This little word has produced some big fights! In the Old Testament there are seven or eight different words for image and most have the idea of a carved idol, as in the second commandment.
In the New Testament it is used 21 times, mostly concerning the image of Caesar on the coin (Matt. 22:20) or of how the Law is a shadow of things to come (Heb. 10:1) or of the image of the Beast of Revelation (Chaps. 13-20). But Paul uses it to refer to our being remade in the image of Christ (Rev. 8:29; 1 Cor. 1549) and twice he says that Jesus is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15). This last usage is both a tremendous insight and the grounds for great controversy.
The word ‘image’ was used by the Greeks in this latter way with two senses: the image was a close portrait of someone, as in a detailed painting (i.e. photograph) or of the reflection of the sun on still water. In this sense Jesus is the perfect reflection of God, the invisible God made visible. He is the reflection of God. The second sense was that of an accurate description of a person as on a police “Wanted” poster or a hire purchase agreement. Jesus portrayed accurately what God is like.
How He did this is the centre of the Arian controversy of the 4th century. When God made man “in our image and likeness” (Gen. 1:26-27) is there any difference in meaning between the two words? The difference is essential to Paul (1 Cor. 15:45-46), and was important to the early Church in an 80-year long debate that ripped apart the Church over the significance of the word. Christ was the image of God or His likeness. The Nicene Creed came into being over this distinction. Archbishop Trench has a great discussion of the word concluding that man is created in the likeness of God (Col. 3:10). To call Jesus the image of God was a tremendous insight and the highest description of His divine character. Jesus Himself saw Himself in this fashion: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). Jesus has made the invisible God known (Jn 1:18). He has made flesh what is spiritual (Jn 1:14).
FOR TODAY
Heron Books published in Australia a series of Russian classics. To encourage purchases each is given a Russian Eikon. This is the Greek word for image, and an Eikon was a religious image. Here is both the weakness and the strength of the word – it is weak because any image or representation has little worth when compared with the original, but its strength is that it is an accurate representation. The Church wants to claim Jesus as the image of God, being both an accurate representation of God and also being of tremendous worth in Himself.
“How do you picture God?” I once asked a child in Sunday School. Came the reply “I can’t draw God, He won’t stay still!” Any representation of God must be a living representation. Jesus is His only image.
At Easter, kneeling at a Communion Table, celebrating the Communion, I repeated the Nicene Creed with the congregation. I wondered if those repeating it ever realised that those harmless words were the result of bloodshed, debate, intrigue and violence. Words cut deeper than swords. Some Christians have a strong position against Creeds – that they are useful for teaching and for discussion on the formulae of the content of the faith but not as tests of orthodoxy or fellowship. This position can be justified.
However, those who formulated the Creeds put us to shame by their accurate knowledge of scripture. We would do well to know the scripture as they did, and those who repeat the Creeds would do well to know the living truths they affirm.
Rev The Hon Dr Gordon Moyes AC MLC