• The Bible gives no explicit answer.
• Several ideas have been suggested over the years, with no definitive solution.
• The Image of God must be a unique attribute that is common ONLY to God and Men.
• It cannot be a quality or trait that angels or animals also possess.

Although “image of God” has become ubiquitous in Christian literature and conversation in recent years, it has not been robustly defined. Perhaps this is due to the lack of agreement throughout church history on what exactly constitues image of God, which no doubt stems from the fact that Scripture declares but does not elaborate on the axiom in detail.
David Closson; In the Image of God

Gen. 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

Gen. 1:27 - So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

Gen. 5:3 - And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.

Gen. 9:6 - Whoso sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.

Rom. 8:29 - For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

1Cor. 15:49 - And as we have borne the image of the earthly man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly man.

2Cor. 3:18 - But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the spirit of the Lord.

2Cor. 4:4 - In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them who believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the Image of God, should shine on them.

Col. 1:15 - Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Col. 3:10 - And have put on the new man, who is renewed in knowledge and after the image of Him who created him.

Heb. 1:3 - Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Man in Hebrew is called adam, a word that shares a root with the word adameh, literally, “I will resemble.”
Anonymous; www.613.org/hasidism/09.htm

• God has made man in His image
• The image has not been lost due to the Fall
• It is passed on from parent to child
• Murder is a capital crime because it is the killing of an image-of-God bearing human. Animals are not created in the image of God because the killing of animals is not a crime. Animals are expected to be killed as food for men.
• Those predestined to salvation are to be conformed to the image of the Son
• The earthly shall take on the image of the heavenly
• The elect shall be transformed into the image of the heavenly
• Christ is the express image of God
• The old man becomes a new man by being renewed through knowledge of His creator and Lord, Jesus Christ

Why did God create man?
What should be our goal in life?
What is the best thing in life, bringing more joy, delight, and contentment, than anything else?
What, of all the states God ever sees man in, gives Him the most pleasure?

The three kinds of created beings
Other than the uncreated God, there are three kinds of created living beings:
1- Angels - Both sinless and fallen. There is no provision made for their redemption.
2- Animals - They are neither sinful nor sinless. There is no need for their redemption.
3- Humans - All are Fallen and Sinful. God has made provision for their redemption.

Bible verses concerning angels.

Heb. 1:13-14 But of which of the angels hath he said at any time, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?

Rev 5:11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

Mat 18:10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Heb. 1:3-5 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; having become by so much better than the angels, as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son?

1Cor 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!

Heb. 13:2 Always remember to help people by welcoming them into your home. Some people have done that and have helped angels without knowing it.

Mat 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Mat 13:39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels.

Mat 13:41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers,

Mat 13:49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous

Rev 20:1-2 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

MORE ABOUT ANGELS
Angels are Found Everywhere in the Bible.
Angels are, in total, mentioned two hundred and seventy-three times throughout some thirty-four of the Biblical books.

If we categorize Angels, we find there are at least 27 distinct references to them. There are likely more, but let’s take a look at the top 27.
 
Angels were all created by God, as said in Genesis 2:1; and Nehemiah, 9:6. As well as Ephesians 3:9.
Angels report directly to God, as stated in Job 1:6 and also in 2:1.
Angels were present at the creation of the world, as told in Job 38:1.

Angels announced Jesus’ birth to the shepherds, we read in Luke 10:14.
Angels do not marry, Matthew tells us in 22:30.
Angels were created to live forever; Revelation 4:8.

Angels’ purpose is to glorify God, says Revelations 4:8.
There are Angels who help human beings, according to Hebrews 1:14.
There are Angels who harm human beings, says Mark 5.

Angels are ‘spirit beings’, according to Psalms 104:4.
Angels are invisible beings, we read in Romans 1:18.
Angels are many, says Deuteronomy 33:2 as well as in Psalms 68:17 and in Revelations 5:11.

Angels possess intelligence, says Daniel 9:21.
Angels possess will, we read in Isaiah 14:12.
Angels display joy, says Job 38:7.

Angels display desire, says 1st Peter 1:11.
Angels are stronger than men, according to Ps 103:20.
Angels are more intelligent than men, in the words of Daniel 9:21-22.

Angels are swifter than men, says Daniel 9:21.
Angels are not omnipresent, Daniel 10:12.
Angels are not omnipotent, according to Daniel 10:13.

Angels are not omniscient, reports Matthew 24:36.
Some Angels are cherubim, we read in Ezekiel 1:1.
Some Angels are seraphim, according to Isaiah 6:1-8.

The majority of Angels remained true to God, as Revelation 5: 11-12.
Angels will join all believers in the heavenly Jerusalem, Hebrews 12:22-23.


***************************

Men are created in God’s Image, Angels are not.
God made men’s minds to know Him and to love Him, leading to indescribable joy in His creatures. This Knowledge of God, which is TRUTH, is Everlasting Life.
Angels are incapable of knowing truth, thus incapable of Salvation. They may live endlessly, but that is NOT equivalent to Everlasting Life, which is Knowledge of the Truth, which neither Sinless nor fallen angels are capable of.
 
Fallen angels-
Powers in high places.
 
Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
 
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
 
Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
 
2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
 
1Co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
 
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
 
Lu 24:39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.
 
John 1:13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
 
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
 
If men’s bodies are repositories of demonic spirits, then what was the soul in the Body of Jesus?
 
If God is trying to save the fallen angels, why did he bother to create fleshly beings? Why didn’t he just have a plan of salvation for the fallen angels?
 
Where in the Bible do you find that God is trying to save fallen angels?
This myth makes the body of no value. What is the point of creating Fleshly beings, when God is trying to save spiritual beings.
Why then Did Jesus have to be born of a Woman, and take on Human form?
 
Facts about angels
They are mentioned 273 times in 34 Biblical books.
They were all created by God. Gen 2:1; Neh. 9:6; Eph. 3:9; Col 1:16.
They report directly to God. Job 1:6; 2:1.
They were present at the Creation of the World. Job 38:1, 4, 7.
They announced Jesus’ birth to the shepherds. Lk 2:10-14.
They do not marry. Matt 22:30.
They were created to live forever. Rev 4:8.
Their purpose is to glorify God. Rev 4:8.
Some angels help human beings. Mk 5:1-5.
They are spirit beings. Ps 104:4; Heb. 1:7, 14.
They are invisible beings. Rom 1:18-32; Col 2:18; Rev 19:10; 22:9.


If angels knew truth, they would not have fallen.
Knowing God is knowing Eternal Truth.
To know eternal truth is a God given gift.
Anyone who knows eternal Truth is a member of the family of God.
To rebel and to fall means to reject God as Lord.
It is not possible for a person to know Eternal Truth and later to reject that Truth.
Angels fell because they did not know Truth.
[12/28/13; 12/16/25]

It is not knowledge that is the Image of God; it is the POTENTIAL for truth, for eternally true knowledge of God, which is the Image of God in man. [11/22/21]

MORE ABOUT ANGELS
• They were created during creation week, before any other created thing. Ex. 20:11
• Angels are ministering spirits sent to serve the elect. Heb. 1:14
• They long to look into God’s plan of salvation for men. 1Pet. 1:12
• Man was the final creation of God. The pinnacle of creation. All other creation was in preparation for the creation of man.
• The elect will conform to the image of Christ. Rom. 8:29
• Humans will share in Christ’s exalted position. Eph. 2:6
• Humans will judge angels. 1Cor. 6:3
• Christ died to save mankind, NOT to save angels. 2Cor. 5:21; Matt. 25:41
• Angels are not the adopted children of the heavenly Father. In Jesus Christ we become the children of the heavenly Father; the angels remain His servants (cf. John 15:15f.)
• Angels were made to serve God by serving men, but man was made to know God intimately.
• Believers are united with Christ in a way angels will never be.
• Christ came in the form of a human, not angels.
• Humans are related to Christ in His physical state, angels are not.
• Christ calls the elect His brothers and sisters, but the angels remain His servants. Heb. 2:12.

Angels are God’s Messengers
Angels Praise God
Angels Exercise God’s Providential Care
Angels Encourage Christian Obedience
Angels Carry Out God’s Justice

Andrew J. Bandstra; A Job Description for Angels; Christianity Today; Apr 5,1993

WAYS IN WHICH MAN CANNOT BE LIKE GOD
God is Omniscient, man is NOT.
God is Omnipresent, man is NOT.
God is Omnipotent, man is NOT.
God is Eternal, man is NOT.
God is Unchangeable, man is NOT.
God is Perfect, man is NOT.

What the Image of God Cannot be

Creativity • Dominion • Morality
Sociability • Self-Awareness • Curiosity
Worship of God • Use of Language
Decision making •  Immortality

Ignorance of the definition of the Image of God in Man has given license to preachers to link unbiblical ideas with the concept of the Image of God. A recently heard Father’s Day message presented an opportunity to link fatherhood with the Image of God.

CLAIM: Since Jesus has asked us to refer to God as our Father, then being an earthly father is a reflection of being like the heavenly Father. Being an earthly father is being a model or a copy of the heavenly Father. And being like the heavenly Father must be part of being the Image of God. Fatherhood must be the Image of God in man.

Why fatherhood cannot be the Image of God in Man.
1- All men are made in the Image of God, not just fathers.
2- All women are made in the Image of God, not just men.
3- Not all men become fathers, yet they are all made in the Image of God.

Being a father to children is NOT the definition of the Image of God.

ANOTHER INCORRECT CONCEPTION OF THE IMAGE OF GOD.

For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man was created. Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word.
Irenaeus; (120-02 AD); Against Heresies; bkV; chXVI.

St Augustine suggests that the Image of God is Knowledge of God.

The Image of God cannot be knowledge of God since only a few people are chosen to know God. Most people do not know God, and that would mean that the rest of mankind, those who do not know God, would not be made in the Image of God. But that is incorrect. ALL of Adam’s descendants are made in the Imgae of God. Those who eventually come to know God salvifically and those who never come to that state of salvation.

The Image of God is a POTENTIAL to know God- a potential is given to ALL people, but only the elect  will fulfill their potential to know God.

Extended citation from David Cairns; The Image of God in Man; 1953; p93ff, exposing the several failed attempts by St. Augustine in trying to define the Image of God in man.

4. St. Augustine
St. Augustine’s doctrine of the image of God in man will be studied in this chapter, for it is the most remarkable instance of a doctrine of the image which appears to offer us a second way of salvation, apart from Christ. This conclusion is of course utterly out of line with the main body of Augustine’s teaching.

In his great work on the Trinity, Augustine spends almost half his time in an attempt to discover the divine image in man and see wherein it consists. This effort is not so irrelevant to his main theme as might appear. From revelation it is known that God is a Trinity, and also that man is in the image of God. Augustine is therefore entitled, as far as logic goes, to the conjecture, that the image in man may also be a trinity. And if this conjecture be true, then a study of this derivative trinity may throw some light upon the nature of the God who created it.

It should be noted, however, that the belief that the image of God in man is a trinitarian structure is only a legitimate conjecture, and not a necessary inference. The resemblance between God and man might consist in something other than a trinitarian structure, or, again, it might not be a structure within the individual personality. It will be claimed, indeed, later in this chapter, that the attempt to find the image of God in a trinitarian structure within the self is a very serious error, and that it has caused much trouble to Augustine himself.

A good deal of the treatise on the Trinity is taken up with the examination of various trinities in man’s nature, with the purpose of discovering which of these is qualified to be the image of God in man. Before making a brief review of these it will be necessary to quote one passage from the fourteenth book, the fourth chapter, which expresses clearly the criterion by which Augustine judges these various trinities: ‘Therefore neither is that trinity an image of God, which is not now; nor is that an image of God, which then will not be; but we must find in the soul of man, i.e. the rational or intellectual soul, that image of the Creator which is immortally planted in its immortality.’

Now, if the image in man consists in a trinity like that in God, it follows that it must be one essence with three equal substances. That is, the self must not form this trinity in association with anything accidental to it, such as an outward object of knowledge.

The first of the trinities in human nature examined by Augustine is that which exists in love. [De Trinitate, IX, 2] ‘Well then’, he says, ‘When I, who make this enquiry, love anything, there are three things concerned; myself, and that which I love, and love itself.’ This is our first trinity, the lover, the object of love and the love which unites them (amans, amatum, and amor). This trinity does not satisfy Augustine, for reasons which we can guess, the chief being that this trinity is not within the self, since it demands the existence of another self, or another thing, and these are held to be accidental to the existence of the self.

So we find him going on to speak of self-love, where we find the self as lover, and the self also as object of love, and in the third place love itself, which is the bond between the lover and the beloved. [De Trinitate, IX, 2] Here, at any rate, all that happens takes place within the human subject, for the man loves himself, and that of necessity. But a new difficulty appears, for the self who loves is the same as the self who is loved, so that instead of a trinity we have what one might call a ‘binity’, the self and its self-love. So the quest must continue.

Augustine now recalls that the self cannot love itself unless it knows itself. And so now we have a third trinity; mind, its knowledge of itself, and its love of itself (mens, notitia sui, and amor sui). The mind has a direct knowledge of itself not drawn from the senses, and when it thinks of itself there exists the trinity of mind, the thought of self, and the love of self.

At this point there must be given a word of explanation about the knowledge of self, or the thought of self, the second of the substances in this trinity. It is part of Augustine’s doctrine of knowledge that when the mind thinks, it begets a word. When the thing thought about is a visible or sensible object, there is an image, but this image is not the essential word begotten. That word is really the concept, which is different both from the mind’s image and the audible word which we may utter to awaken the same concept in the mind of another.

When I say the word ‘table’ there are three entities present in addition to the table itself. They are, first, the word heard; second, the visual or other sensible image and, third, the concept of table. It is this last which is the word begotten in my mind. Now when we think of ourselves, although there may be a number of images present to our senses, the true word begotten in our mind is, according to Augustine, none of these. It is the knowledge or concept of the self. The importance of this result for Augustinian speculation is obvious, for the word which is thus begotten is the human analogue of the Divine Word begotten by the Father.

The third place in the human trinity is taken by the bond of love between the mind and the word, and this is the analogue of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity.

But there is one shortcoming in this human trinity which makes it unfit to act as an analogue of the Holy Trinity. We do not always think of ourselves, and therefore this trinity has still about it something of the accidental, which disqualifies it for the purpose suggested.

So the ground is again changed, and a new, fourth, trinity is introduced. This consists of memory, understanding, and will (memoria; intelligentia, and voluntas). [De Trinitate, X, 12]

In this trinity memory is the chief term demanding explanation. For Augustine memoria is a term which has a special meaning. It does not refer merely to the past, but also to the self. We are not always thinking about ourselves, but we can be recalled to a knowledge of ourselves. Men say to us in a tone of reproof, ‘Remember yourself!’ They recall, that is, our thought to a knowledge of ourselves which is always there. We have had it since the birth of our selfhood, and we shall have it as long as we continue to be selves. Thus it stands with memory, both when it relates to the past, and to knowledge of the arts or sciences, and when it relates to ourselves. A mathematician does not cease to understand music when he stops thinking about it, and turns his mind to mathematics. And so the memory, which is really the self as a reflective subject, has a perpetual understanding of itself, and love of itself. The fact that the term ‘love’ has been replaced here in Augustine’s formula by the word ‘will’ is not of great importance, for the two terms are often synonymous for him. There is thus a continual begetting of the word or understanding by the memory, and a continual love of it which accompanies our knowledge of ourselves. Augustine sums up his result by saying: ‘Well then, the mind remembers, understands, and loves itself; if we discern this, we discern a trinity, not yet indeed God, but now at last an image of God.’ [De Trinitate. XIV, 8]

This then is one strain in the thought of St. Augustine on the image of God. But it is not by any means the whole, nor is it his final conclusion. Arguing in the fourteenth book that the image of God cannot consist in the faith of the soul, which has had a beginning, and will some day have an end, when it is replaced by sight, he finds the image in the rationality of the immortal soul. ‘It [the soul] is therefore called immortal, because it never ceases to love with some life or other, even when it is most miserable, … the human soul is never anything save rational or intellectual; and hence, if it is made in the image of God in respect to this, that it is able to use reason and intellect in order to understand and behold God, [Italics mine] then from the moment when that nature so marvellous and so great began to be, whether this image be so worn out as to be almost none at all, or whether it be obscure and defaced, or bright and beautiful, certainly it always is.’ [De Trinitate, XIV, 5] Here, as before, the image of God is placed in the rationality of the soul, but the important point is that it is defined, not in terms of a memory, understanding and love of itself, but as a capacity to understand and behold God.

One more short passage may be quoted in this context which sums up this line of argument: ‘This trinity, then, of the mind, is not therefore the image of God, because the mind remembers itself, and understands and loves itself; but because it can also remember, understand and love Him by whom it was made.’ [De Trinitate, XIV, 8]

The only way by which this apparently illogical change of ground can be justified is by assuming that memory, understanding, and love of self is itself also a capacity for the knowledge and love of God. Does this not further imply that by the interior way of introspection and self-love we can come to know and love God?

It is worth while to pause for a moment to note the very considerable difficulty in which Augustine has been placed by his search for a trinitarian structure wholly within man, which should constitute the image of God within him.

On the one hand, since it is in a trinity immanent in the individual man that Augustine has decided to look for the image of God, he has been compelled to choose the trinity of self-memory, self-knowledge, and self-love.

On the other hand, his Christian faith told him that man’s chief end and true being was to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever. Did he not himself say, ‘Thou hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in Thee’? What a dilemma for a profoundly Christian writer if his system compels him to describe human nature in terms of an act related to itself in abstraction from God! Would this not be merely to repeat in theology the fundamental sin of man, the desire for independence, the desire to be as God? Could man’s likeness to God consist in his loving himself with a love which can only be described as narcissistic? It would have been all very well for Plotinus to believe that the love in God which is the prototype of man’s true being is a mere self-love. But it would not do to make this a central point in Christian doctrine. How far away such teaching would be from the New Testament teaching about Agape, the selfless love which is given to another! What a difference the doctrine of the Trinity, the very theme of this great treatise of Augustine, has made to our understanding of God! For the Persons of the Holy Trinity love one another with a pure and selfless love of which Plato and Aristotle and Plotinus seem to have had no knowledge.

St. Augustine has avoided this pitfall, but at a price. The only way in which he can extricate man from the isolation in which he has set him, will be to show, if he can, that memory, understanding and love of self are a capacity for the memory, understanding and love of God. [Aquinas, in his Summa, I, 93, 8, commenting on Augustine, quite explicitly commits himself to this position.] He will have to show that there is a straight line of development from a love, which seeks, in however refined a manner, its own good, to the love which puts God first.

And yet, if he does so, he will be in the very difficult position of having provided a second way of salvation, an alternative to the salvation provided in history through the incarnation and cross of Christ. This will be a way of interior reflection, a way of remembering our true selves and correcting our affections by setting them consciously on the goal which they are misguidedly seeking all the time. Such a way will have kinship with the way indicated in Athanasius’ Treatise Contra Gentes which we considered earlier. Does Augustine really believe in such a way of salvation?

To this question there can be only one answer. He does not. He has fully declared our inability to save ourselves, and our dependence on the grace of God in Christ. But in his doctrine of the image he has taken over just so much from non-Christian thought as will influence the course of his teaching from time to time, and make him suggest a capacity for self-salvation by an interior process of reflection.

If we wish for confirmation of the evangelical strain of thought in St. Augustine, we need go no further than this same treatise on the Trinity. We turn to the chapter entitled ‘How the image of God is formed anew in man’, [De Trinitate, XIV, 16] and there we read: ‘But those who… are turned to the Lord from that deformedness whereby they were through worldly lusts conformed to this world, are formed anew from the world, when they hearken to the Apostle saying, “Be not conformed to this world, but be ye formed again in the renewing of your mind”, that the image may begin to be formed again by Him by whom it had been formed at first. For that image cannot form itself again as it could deform itself.’

Again, in the next chapter, he says: ‘For it is the sentence of God Himself, “Without me ye can do nothing.” And when the last day of life shall have found anyone holding fast faith in the Mediator in such progress and growth as this, he will be welcomed by the holy angels, to be led to God whom he has worshipped, and to be made perfect by Him.’

One final quotation may be given, where Augustine is commenting on II Corinthians 3.18: ‘But we all beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.’ Augustine says: [De Trinitate, XV, 8] ‘He [Paul] means, then, by “we are transformed”, that we are changed from one form to another, and that we pass from a form that is obscure to a form that is bright; since the obscure form too is the image of God; and if an image, then assuredly also “glory”, in which we are created as men, being better than the other animals.… And this nature, being the most excellent among things created, is transformed from a form that is defaced into a form that is beautiful, when it is justified by its Creator from ungodliness.… And therefore he has added, “from glory to glory”, from the glory of creation to the glory of justification.’

Whatever we may make of this as a piece of exegesis of the phrase ‘from glory to glory’, there is no doubt that it expresses an evangelical thought.

It must thus be repeated that if there are in Augustine certain strands of thought which seem to offer an alternative way of salvation to that in Christ, they do not represent the heart of his theology, and are indeed an undigested relic of neo-Platonism. And it is necessary to defend him from one misunderstanding. When he describes the act of recollection whereby the soul knows God and its own true being in relation to Him, he does not think of it as the mere act of realization of a human capacity, but as a happening in which the grace of God is active. As Gilson says in describing the soul’s search for God: ‘It only tends towards Him because He is with it, and gives life to it from within, as the soul gives life to the body which it animates.’ [Gilson, Introduction à L’Etude de St. Augustine, p. 140.]

Let us now emerge from the dense and thorny thicket through which we have been painfully picking our way, perhaps not without stumbling. It is good to walk some distance away from the trees, in order to have a look at the wood. What are the things that we can learn from St. Augustine’s doctrine of the image?

5. Conclusions
(a) As we have seen in another chapter, the image is defined by St. Augustine as rationality. This is a natural enough borrowing from other writers, but it is too narrow a basis on which to found the image of God in man, even when that term receives the fairly wide definition which Augustine gives it. It would have been better to relate the image to man’s responsible personal existence before God.

(b) Nor should rationality have been defined by Augustine as it was defined. It will be remembered that in our chapter on the image as rationality we quoted the following passage: ‘But the mind must first be considered as it is in itself, before it becomes partaker of God, and His image must be found in it. For, as we have said, although worn out and defaced by losing the participation of God, yet the image still remains. For it is His image in this very point, that it is capable of Him; which so great good is only made possible by its being His image.’ [De Trinitate, XIV, 8] Here rationality seems to be defined as a quality of the soul in itself, which remains even when the participation of the soul in God is lost. The participation in God is thus an extra, an addition to the soul, which indeed brings the image to perfection. But the soul can carry on some sort of existence without it, and retains the capacity for the participation. The truth is rather surely that the soul is never out of relation to God, and such capacity as it possesses for relating itself to Him is merely the continually created power to respond to His act, which holds it in being as a person.

(c) Lastly, the universal image should not have been defined as a power of remembering, understanding and loving God. Having made a wrong start, Augustine was only able to escape by constructing man’s memory, knowledge and love of himself as a capacity to remember, know and love God. He did well to rescue the self from the isolation in which he had placed it. But it was too late. After such a false start it could be rescued only at the disastrous price of making the revelation in Christ seem unnecessary. The universal image is not a capacity for the true love of God, but something wounded which needs to be healed by the divine love in Christ. This Augustine knows well, and can say more powerfully than perhaps anyone else! The image should perhaps have been defined as an endowment which qualifies man for presence before God― a God-given ability to respond to God’s special presence and confrontation, and an inability to escape from that urgent presence. Augustine was the first thinker to define the image as a power. This thought was later taken up by St. Thomas Aquinas, and there is a real truth in it, especially when it refers to the universal, Old Testament image. Difficulty arises when we try to define and delimit that power. This conception of the image as a power or endowment we shall carry forward with us to use when we attempt to state our own view. There will be many who disagree with this notion of the image as present power, and it is only right to concede that far more important than it is the belief in the underlying purpose and election of God, which destines us for the perfect future image. There will be few who will disagree with the opinion that our creation in the image is a creation by the divine love for an existence that images back God’s love to Him.

In spite of our criticisms of St. Augustine, in taking farewell of him we must confess that in the whole history of man there is no one who has contributed more to the substance of man’s thoughts about himself. Since apostolic days there has perhaps been no man who has done more to waken in man the sense of wonder at the mystery of his own being and the greatness of God’s grace which creates and sustains and redeems us.

The thought of St. Augustine is like an ocean on which the ships of our thought can venture. There are in it the whirlpools and quicksands from which we withdraw in revulsion, but there is also the light shining from an infinite cloudland on its wide horizon; there is in it the mystery of the sea, rejoicing continually before its Maker.

[10/18/24]

At one extreme are those who take the words  צּלּﬦ [tzelem] and  ﬢמּוּתּ [d’muth] in the most strictly concrete sense and declare the meaning to be, either that man is a concrete image of God in respect of literal physical resemblance, or that he is made after an actual concrete model or image of God.
[...]
At the other extreme are the interpretations which depart entirely from the concrete meaning of צּלּﬦ and offer a purely spiritual interpretation, using words like “personality”, “self-consciousness,” “self-determination,” “immortality” (cf. Wisd. Sol. 2:23-24), “reason”, “ability to pass judgment,” “freedom of the will,” “moral capacity.”
[...]
This disposes of the dogmatic interpretation which goes back to Justin and Irenaeous that the צּלּﬦ is reason, which man retained after the Fall, whereas the ﬢמּוּתּ is justitia originalis, which he lost.

[...] implies that human life has a greater sanctity than animal life and that this difference is linked with the image of God imply that the writer intends by the phrase “image of God” to express in some way man’s peculiar dignity.

Porteous, N. W.; Image of God; The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible; 1962
[3/8/2024]

Jesus’ resurrection– the Father’s presentation of the crucified Jesus to the world for the life of the world– affects creation radically. The New Testament describes the effect of Jesus’ rising on the world, and on human beings in particular, in terms of a distinctive relation between the risen Jesus and human beings affected by his resurrection: we will be his icons. Even as we have borne the image (εικών) of fallen Adam, ‘the man of dust,’ so also we shall bear the image of the man of heaven, the risen Jesus Christ (cf. I Cor. 15:49). Bearing the image of Christ or of Adam seems to be a relation not simply of imitation or qualitative resemblance, such that we have the same dispositions or attributes as the one or the other, but (note Paul’s use of καθώϛ here) a kind of participation which includes existential dependence. Those who bear the image of the risen Jesus are shaped by this person himself in their total reality, as they once were shaped by the person Adam; they are ‘conformed (σúµµορφοϛ)’ to the risen Christ (Rom.8:29).

This conforming of human beings to the crucified and risen Christ is a unitary action of the whole Trinity, and indeed seems to realize the most interior and primal purposes of the triune God. The Father has eternally and effectively willed– predestined– our conformity to his Son (cf. Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5), who, by accepting the incarnation and death from which the Father raises him, constitutes that original form of which we are the intended images. The Spirit is the agent who, poured out from the Father by the risen Son and dwelling in us, immediately joins us to Christ and makes us his icons (cf. Rom. 8:9-11, 14).
[...]
The New Testament of course talks about the outcome of Jesus’ resurrection in many other ways, but the notion of sharing in God’s own life by ‘bearing the image of the man of heaven’ seems to express both the final aim and the original intention not only of the resurrection but of the totality of divine acts ad extra– that is, of creation as well as redemption. While for now we are icons of the risen Christ in fragmentary and partial ways, in the end the Spirit will enable us to see him– and with him the Father– as he is, and so be as much like God as it is possible for creatures to be (cf. I Jn. 3:2).

Bruce D. Marshall; ‘We Shall Bear the Image of the Man of Heaven’: Theology and the Concept of Truth; Rethinking Metaphysics; L. Gregory Jones; ed. 1995; p93,94

Edward W. Grinfield (1785-1864) quotes from Andrew Willet’s 1608 commentary on the book of Genesis dealing with the Image of God.
We cannot more appropriately close this Appendix, than by extracting the substance of a learned Note of Willet [1562-1621], upon Gen. i. 26 [1608]. Whilst it displays comprehensive erudition of the Author, I trust it will fully justify the choice of that interpretation which has been advocated in this Inquiry.
He begins with the opinion of
1. Epiphanius [4th c.], that it is utterly incomprehensible, on the supposition “that the perfect image of God is here understood without any difference or dissimilitude.”
2. Theodoret [5th c.], understands it of the man, exclusively of the woman.
3. Basil [4th c.]and Chrysostom [4th c.] interpret this image of the dominion which man had over the other creatures.
4. Augustin [354-430 AD], of the Immortality of the Soul.
5. Gregory of Nyssa [4th c.] because the soul is capable of goodness.
6. Damascen [4th c.] because man hath free will.
7. Peter Lombard [12th c.] The Master of the Sentences, because man hath reason and understanding.
Others, 1st. Because as all things are in God, so doth man participate in the nature of all other creatures. 2dly. As God can do all things by his power, so can man by reason, wit and art, compass many things difficult. 3dly. As God is the first end of all things, so is man the secondary end, for which all earthly things are created.
He then recites “the diverse conceits” of Augustin.
1st. That the image and similitude originally consist in the soul, and secondarily in the body, because it was made obedient to the soul, and of an upright form.
2dly. Because, as all things are in God, so all men were originally in Adam.
3dly. In dominion.
4thly. Because the soul is like unto God, inasmuch as it neither increases nor decreases.
5thly. On account of memory, understanding and will, which represent the Trinity.
6thly. Because the soul liveth by itself, and quickeneth the body.
7thly. Because the soul beareth the image of God in reason, and his similitude in charity.
He finally decides that the image consists not in the material substance of the faculties of the soul, but in the gifts of grace.
Besides these numerous and strange expositions, he recounts that of Rupertus, [17th c.] who ascribes the image to the second person of the Trinity, and the likeness to the Holy Spirit. “Neither are the words to be taken” he observes, “as though man was made according to the similitude of that human nature, which Christ, the Son of God, was to assume; whereas the scripture saith, that Christ took upon him the likeness of man, Phil. ii. 7, and not man his likeness.” Willet’s Hexapla in Genesis, London. 1682.
Grinfield, Edward William; A Scriptural Inquiry Into the Nature and Import of the Image and Likeness of God in Man;1837
[2-1-24]

MORE OF WHAT THE IMAGE OF GOD CANNOT BE
So far, we have talked about some characteristics of thinking and about man’s rationality being the image of God.
John Robbins; Thinking Biblically; 2022; ch5; Man as the Image of God

If rationality or understanding is the Image of God in man, then we would have to conclude that some mentally ill people lose the Image of God due to their illness, because they have lost the ability to reason. But that is not possible. The mentally ill and even those in a coma, having lost all ability to understand and reason, do not lose the Image of God.
Furthermore, rationality is not the exclusive attribute of man, but the angels, both sinless and fallen, have the qualities of rationality and understanding.
THUS, having rationality is NOT the definition of the Image of God.
[5/8/24]

The Image of God cannot be personality since angels also possess personality.

Man is created in God’s image. He is therefore like God in everything in which a creature can be like God. He is like God in that he too is a personality. This is what we mean when we speak of the image of God in the wider or more general sense.
Cornelius van Til; The Defense of the Faith; 1980; p13

Gender •  Craving Freedom
Reason • Righteousness • Sinlessness
Emotion: Love, Joy, Sadness, Anger, Pride, Desire

None of these are unique to man

We must find the answer in the reason why God created man.

Let’s return to the Key Questions.
*
Why did God create man?
TO KNOW GOD.
*
What should be our goal in life?
TO KNOW GOD.
*
What is the ‘everlasting life’ that Jesus gives?
KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
This is life everlasting, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent. Jn 17:3
*
What is the best thing in life, bringing more joy, delight, ad contentment, than anything else?
KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
thus says the Lord: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might, nor let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories, glory in this, that he understands and knows Me.” Jer. 9:23f
*
What, of all states God ever sees man in, gives Him the most pleasure?
KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF*
For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hos. 6:6

WHAT IS THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN?
THE POTENTIAL TO KNOW GOD.

and since God is Truth, Knowledge of God is knowledge of TRUTH.

The Image of God is man’s potential to know TRUTH.

Our maker has made us capable of Truth.
John Balguy; (1686-1748); The Foundation of Moral Goodness; 1728; p68

The Image of God Himself came to restore the copy of that Image in man, his appearance as man among men was the reconveying of the Truth to them, because He was the Truth Himself.

Thomas William Allies; The Formation of Christendom; vII; cVII; The Gods of the Nations When Christ Appeared; 1867; p108

[…] Climacus proceeds with the assumption that man is created by God and that when God created him He must have given him the condition for understanding the truth. […]  at one point man, obviously through his own fault, fell into untruth. […]  Since man is now bound in this condition and unable to work himself loose, he thus needs a savior. The savior is the one who desires to teach man truth […]
The only way to know God in truth is to relate to God as God has made it possible. […] In order to know God, one must know God according to the way in which God has made this possible, that is, through Christ by the faith that is conditioned by Christ. […] a person cannot know God in any other way than through this relationship.
[…]  since God evades the human intellect completely. The only way a human being can know God is by the means which God might give.
Christ is the way in the sense that he conditions the exact kind of relationship by which one relates to God and is thus in truth.
When the truth is to be understood concretely, a person can know truth, as we have said, only by being in truth, that is in the relationship with God through faith in Christ. If truth is to be understood in this way, then the only one who can communicate truth is God.
Matthew G. Jacoby; Kierkegaard on Truth; Religious Studies; v38; n1; 2002

[…] the doctrine of the image of God in man, a doctrine learned from Scripture, is an assertion of an a priori or innate equipment.
Gordon Clark; The Axiom of Revelation; Christian Philosophy; 2004; p300

Gen.i.26.- “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”: i.e., in the likeness of our image.* Not two things but one, though two words are employed.
*“image” is  צּלּﬦ (tzelem), εικών (eikon), 1 Cor.xi.7; Col.iii.10. “Likeness” is ﬢמּוּתּ (d’muth), ομοίωσις (homoiosis), Jas. iii.9.
E. W. Bullinger; Figures of Speech Used in the Bible; 1898; 1995; p659

The Link between the infinite and the finite, for evangelicals, is highlighted in the concept of the ‘the image of God’. There is much debate over how this phrase should be understood in its biblical context. For our purposes it is sufficient to say that God has consciously built something into human persons that in some way reflects his own nature; he is not wholly other from us, because he has chosen to make us in some aspects like himself. The supreme result of this is that we can relate to him, love him, and have some knowledge of him. […] Thus it is possible to argue that many facets of our experience and our knowledge are the result of God-given abilities, arising from the ‘image of God’ in us.
Peter Hicks; Evangelicals and Truth; 1998; p152

… God designedly made the human mind in his own image, in order that every man might have in himself the means of knowing God and thus the power of communing with him.
Edward Beecher; Man the Image of God; Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review; July 1850; vVII; p410

A Critical Analysis of A Scriptural Inquiry Into the Nature and Import of the Image and Likeness of God in Man by Edward William Grinfield, (1785-1864), London; 1830; 1837

In this book the author attempts to discover what would effectively be the definition of the term, the Image and likeness of God in man. Although he does not characterize his attempt in those terms, he presents several candidates as definitions of the IoG. He has investigated several preceding philosophers and theologians, and proposes his own idea of what he believes to be a valid and biblical definition of the IoG.
It is instructive to expose the errors in this essay, which can help us to better focus on the definition proposed in this discussion, that the IoG is the Potential to know Truth/God.
We have discovered that the definition of the IoG is based on a clear notion of the definition of Truth. But since Grinfield has no idea of this link, he cannot possibly arrive at the correct definition of the IoG.

He and others are deceived into thinking that by repeating the potent phrase “man is the Image of God,” that they have somehow defined the term or that they have enlightened us about its meaning.

His conclusion is “[...] that man was originally created after the image and likeness of the incarnate nature of the Son of God.” But not having defined what is meant by the IoG, we are not enlightened, but are left frustrated and unsatisfied.

WHAT THE IMAGE OF GOD CANNOT BE
p15- It must be admitted, indeed, there are some qualities so peculiar to human nature, that they cannot be ascribed to the Divine Being without manifest absurdity. To ascribe chastity or temperance or fortitude to unembodied Omnipotence, were unmeaning, if not derogatory to the Divine perfections. Perhaps even humility, the charm and excellence of a Christian, could scarcely with propriety be predicated of the Supreme; whilst the duty of obedience, or a sense of obligation, could find no place in the Almighty intellect.
And hence, if Adam were created in the “image and likeness of God,” and if that image and likeness comprised his moral nature and economy― if it denoted “the perfect man”― we cannot hope to ascertain its exact form and features by referring it to the Infinite and Eternal Deity.

p16- It is in this view, accordingly, we infer that the image and likeness of God in man should be referred, not to the invisible, but to the incarnate Deity; to that perfect “image and likeness” of human nature, which was borne by Jesus Christ […]
Here are one of the several errors  into which Grinfield falls, by ascribing the IoG NOT to the Godhead, but to the second person of the Trinity alone: the incarnate Jesus.

p19- And hence “the image of God in man” should never be construed by the Christian independently of our corporeal substance.
Grinfield makes another serious error by making the IoG to be, NOT a spiritual connection with God, but to be a shared physical attribute held in common between man and the incarnate Christ.

p23- “the image and likeness of God,” in which man was at first created, was no other than the incarnate “image and likeness” of Jesus Christ.
We now see Grinfield’s attempt to define the IoG here: “The image and likeness of God in man is the image and likeness of Jesus Christ.”
This is not how terms are defined. The term to be defined cannot occur both in the subject and the complement of a valid definition. Thus far Grinfield has failed in his attempt to define the IoG. A task which he has not fully realized.

p25- Thirdly, That image lost in Adam, is the same as that which is restored and regained by Christ.
Grinfield has confused the IoG with being saved and has decided that the IoG was lost when Adam sinned, which is patently false.

p31- We ask, whether the only link which is wanting to complete this chain of propositions, is not that truth which is here attempted to be supplied― viz.“That the image and likeness in which man was originally created, was the image and likeness of the incarnate nature of Jesus Christ?”
Again, Grinfield makes the same serious error of trying to define the IoG by offering a proposition where the definiendum occurs again in the definiens. This becomes another failed attempt in trying to define the IoG.

p46- If this exposition is admitted, we have a clear, distinct, and definite meaning affixed to a text, which was before extremely vague and indeterminate. Whether you place “the image and likeness” in dominion, in free will, in the immortality of the soul, or is some remote resemblance of our moral and intellectual faculties to the attributes of the eternal and  invisible Deity,― still “the image,” “the likeness,” is very faint and indistinct. It eludes the grasp of our mind […]
In the midst of his struggles, Grinfield admits that the definition of the IoG has eluded his mind.

p48- […] this was “the image and likeness” in which man was originally formed, and to which human nature is destined to be restored, through the incarnation and atonement of its Divine Author and Finisher.
Grinfield has again assumed that the IoG was lost at the fall, and that it will be restored thru Christ. Since the IoG was never lost, this assumption falls flat on its face.
Man was created in the IoG, but he did not have salvific, or eternally true,  knowledge of God. He was in a sinless state, yet still able to rebel. He could fall yet still retain his IoG.
When the IoG is not clearly defined & understood, the number of incorrect definitions become endless. Grinfield’s “definition” is one such error.

p49- In his body and mind, in his moral and intellectual faculties, he possessed the whole economy of our nature, in its pristine purity and perfection.
Grinfield’s repeated attribution of “perfection” to Adam is one of the reasons that he cannot arrive at a correct definition of the IoG. To ascribe “perfection” to Adam is a very serious error. Only God has that attribute. A perfect being would never rebel. Adam was sinless but was not created in a state of perfection.

p60- To think― that man was created in the “image and likeness” of Jesus Christ, and that, when he had lost that image, by sin, it was graciously restored through the incarnation and atonement, the death and resurrection of his Redeemer […]
First of all scripture declares that man was created in the image of God, not in the image of Jesus. Grinfield wants to link the IoG with some physical aspect of Jesus, so he intentionally overlooks the IoG and turns it into the IoJ to try and justify his rationale for his proposal of the IoG.
Secondly, he again asserts that man has lost the IoG due to the fall.
If the IoG was restored due to the atonement, then the IoG becomes an attribute of the Elect, the saved, the forgiven, but the rest of mankind remains without the IoG. This leaves us with the plainly false impression that the unsaved cannot regain the IoG. Thus leaving us with the false impression that the IoG is the property of the saved, the elect, only.
Trying to link the IoG with the character and works of Jesus, does not help us to find the definition of the IoG. Grinfield is grasping at straws & keeps repeating his mantra to try and convince others, and himself, of his incorrect definition.

p61- No difference of clime or colour, no variety of language or laws can obliterate the memory of that “image and likeness” which belong to all mankind […]
Here Grinfield contradicts his previous statement that man lost the IoG due to the Fall, but feeling uneasy, he introduces the idea of  “obliterating the memory of that ‘image and likeness’ which belongs to all mankind.”

p62- […] our humanity connects us with one universal Lord, and that every human being has the mark of the cross engraved upon his forehead. Should a doubt be felt whether any vestige of this image may still exist, even in the worst and most depraved of the human race, it would be removed by considering the extent of that universal denunciation,― “whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man.” [Gen. 9:6]
Here Grinfield finally realizes that scripture declares that the IoG in man was not lost at the Fall. This points to the confused mind of Grinfield, but he does not take the hint here to try and find a logical definition of the IoG. Most of his later assertions are based on his belief that man lost his IoG at the fall. But due to this verse and other concerns, he realizes that he must revise his assumption. Thus he postulates a new state for fallen man: a partial loss of the IoG, which Christ restores to the elect.

p62-3- To believe that man was originally made in the likeness of Him “who came into the world to save sinners”― to believe that our Maker, Redeemer, and Judge are comprised in Him “who contains all the riches of the Godhead bodily”― to know that Christianity aims at the restoration of our nature to its primeval state of purity and perfection, and that it will be our highest triumph, glory, and consummation, to be conformed to the image of Him who redeemed and restored us […]
Man will be raised to a much higher state than the state in which Adam was created. When saved, man begins to acquire eternal truth― “Jesus is Lord”― and fulfills the purpose for which he was created, to know God as He really is, to know eternal Truth.
Adam did not know any truth at all. But a saved man knows at least one eternal truth, the personal name of the second person of the Trinity: Jesus.
In the state for which man was created, coming to know God, man will be in a state much higher than in the state in which Adam existed.

p65- To know and estimate the extent of man’s fall from innocence and integrity, it is necessary to consider what is an image or likeness whilst whole and entire, in contrast to what it appears when broken, defaced, and mutilated.
The writer confuses being the image and likeness of God to the difference between the state of sinlessness and the state of being sinful with all of its awful repercussions.
He does not know what is the IoG, but keeps making claims about its primeval state, in the fallen state & in the final glorious state.

p65-6- And thus it is with man, considered as a creature who has lost that innocence and integrity in which he was at first created. His nature remains, but it is corrupted and debased. His faculties remain, they are spoilt and tarnished. Still he is man, and as such, though his nature be degraded and his faculties injured, he partakes even amidst ruin and decay of that “image and likeness” in which he was originally made.
The writer is making claims about the IoG without yet having defined it. Again he is assuming that man lost his IoG at the fall, or at least, his IoG was debased.

p66- And is not this the “image and likeness” in which Christ is exhibited to us throughout the whole course of his incarnation? “He went about doing good.”
Here the IoG is defined as being benevolent, exhibiting mercy and virtue. But these virtues are also exhibited by angels and by fallen man. So even fallen man is able to be virtuous and if man lost his IoG at the fall, then being virtuous cannot be the IoG.

p69- […] it is human nature so pure, so innocent, so free from every alloy of sin and selfishness, that it may well suggest what is denoted by “the image and the likeness of God.”
Here the writer suggests that the IoG is freedom from sin, which implies that man, having fallen into sin, has lost his IoG, contrary to what Scripture plainly reveals.

p70- Hence the nature of Adam, though sinless, was fallible […]
A biblically sound comment.

p73-4- Still we must not carry this contrast to the utter demolition of man’s moral or intellectual frame. The “image” was broken and defaced― nay, in a certain sense it was destroyed; yet such was its indestructible value and excellences, that it was capable of being renewed and restored by Him who made it.
He assumes that the IoG is being moral and intellectual. Repeating his unfounded views on the IoG, which he has not defined.

p74- And herein possibly consists the distinction between the man and the angel. The last are apparently created after the image and likeness of the invisible and eternal Deity; the former, on the model of the incarnate nature which was destined to constitute the humanity of the Son of God. […] perhaps there could have been no provision for the restoration of the fallen angel; whilst man, from being created in “the image and likeness” of the incarnate Deity, was capable of being redeemed, renewed, and restored to his original innocence and perfection,― even to “the image of Him who created him.” Col. iii. 10.
The author claims that angels were created in the image of the “invisible” Deity, while mankind was created in the image of the incarnate Son of God. There can hardly be a greater error in trying to define the IoG. Nowhere in scripture are we told that angels were created in the Image of the Deity or God. Such a baseless assumption is an incomprehensible assertion by a theologian. It is difficult to evaluate the thoughts of a person when their conclusions are based on such unscriptural assumptions.
He continues to make the completely unbiblical distinction between being created in the Image of the invisible Deity and being created in the image of the incarnate Christ. There is absolutely no justification for this divergence.
When one does not have a clear definition of the IoG, his errors multiply, as evidenced here where those made in the image of the Deity are not capable of being redeemed, while those created in the Image of the Incarnate Christ, can be redeemed and restored to a state of perfection.
The author does not see that he has made the Deity to have less powers than His Christ.
But once we understand what is the correct definition of the IoG, these assumptions are seen as what they are, unscriptural and even foolish.

p104- […] “that the faculties of man bear some remote resemblance to the attributes of the invisible Deity,”― yet they become far more clear, intelligible, and precise, if we admit that man was originally created according to the image and likeness of Jesus Christ, and that in these and all similar passages of the New Testament, a reference is made to that intimate and indissoluble union which subsists between the nature of man, and the incarnate humanity of the Son of God.
Again a serious error of claiming that there are two kinds of beings according to whose image creatures have been created. Previously he enumerates the several aspects of the character of Jesus, to show some similarity between the created humans and their Creator. But he leaves out the most important part of why humans were created, the knowing of God and the knowing of Truth.

CONCLUSION
Now that we know the correct definition of the term “the image and likeness of God,” we are able to evaluate incorrect propositions.

Being made in the Image and Likeness of God is to have the Potential to know eternal Truth, who is God.

Capax Dei is a Latin phrase that means “capable of God” or “fit for God.” It’s a Christian tradition that states that humans are capable of knowing God and receiving the gift of himself, even though they have limitations. The phrase is attributed to St. Augustine, who believed that humans have a spiritual soul that allows them to know, love, will, and transcend the material world. Augustine also believed that humans are created in the image of God, which means that God is always present in humans and humans are always before God. This implies that the human soul is immortal and has three basic functions: being, understanding, and loving.
Some say that the phrase capax Dei doesn’t usually mean “the capacity of God” in the English sense, but rather the capacity for God, or the ability of humans to relate to the divine. Others say that the phrase means that humans have a capacity for God’s revelation and graces, but it’s up to them to make room for this gift.

From Augustine, De Trinitate bk XIV, ch 8.11:
Mens eo ipso imago Dei est quo eius capax est, [11]
“The mind is the image of God, in that it is capable of Him and can be partaker of Him.”

Term capax Dei first seen in IMAGE; Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity; Angelo Di Berardino; ed.; v2; 2014; p321.
[6-9-25]

IMAGE OF GOD

Biblical designation for the unique nature, status, and worth of all human beings as created by God.

Christian thinkers have tried to locate the image of God (imago Dei) in various dimensions of man’s being, including man’s spirit, soul, rationality, will, mind, personhood, immortality, and even his physical body. But Scripture is not specific as to exactly what it is about man that constitutes the image of God. The image of God cannot be reduced to one attribute or any combination of attributes of man. The biblical portrait is more holistic. The entire man, as a human being, images God.

Creation- The biblical depiction of the image of God begins “in the beginning” when God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness,” (Gen. 1:26a NASB). The Hebrew word “image” (semel) refers to a representation , image, or likeness; it often refers to the way that an idol represented a god. “Likeness” (demut) means “similar in appearance,” usually visual appearance, but it can also refer to audible similarity. Taken together, “likeness” complements “image” to mean that man is more than a mere image; he is a likeness of God. Yet, regardless of whether one argues from definition or word order, attempts to distinguish sharply “image” from “likeness” are misguided. For centuries theologians have tried to contrast the “image” (as the physical, natural or rational part of man) over and against the “likeness” (as the spiritual, moral, and volitional part of man). While the terms semel and demut complement one another, three subsequent references to 1:26 all confirm that these two terms are essentially interchangeable ideas in the common Hebrew literary style of parallelism. On the one hand, in 1:27 “image” is used without “likeness.” On the other hand, in 5:1 “likeness” is used without “image.” In 5:3, both terms are used again in tandem but are in transposed order compared to 1:26. In any case, all three passages point back to 1:26 and communicate the big idea of God’s image.

In understanding the image of God, it is more important that the immediate scriptural context of the original divine pronouncement in 1:26 is the creation of the animal kingdom. In contrast to the animal creation, humankind is made in the image of God in a separate act of creation. Man originates apart from any connection with the animal creation and certainly not from evolution. Also, for the first time in the creation narrative, the divine “let Us” is used in conjunction with the creation act. Added to this, the immediate scriptural context after this introduction of the “image of God” is the additional charge that man “subdue” the earth and “rule over” all of its other creatures (1:26,28). On the surface, man’s earthly authority here sets him apart from the rest of creation. Below the surface, this dominion imago Dei motif stands in contrast to ancient pagan religious belief that only ruling kings enjoyed royal standing before the gods and men, as evidenced by their dominion which they presumed to exercise on behalf of their deities. In contrast the biblical picture of imago Dei means that all human beings, not just kings, possess special royal status as God’s appointed stewards over the earth. By virtue of mankind’s ruling over the rest of God’s creatures and earth, every member of the human race somehow represents and reflects the sovereign Lord of creation.

Procreation- Both sexes reflect the image of God as “male and female” (1:27) and were commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” (1:28). This population mandate was inaugurated in Gen. 5:1-3 with the clear implication that the imago Dei was passed from Adam and Eve to their son Seth. This text frames the image of God around the theme of sonship. When Luke references Gen. 5:1-3, he calls Adam the “son of God” (Luke 3:38 HCSB). These two passages together communicate a common idea: from God, Adam received the imago Dei; from Adam, Seth received the imago Dei. Adam’s sin and its negative consequences for the entire human race without doubt marred the image of God, as no aspect of man’s being was unaffected by the fall. Yet it is presumptive to assume that the image of God was completely lost through sin. To the contrary, Seth and his progeny received and passed down the image.

This multifaceted image of God in man, as represented in the creation-procreation themes of stewardship and sonship, is also present in Ps.8. Here “man” and “son of man” are made “little less than God” and given glory, honor, and dominion (Ps. 8:3-8). So much does sinful man still bear that image that Paul states that fallen man “is God’s image and glory” (1 Cor. 11:7 HCSB). While sin distorted and disfigured the image of God in man, it did not diminish its worth. In fact, post-fall human life is still sacred precisely because of the imago Dei, so sacred that it should not be taken (Gen. 9:6-7) or cursed (James 3:9).

Incarnation- Although much of mankind images God by virtue of stewardship and sonship, only one man is the true image of God, with the full authority of the Father, as the only begotten Son of God. Jesus Christ “is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:4 HCSB); “He is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15 HCSB). This is the great fact of the incarnation (John 1:14,18; Phil. 2:5-8). As the only God-Man, among men Jesus Christ alone mirrors God as “the exact expression of His nature” (Heb. 1:3 HCSB). As such, Jesus Christ is God’s ultimate steward and God’s true Son (Heb. 2:6-8).

Redemption- While the image of God in man was injured as a result of sin, that damage is more than countered by the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, for those who believe. The Christian is to “put on the new man, who is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of his Creator” (Col. 3:10 HCSB; cp. Eph. 4:24). “Reflecting the glory of the Lord,” the believer is progressively sanctified, “being transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18 HCSB; cp. Rom. 8:28-29).

Glorification- Because of the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, believers are promised a final transformation into the likeness of Christ at His return. “As we have borne the image of the man made of dust, we will also bear the image of the heavenly man” (1 Cor. 15:49 HCSB; cp. 42,45-48). While there may be much about the image of God that Christians cannot understand or know in their current state, the revelation of Jesus Christ will change believers for eternity. “We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2 HCSB; cp. Phil. 3:21).

Jerry A. Johnson; Holman Illustrated Bibile Dictionary; Image of God; pp806-807; 2003
[7/19/25]

Man’s relation to God and angels.

What does it mean that Jesus was a little lower than the angels (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7)?

Psalm 8:5 is a prophecy about Jesus Christ. As the psalmist reflects on the glory of the Lord, his mind turns to the greatness of God’s creation. He also begins to think about man and asks this question in Psalm 8:4: “What is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (ESV). Then verse 5 reads, “Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor” (ESV). (In the Hebrew text, “heavenly beings” is Elohim, a common name for God; the Septuagint has the word angelos, which means “angel.”) Psalm 8:6 continues, “You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (ESV). The psalmist understood from Genesis 1:26–28 that God gave mankind the authority to rule over the created world. The title “son of man” could refer to Adam as the head of the human race. Being created with a human body and given this authority, Adam was made “a little lower” than the angels, yet he was crowned with glory and honor because he was made in the image of God.

In Hebrews 2:6–8 the writer quotes Psalm 8:5 and then comments on the totality of creation’s subjection to the “son of man”: “In putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control” (ESV). Then the author of Hebrews identifies the “son of man” as Jesus Christ: “But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (verse 9, ESV).

Applying Psalm 8:5 to Jesus Christ, the writer of Hebrews applies the title “son of man” to Jesus. This stresses the humanity of Christ and his tie to the first Adam and sets Him apart as the greatest example of man. Jesus Christ is really the Second Adam, the new Adam, who has come to deal directly with what the first Adam brought upon mankind and could never defeat, namely death (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). The Gospel of Luke’s theme is that Jesus is the Son of man (see Luke 19:10); Jesus is the Second Adam come to deliver mankind from death, through His cross, burial, and empty tomb.

Also, by taking upon Himself sinless flesh in the Incarnation Jesus was made “a little lower than the heavenly beings.” Jesus “made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant” when He took on human flesh (Philippians 2:7). The Lawgiver placed Himself in subjection to the Law (Galatians 4:4). He who was rich became poor for our sakes (2 Corinthians 8:9). “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). Angels marvel at the Incarnation and desire to look into the gospel (1 Peter 1:12).

Being made a “little lower than the angels” and taking on a body eternally did not in any way diminish the deity of Christ. Jesus never ceased to be God; He simply showed the meekness and condescension of God. After the Incarnation, He was the God-man.

As a result of His atoning work on the cross, Jesus was crowned with glory and honor, and He is now seated at the right hand of His heavenly Father (Colossians 3:1). The author of Hebrews points out that Jesus’ humble state was but temporary: “for a little while” He was made lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7). Jesus is exalted above all angels, and some day every knee will bow at His name and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:9–11).

Believers in Christ will reign with Him in the future, glorious millennium. Christ will subject all things to Himself as the Second Adam. What the first Adam and his descendants failed to accomplish because of our sin (cf. Hebrews 2:8), the last Adam will accomplish, and the curse will be reversed (see Isaiah 65:17–25). All believers will share in Christ’s glory forever, living with Him in His new heaven and new earth. Without Jesus becoming “a little lower” than the angels, there would be no redemption for any of us. Praise the Lord that He humbled Himself to come to us and seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10).

https://www.gotquestions.org/little-lower-angels.html

Psalm 8:5/6
in several translations

Hebrew = Elohim = God
LXX = angelos = angels

Amplified - God
Arabic - angels
Armenian - angels
Armenian Ancient - like yourself
ASV - God
Beck - God
Berkeley - heavenly beings
Brenton - angels
Complete Jewish Bible - angels
DeWitt - Divine
GNT – to yourself
GWT - yourself
Harrison - Deity
Israel - divine
Jerusalem - a god
KJV - angels
Living - angels; note: only a little lower than God!
LSB - angels
Maximos - angels
NASV - God
NEB - a god
NET - heavenly beings
NIV - heavenly beings
NJB - a god
NKJV - angels
Pietersma - angels
RSV - God
RV 1881 - God
The Message - gods
Thomson - angels
TNIV - heavenly beings
Van der Pool - angels

Hebrews 2:7
You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor