{"id":40600,"date":"2022-02-26T10:39:24","date_gmt":"2022-02-26T08:39:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/the-image-of-the-invisible-god\/"},"modified":"2024-07-13T16:09:40","modified_gmt":"2024-07-13T14:09:40","slug":"the-image-of-the-invisible-god","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernbeisser.ch\/en\/the-image-of-the-invisible-god\/","title":{"rendered":"The image of the invisible God"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column width=”1\/1″][vc_column_text text_lead=”yes” uncode_shortcode_id=”415334″]The Bible describes God as invisible. He is essentially “spirit”. In the article “The invisible God” the connections are shown. This picture is consistent throughout the Bible. We will not be able to see God Himself. In the course of the biblical story, however, it becomes apparent that this invisible God makes himself recognizable. How does He do that?[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”111435″]<\/p>\n

Language of God and Image of God<\/h3>\n

In the Gospel according to John, Jesus says:<\/p>\n

“Neither have you ever heard His voice, nor perceived His appearance.”<\/em>
\nJohn 5:37<\/p>\n

This is what Jesus says about God, His Father. God is therefore not only invisible (1Tim 1,17), but also inaudible. But God speaks in many ways.<\/p>\n

“After God spoke many times and in many ways to the fathers through the prophets before of old, in the last of these days He speaks to us in the Son, whom He made the lot-holder of all things and through whom He also made the eons.”<\/em>
\nHeb 1:1-2, cf. 4Mo12:6, 4Mo12:8, 2Sam 23:2, Hab 2:1, Zech 1:9, Hos 1:2, and 2Pet 1:21.<\/p>\n

God speaks “in the Son,” that is, not only “through the Son,” as if only the words Jesus speaks apply, but God’s language is<\/strong> the Son. This encompasses far more than the words Jesus speaks. It is also clearly more than the idea that Jesus is merely an example for us, pointing us in the right direction. The writer of Hebrews continues with the description, saying:<\/p>\n

“He is the radiance of His glory and the imprint of His being, and carries the universe by His powerful word.”<\/em>
\nHeb 1:3<\/p>\n

Not only can we recognize the language of God, but we can also recognize the “radiance of His glory and the character of His being” in Jesus. Besides the language of God<\/strong>, Jesus is also the image of God<\/strong>. In the Son we recognize the Father, the invisible God.<\/p>\n

“The Son of His love … He is the image of the invisible God.”<\/em>
\nCol 1:13-15<\/p>\n

So although we cannot perceive God directly, much about Him can be known indirectly (Rom 1:20), best through the Son of His love. This reference from Colossians 1:13-15 goes beyond simply recognizing the divinity of God. In the Son we recognize His love. It is in the Son of His love that God works. This shows the motive behind it, the attitude and also the view. God, then, not as an impersonal power or force, not as an unapproachable deity, but a God who shows Himself, communicates and turns to us in love.[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”183658″]<\/p>\n

Mirror image<\/h3>\n

The Son is the image of God. Christ is the image of God.<\/p>\n

“Christ, … who is the image of the invisible God.”<\/em>
\n2Cor 4,4<\/p>\n

The word for image (Gr. eikon<\/em>) is closely related to the Germanized word “Icon”, a symbol and image of function or direction. Icons are small symbols that appear on signposts for orientation purposes, for example, or indicate functions in the design of the user interface of software solutions. Think for example of the icon for e-mails, for the printer or similar.<\/p>\n

In this comparison, it is obvious that the image is not the same as that to which it bears witness. Now if Christ is the image of God, it is also said that He cannot be<\/em> God in an absolute sense. If one advocates the widespread doctrine of the Trinity, this is readily downplayed. However, considering that the doctrine of the Trinity was not known at the time of Jesus or the apostles (it came centuries later), there is no need to force this doctrine on the text. Leaving aside the idea of this doctrine of the Trinity, the text is particularly clear. Christ, as the Son of God, shows us the Father, the invisible God. Christ is visible. God is invisible. The Old Testament concept of the “One God” is not questioned by Jesus or the apostles, but confirmed.<\/p>\n

Of course, there are other comparisons from the Bible, from which the meaning of the word “image” is clear. In the book of Revelation, for example, we read of a vision of John in which people picture the end-time “wild beast” (Rev 13:14-15).<\/p>\n

The Letter to the Hebrews speaks of a double image:<\/p>\n

“For since the law is only the shadow of the good to come, and not the image of the facts themselves …”<\/em>
\nHeb 10:1<\/p>\n

The statement here concerns the law twice. Once it is called “the shadow of the future good”, and it is not “the image of the facts themselves”. Shadow and image are both “illustrations” here. Also a “picture of the facts” is not<\/em> the fact itself. If one wants to understand the scope of such concepts, one must understand them clearly. If Christ and God are confused with each other, the Bible does not. In the writing they are different. This is precisely where the power lies, because we do not see God unless He reveals Himself. Christ now is the image of God who shows Him.<\/p>\n

If you explain the above statements up to this point, objections are often raised that should now trump these statements. However, this is not an answer to the biblical passages. In the famous Arian controversy in the 4th century, both parties justified their position with biblical texts. One group insisted that Jesus was “God Himself,” that is, “of the same substance,” while the other group under Arius pointed out that Jesus was the image of God and therefore could not be God Himself, that is, “not of the same substance.”<\/p>\n

The introduction of unbiblical terms like “substance” clearly shows that one cannot let Scripture speak for itself here. Extra-biblical terms are needed to reflect thoughts about<\/em> Scripture. This is not an exegesis (interpretation), but eisegesis (insertion).[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text uncode_shortcode_id=”353986″]<\/p>\n

What does the text say?<\/h3>\n

Does that clear everything up? No, because there are many other passages in the Bible. The view which Arius represented has once again prevailed everywhere after the first council. Only with further councils could his views be “locked out”. Arius, however, has pointed to biblical passages, as I have done here in this post. The later Trinitarians (the Holy Spirit as the third in the alliance was added even later) naturally quoted other biblical passages. My point is not to play the biblical passages off against each other, but to try to see how each may be interpreted in its own context.<\/p>\n

However, there is an important difference between eisegesis and exegesis: exegesis tries to understand what the text says. Eisegesis attempts to project traditional understanding, doctrine, onto the text. Exegesis interests me. I would like to avoid eisegesis. It goes without saying that the question is: What is authority for me? Is it tradition or is it Scripture? And when I say scripture, do I mean my understanding or is it about the text in its own (written, cultural) context?<\/p>\n

What does the text say? This question is the only question we can ask today. We can follow the discussions of the last 2000 years, but these do not say at all what the widespread doctrine of the Trinity emphasizes. The doctrine of the unity of God is clearly contained in the “Shema Israel” and has been an integral part of the biblical message ever since.<\/p>\n