.” He then referred to them as the children God has given me . In that record, Isaiah is a “type” of Christ.[23]

Here we come face to face with a tremendous truth of Scripture not often realized—that those who believe in Christ are, figuratively speaking, his “children.”[24] To see this, let us go back to Isaiah 53, another Old Testament passage of Scripture that specifically speaks of the coming Christ. As in the initial revelation about Christ in Genesis 3:15, where God prophesied both his suffering and his glory, so Isaiah 53 portrays both his hideous death and his glorious future life.

Verse 8 asks, “…And who can speak of his descendants?…” What we see here is that Jesus would die without ever having any children. In the Hebrew culture, this was considered a curse. Jesus died with no one to carry on his lineage. But look at verse 10: “…he will see his offspring….” What “offspring”? The “children God has given him,” the “many sons in glory.” Does this not specifically relate to Christ being called a “seed” in Genesis 3:15? Yes, he is the seed that will bear much fruit after his kind . “…We know that when he appears, we shall be like him…” (1 John 3:2). Praise God!

With all this background in mind, we can now turn our attention to the phrase “the image of God,” as it is used in reference to Jesus of Nazareth. The Last Adam, now highly exalted as Lord and Christ, is the only true image of God. Actually, he is not referred to as “the image of God” until after his resurrection, as we shall see. So while Jesus admirably represented God’s heart, love and character in his earthly ministry, he is now in a position of such glory that he is functioning “just like God.”[25] Man’s destiny as the image-bearer of God finds complete fulfillment in the glorification of Jesus Christ, because all those who believe in him will one day be made like him .

Even prior to his resurrection and ascension, however, Jesus brought many things to light about his invisible Father, the God who created the heavens and the earth. In fact, of all the “images” and representations that presume to depict the invisible, it is Jesus Christ who most vividly exemplified and made manifest the character of God by the way he lived. The heart and will of God was manifested by his life of obedience. For instance, we know it is God’s will to heal those with faith in Him because Jesus healed everyone who came to him with faith. So it is for everything that Jesus said and did—he revealed God’s heart and will for those who believe in him. As one scholar put it, “Christ is given to us as the image of God by which we may know what God wills and does.”[26]

The Greek word for “declared” means “to lead or bring out, hence to make known, declare, unfold.”[27] By his personality, his character, the spirit that was upon him and by his absolute obedience to his Father, Jesus perfectly exhibited God’s heart to mankind. His language, taken as a whole, reveals that he never thought of himself as the source of his wisdom and mighty works. When he said, He “…who has seen me has seen the Father…” (John 14:9), he was not referring to any physical resemblance nor intrinsic deity. He was referring to his obedient way of being, his words and his works. The following are a number of statements Jesus made that help us understand this more clearly:

It is clear that the coin-carrying Pharisees did not pull out one with Caesar himself glued to it. The coin had an image stamped on it, which was obviously not identical to the original.[28] In fact, the image was probably only a crude likeness. The degree of similarity between the archetype or prototype and its image varies, and the uses of eikon reflect those variations. The range of use of eikon varies from gross misrepresentation (as in the case of false images of God), to similarity (as in Col. 3:10 - KJV), where our new self is being renewed in similarity to Christ), to exact likeness (Heb. 1:3).

Today, through photographic technology, we can reproduce exact images of people.[29] Or can we? A lady friend excitedly shows you a snapshot and proclaims, “This is my fiancé, Henry.” You reply, “But he’s completely flat! And he’s only three inches tall with half a body! I don’t think the marriage will work.” Obviously, an image, no matter how perfectly it reflects the original thing, is not identical to it.[30]

There are two verses in the Church Epistles that clearly and specifically refer to Jesus Christ as “the image of God,” and we will now examine them carefully in their contexts. We will see that Christ’s being called the “image of God” most specifically refers to his glorious post-resurrection ministry at the “right hand of God” since being crowned with glory and honor. Remember that Hebrews 2:9 says the Last Adam is “…now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death….” In other words, he didn’t fully come into his “glory and honor” until after his death and resurrection. We should also point out 1 Corinthians 15:45: “…The first man Adam became a living being, the Last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” When did he become “a life-giving spirit”? After his resurrection and glorification. Does that mean that he did not represent his Father well during his earthly ministry? No. We have already established that Jesus always did the will of his Father. However, whatever it is to be the complete “image of God” is found in his exaltation and glorification at the right hand of God.

Notice that the verbs “is” and “sustains” are in the present tense and refer to his present state of being in glory at the right hand of God. We can understand how Christ would be a better representation of God at the right hand of the Father’s glory than hanging from his Cross. In fact, those who saw him thought him smitten and accursed of God (see Deut. 21:23 and Isa. 53:4). While dead, he was as far from radiating the glory of God as a person can get. Nevertheless, he was raised from the dead unto immortality and everlasting life, with a fabulous new body that enables him to act as the Head of the Church and work with all the members of his Body wherever they are in the world. He is now the ultimate representative of God. If people are unable to see him for who he is, it is because they have been blinded by the Adversary, as the following verses show:

It is the Gospel, the good news of Christ’s accomplishments, that brings to light the glory of Christ, and thereby the glory of God whose plan it was to send him. The written Word makes known the living Word, Jesus Christ, who makes known the one true God. Thus, a “succession of representation” is clearly articulated in the above verses. We preach not ourselves, but the Gospel of Christ. Christ represented not himself, but God. And God “…shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Because Jesus Christ gave his all to represent God, God is now reciprocating by making known Christ, His perfect representative and “the exact representation of His being.”

Let us take note of the use of the word “invisible” here. God’s invisibility has been the occasion of much rebellion and idolatry on the part of His people throughout history. They wanted something visible to worship and pray to like the pagans had, and this led to all manner of misguided activities, as even the most casual reading of the Old Testament will show. Fallen man has a “lust of the eyes,” which drives him to desire a visible object for his devotion. Even though the creation itself so clearly points to the hand of its invisible Designer that man is “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20), he continually fails to make the connection.

Man is in many respects the pinnacle of that creation, his body and mind the most awesome examples of divine handiwork. The human brain has 10 billion cells, with each cell capable of establishing interconnections with some 35,000 other brain cells. The possible interconnections are 10 billion to the some 35,000th power, an incomprehensibly huge number. What man’s mind is capable of, even in its fallen condition, has yet to be fathomed. The First Adam was the “firstborn” of this magnificent creation described in Genesis 1, but, by virtue of his disobedience, he lost the privileges of the firstborn son. At his resurrection, the Last Adam became the firstborn of a new creation that began with his resurrection. He is the prototype of this new creation, his resurrected body gloriously exemplifying even greater magnificence than what we see in the present creation. That Christ is such a prototype is proven three verses later in Colossians 1, where the term “firstborn” occurs again:

In the context, “…the firstborn of all creation” directly correlates with his being “…the firstborn from among the dead….” It was in his resurrection that he came into his glory. It was then and only then that he was fully able to reflect the entire majesty of God who exalted him. Because he was sinless and obedient during his earthly tenure, Jesus’ resurrection and exaltation catapulted him to a glorious dominion and co-rulership of God’s creation even exceeding the First Adam’s. Only when Jesus Christ was elevated to his present position of dominion and co-rulership, having sat down at the right hand of God with all authority fully delegated to him, was he said to be “the image of God” in all the fullness of the term. Thus, in this position he has fulfilled the destiny of Man, who was made in “the image of God.”

Our “new self” is the divine nature of Christ that is a part of what we receive when we obey Romans 10:9 and are born again. This reality, also called the “gift of holy spirit,” the “spirit of truth,” etc., is “being renewed in knowledge in the image of its creator.”[31] Who is its creator? As far as giving us the potential to be like God, Jesus Christ is, because it is he who poured out the gift of God’s nature into our hearts (Acts 2:33). He is all, and in all, and he is working in us to fashion us in his image, even as he is fashioned after God’s image (cp. Eph. 1:22 and 23). This same truth is conveyed in the following parallel passage:

Today each Christian has within himself the absolute guarantee of one day being made totally like Christ (1 Cor. 15:49; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:1 and 2). In the meantime, God has given us through Christ the potential to manifest His character to the world. In fact, this is the very purpose of our existence—to represent our Maker well!

As believers, we are already partial partakers of his heavenly glory, although our final glorification awaits his final appearing. Meanwhile, as we look to him, we are being transformed into “the likeness of His [glorious] Son” more and more, day by day. What an awesome privilege it is to be a Christian! These truths are further established in the following verses:

As the resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ is pouring out holy spirit, the spirit that is the basis for our transformation and our sharing in his glory. Now, through the life and ministry of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ, we too participate in the process whereby those of mankind who believe in him are truly able to reflect the image of God. As Perfect Man, he has fulfilled the original destiny of mankind by reclaiming the authority and dominion that the First Adam lost. Is he a mere man? Hardly. He is everything God originally intended for man, and more, which includes all glory and honor. And in his exaltation, we who believe on him will be exalted with him and share in his glory. Hallelujah!

[1 ]. The Hebrew word adam literally means “red earth,” an economical way of describing man whose body is essentially dust with blood coursing through it.

[2 ]. We would call this accusation an example of a logical fallacy called “attacking a straw man.” This fallacy is committed when one party in a dispute misrepresents the position of the other in order to make it easier to refute. Just as it is easy to knock over a straw man, so it is easy to topple an argument that is patently false. The “mere man” argument is a straw man because it does not consider the true biblical significance and destiny of mankind as originally conceived by God. See Appendix K for more detailed listing and explanation of logical fallacies employed in the field of Christology.

[3 ]. See Genesis 5:3, where Adam is said to have a son “…in his own likeness, in his own image….” This son, Seth, was made in the image of his sinful father Adam.

[4 ]. Only by perceiving mankind as made in the image of God is true human compassion possible. If mankind is merely the leading edge of blind and random evolutionary processes, his value is not patterned after anything, and he has no destiny. So, as a god-like being relative to lower life forms, man creates his own meaning and purpose by the things he chooses to do. He is answerable to no higher being, reflects no higher purpose and is headed toward no glorious or certain future. The concept of man made in the image of God is ultimately the only basis for an ethical system that values humans for their own sake and discourages the abuses of tyrants, murderers and others who see their fellow men as nothing more than a means to their own ends.

[5 ]. Some may object to the use of the term “create” in connection with man, but we use it not in the sense of truly “bringing into existence what has not been before,” which is only God’s domain. Man has “creativity” by virtue of his ability to fill an empty canvas with colorful images, a blank page with noble thoughts, or a concert hall with beautiful sounds.

[6 ]. Ephesians 4:24 provides additional insight into the meaning of the term, “the image of God.” The “new self” or the “new man” that Christians receive in the New Birth is said to have been “…created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” Therefore, God has provided the means by which mankind can return to the state of being he had when he was originally created “in the image of God,” and reflected the true character of his Creator.

[7 ]. William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him (Harper and Row, NY, 1962), p. 89.

[8 ]. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1976), p. 401. This definition is confirmed by Thayer’s Lexicon , which says that eikon “adds to the idea of likeness the suggestions of representation (as a derived likeness) and manifestation.” [Robert H. Thayer, The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon , (Lafayette, IN, Book Publisher’s Press), 1981, p. 175]. Thayer cites Lightfoot’s definitive study on Colossians 1:15 that identifies two main ideas in the word eikon : representation and manifestation. Barclay, op. cit ., Jesus As They Saw Him , p. 393: “If when we say that Jesus is the eikon of God, it means that Jesus is the representation of God; God is the divine archetype and Jesus is the human likeness of Him.” The other meaning is manifestation . The eikon is the visible manifestation of the invisible and the unseen, of that which in itself cannot be seen. Plummer: “Jesus is ‘the visible representative of the invisible God.’ ” W. E. Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old And New Testament Words , p. 576: “In Hebrews 10:1, the contrast between the shadow and the very image has been likened to the difference between a statue and the shadow cast by it.” The statue is the eikon , representing the real thing. The statue is obviously not the person himself.

[9 ]. We will discuss the prologue of Hebrews (1:1–3) in the next chapter, because it is a key element in the scriptural depiction of Jesus Christ as “the purpose of the ages.”

[10 ]. Note in the words “…God left nothing that is not subject to him…” the use of the figure of speech prolepsis or “anticipation,” wherein future events are spoken of as having already occurred in the present. We know that the use of “is ” is figurative here because the verse goes on to say that “…at present we do not see everything subject to him,” pointing to its future literal fulfillment in Christ. We have a related figure in English that is called the “historic present.” This important figure of speech is vital to the proper understanding of the gospel of John, which so anticipates Christ’s glory that it speaks of it in the present narrative of the events of his life. For more on this figure, see Chapter 8.

[11 ]. As Jesus demonstrated authority over creation (“…Even the winds and the waves obey him!” - Matt. 8:27), so those who believe in him can exercise a measure of authority over fallen creation by obedience and faith in the risen Lord. This is the significance of Mark 16:15–18, which describes the authority the disciples could exercise over poisonous snakes and the like as they went forth to preach the Gospel. This authority is not absolute, however, but relative to faith and particular revelation from God concerning what is available in any given situation.

[12 ]. Though Satan is formally labelled “the author of death” (Heb. 2:14), Adam was his agent and unwitting “co-author.”

[13 ]. Bullinger, op. cit ., Lexicon , p. 133.

[14 ]. In general, “to sin” biblically means to disobey the will of God. If Jesus were “God,” he could not have disobeyed the will of “God” because his will, by definition, would be “God’s” will. Trinitarians will argue that he was fully tempted in his humanity, but not tempted in his “divinity.” This “dual nature” doctrine is meant to protect him from the charge that he could have sinned in any way. But this theological device creates a more serious problem: it breaks the logical parallel between the First Adam and the Last Adam. Adam did not have a “dual nature” or a “divine nature” that lessened his ability to be tempted. If Christ had a dual nature, but Adam did not, then Christ is not truly the “Last Adam.” Adam had an unblemished human nature, the commandment of God and the free choice of whether to obey it or not. The fact that God directly made Adam from the dust of the ground and spoke to him intimately did not prevent him from sinning. Similarly, the fact that God created the life in Mary’s womb and had an intimate relationship with His Son, Jesus, did not prevent Jesus from sinning either. He, too, had an unblemished human nature, the commandment of God and the free choice to obey it or not. Unlike Adam, Jesus chose to obey .

[15 ]. Dunn, op. cit., Christology in the Making , p. xxxiv. “It might be pointed out that a Jesus who makes an Adamic choice is more of a model for Christian behavior (Phil. 2:1–13) than a pre-existent Christ.”

[16 ]. See Chapter 19 on the seven Church Councils and their role in the development of Christian doctrine.

[17 ]. See Appendix K for a more complete discussion of logical fallacies, particularly equivocation.

[18 ]. “The quality or fact of being a particular person; personal identity; individuality.” Also, then, “habitual patterns and qualities of behavior of any individual as expressed by physical and mental activities and attitudes; distinctive individual qualities of a person, considered collectively.” Webster’s New Unabridged Universal Dictionary (Deluxe Second Edition, Simon and Schuster, NY, 1983).

[19 ]. Ibid., A disposition is defined as “one’s customary frame of mind; one’s nature or temperament; as in an amiable or an irritable disposition.”

[20 ]. The study of personality types goes way back into ancient history. The fourfold models go back at least as far as the Greeks and were often related to air, fire, earth and water. The nine-fold enneagram dates before Christ, and originated in the Middle East, possibly Babylon. The terms we use in the text of this work are Medieval in origin. Books to study these personality types are available in any good library.

[21 ]. One of the main reasons so few understand this is the common teaching that “the Holy Spirit” is one of the persons in a “triune Godhead.” Thus, they have difficulty explaining how Christ could be “God in human flesh” through the incarnation, yet still need to be empowered by “the Holy Spirit,” another member of the Godhead, before he could begin to do his work. To many orthodox Christians, Christ is in some sense the eternal God from his birth, yet is indwelled at his baptism by another “person” called “the Holy Spirit,” another member of the triune God. It is no wonder that some Christians refer to him as the “Christ event,” since he was apparently three persons happening at one time. If Christ were “true God” from his birth, would he not have had God’s power from his birth and not needed any subsequent anointing? See Appendix I.

[22 ]. Consider also the following translation of the above verse, which clarifies the distinction between God and Christ: “The truth being that he who bestows the hallowing [Jesus Christ] and those who are being hallowed derive their origin, one and all, from the One [God]. And that is why the Son is not ashamed to call them his brothers.” Heinz Cassirer, God’s New Covenant: A New Translation (William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1989).

[23 ]. A “type” is a specific parallel between two historical entities. Biblical typology involves a correspondence by analogy such that earlier persons, places or events are patterns by which later events can be better understood or interpreted. The study of typology comes out of a study of the Bible itself. The New Testament uses both the words tupos , or “type,” and antitupos , or “antitype.” The Greek word tupos can refer to the original model, prototype or stamp as well as to the copy, imprint or mark that was left by the original. The word antitupos refers only to the copy, imprint or mark and not to the original or stamp. Romans 5:14 calls Adam a “…pattern” (a tupos ) of “the one to come,” i.e., Christ, while Hebrews 9:24 calls the earthly sanctuary a “copy” (antitupos ) of the real one in the heavens. There has been great debate among Christians as to what are the true types of Christ in the Bible and what is strained imagination and fanciful thinking. For example, just because someone was whipped in the Old Testament does not mean he was a “type” of Christ, but, on the other hand, the clear parallels between Joseph and Christ or Abraham/Isaac and Christ have been recognized for centuries. In this case, the fact that what Isaiah said is quoted in Hebrews as being prophetically spoken by the Messiah makes the type axiomatic and abundantly clear.

[24 ]. The spiritual “fatherhood” of great men of God is evident in Scripture. In Romans 4:16, Abraham is called the father of all of us who believe . In 2 Kings 2:12, Elisha cries out to Elijah his mentor, “My father, my father.” In 2 Kings 13:14, Jehoash the king of Israel called Elisha “My father, my father.” Paul refers to his “fatherhood” of the believers in Corinth whom he had led to Christ (1 Cor. 4:15 - KJV), saying that he had “begotten” them through the Gospel. Because of his character and attributes, and being the author of everlasting life, Jesus Christ is obviously the ultimate “father” figure, even though he has no natural children. God’s Messiah, Jesus, will conquer the earth (Rev. 19), raise the dead (John 5:25), and reign as king in the Millennium. Thus, in Isaiah 9:6, part of the Messiah’s name is “Father of the coming age.” See Appendix A (Isaiah 9:6).

[28 ]. Logical “identity” is established by the following principle: Whatever is true of A, must also be true of B. And whatever is true of B, must also be true of A. Logically, similar things are not identical . For example, a statue (image) of George Washington is not identical to George Washington. If it were, George Washington himself would have been made of bronze. See Appendix K.

[29 ]. The diminutive form of eikon —eikonion —corresponds to the modern photograph. Barclay, op. cit., Jesus As They Saw Him, p. 390: “Apion the soldier writes home to his father Epimachus: ‘I send you a little portrait (eikonion ) of myself at the hands of Euctemon.’ ” Barclay continues: “The word eikon becomes the regular word for the identifying description of a person, which was subjoined to official documents, in particular with regard to the buying and selling of slaves. The eikon was the official and accurate description of the person involved and the means whereby he or she could be identified. If we take it in this way, we may say that Jesus is the exact portrait and description of God.”

[30 ]. Various Trinitarian scholars try to force eikon to mean identity or equality with the original. For example: The use of eikon in Colossians 1:15 “is intended to indicate the essential unity of God and Jesus, of the Father and the Son.” (Ibid., p. 388 and 389). Kittel, op. cit., Theological Dictionary, Vol. II, p. 395: “When Christ is called the image of God, all the emphasis is on the equality of the eikon with the original.” Trinitarian theologians attempt to force the semantic range of eikon to include the concept of identity, but the uses of eikon , both biblical and secular, preclude this extrapolation. See Appendix A (Col. 1:15).