In Genesis 1:26-27, God said, “‘Let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Let them rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, over the cattle in all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” What does it mean for God to make man in his image? This question has been asked by many throughout the age of the Church. Many and varying positions have been proposed. This post serves simply to survey these positions.

Structural Perspective

Three major positions have been typically held by the major figures throughout the history of the Church: the structural, relational, and functional perspectives. The structural position has been the most widely accepted position. This view suggests that there is something about our structure–that is, our physical makeup or formation–that constitutes man’s being made in the image of God. In line with Aristotle, the early church focused its teaching concerning the image of God on human reason and free will. Augustine emphasized the structural elements of human memory, intellect, and volition and spoke of them as a reflection of the Triune God. During the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between the image and the likeness of God; he associated the immaterial aspects of the human with the divine image and the material aspects to the likeness of God. Thus, he positioned the image of God in man’s reason. These structural capacities were thought to be what separated man from animals and what enabled them to have a relationship with God.

[...]

How does the Son fulfill his role alongside the Father and Holy Spirit in the stage of creation? What is the Holy Spirit’s role in the creation of the universe? And more commonly answered, what is the Father’s role in the creation of the universe? These are all relevant questions for the thinking Christian. How many of us look at Scripture through the lens of God’s redemptive acts and stages?  Whether we have not been taught how, or whether we are stuck in a ‘what does this text mean to me?’ phase, understanding redemptive history and how God, in triune relationship with himself, works for our good and his glory is the big lens we must learn to look through when reading the Bible. So for the purpose of this article, how can we begin to see the mighty Triune God working together to create the seemingly exhaustive, ever-expanding universe

Redemptive history can be broken down into 4 stages: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation. As we look specifically at the stage of Creation, we understand that the Father is the primary member of the Trinity who creates by speaking the world into existence (Genesis 1:1, Hebrews 11:3, Hebrews 1:2). Genesis 1:1 says, “God created the heavens and the earth.” Then, in Genesis 1:2, we find our first reference to a Trinitarian Creator-God with the mention of the Holy Spirit. We find our second reference to a Trinitarian Creator-God in Genesis 1:26 which states, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness (emphasis added).’” With the unfolding of Scripture through a progression of redemptive history we come to note three things about how the Son specifically interacts with the Father and Holy Spirit within the stage of creation.

1) The Father created the cosmos through Jesus, the Son. John says in John 1:1-3 about the deity of Jesus, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” A direct comparison can be made between the wording John uses here and that used in Genesis 1:1 concerning the creation of the world. Instead of “In the beginning God created,” John has “In the beginning was the Word.” This locates Jesus’ existence in eternity past with God and sets the stage for John’s lofty Christology.[1] Other passages that speak of the Father creating the world through the Son are Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2.

2) Jesus, the Son, is the sustainer and upholder of the entire cosmos. Not only is Jesus the instrument by which the entire cosmos was created, he is also the instrument by which the cosmos is sustained. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews says in Hebrews 1:3 that Jesus “upholds the universe by the word of his power.” The author of Hebrews also says concerning the Son that he is the ”heir of all things”, the instrument the Father used when he created the world, the radiance of the Father’s glory, and the exact representation of the Father’s nature. This glorious and powerful description of the Son’s preeminence is central to a proper understanding of redemptive history. He is the heir; he is the one the world was created through, he is the radiance of the Father’s glory; and he is the exact representation of the Father’s nature. This poetic imagery of Christ upholding the vastness of the universe is also mentioned in Colossians 1:15-20, which is worth quoting in full here:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church and He is the beginning, the first born from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.”

Paul’s famous theological treaty of the preeminence of Christ is very rich with creation language. First of all, Paul references that Christ is “the image of the invisible God,” alluding back to Genesis 1:27 where man was created in the image and likeness of God. Paul’s language here is virtually identical to the ’Sonship’ language used elsewhere in Genesis 5:1-4 as Adam’s ‘image-bearing’ likeness to God the Father implies that Adam was God’s son.[2] When Adam’s son was born, Adam was said to be the “father of (a son) in his own likeness and according to his own image.”[3] The ‘image’ language Paul uses here implies that Jesus is God’s son, as Adam was God’s son. But Paul goes further in saying that this ‘son’ is the “firstborn of all creation”. This reference in the second line of Colossians 1:15 to Christ as the “firstborn of all creation” further highlights the idea that he was an Adamic figure and ‘son’ of God.[4] G.K. Beale says this concerning this Adamic comparison, “By a similar application, Christ is the last Adam, who is the “firstborn,” not only of all humanity in the new creation but also of ‘all [things in the old] creation.’”[5] In verse 16-17, Paul gives another reference to Christ being the instrument the world was created through, but Paul goes further in stating that not only were all things created through him but also “all things were created…for him” and “in Him all things hold together.”

3) Jesus, the Son, is the Creator of the entire cosmos. Paul acknowledges in Colossians 1 that Christ is the sovereign creator of the entire world, giving uniqueness to his ‘oneness’ with the Father. Paul seems to be stating two things here that are of equal importance: 1) Jesus, the son, is the perfect and divine Creator of all things, who is separate from and sovereign over all that he has created, and 2) Christ perfectly embodies the ruling position that Adam and his flawed human successors should have held.[6]

As we dive into Scripture and begin to view Scripture through a redemptive historical lens, we begin to learn the beautiful intricacies of the world we live in. In our minds and in our understanding of scripture, may Christ reign over us not only as our Warrior-King but also as the sovereign Creator and Sustainer of the universe.

[1]Beale, G.K., and D.A. Carson Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 2007), 421.

[2]Ibid., 851.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid., 853.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid., 854.

One evening while I was spending time with my fiance’s family in their living room, her father turned on the television to ABC.  Usually I refrain from watching television but a show came on which instantly fixated my attention: “Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition.”    I had seen before, and others had told me about, the amazing things that the regular “Extreme Makeover” show had brought about for people — remodeled houses for people who couldn’t afford it yet needed it and for those who give their lives to some great cause and are without funds to repair their homes.  Yet, when I saw this same show having a “Weight Loss Edition,” I was shocked at the mere idea of it.  The first episode I saw consisted of someone who weighed over 500 lbs. and had to be weighed on a freight scale because no other scale was able to weigh them.  As the show progresses, usually this individual learns to eat healthy, exercise, and then by the end of the show they look like an entirely different person.  The makeover ends up being, well, extreme – sometimes people go from over 500 lbs. to a normal and average weight.  It is just shocking to see the transformation.

Watching this show and simply scoffing at the morbidly obese person is easy.  Yet, the situation is a little different when the spotlight is turned to ourselves.  Regardless of our weight and body appearance, are we actually serious about our own personal health management?  As strange as it reads, sometimes skinnier people who appear to look good can be unhealthier than someone who is slightly overweight, based on what they eat, how much they exercise, what they drink, and so forth. Given that most Americans, including Christians, are overweight, eat out often, and don’t exercise, it seems we are probably not very concerned about our own health management.  Just consider yesterday – how many calories did you eat versus how many you’re supposed to eat?  How many calories did you bur?  What was the difference between the two?  And how helpful was your exercise and those foods you ate?  Or do you even have any idea about those questions or the answers to those questions?

We must be serious about our health management because God who created our bodies is serious about them.  Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?  You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.  So, glorify God in your body.”  If we are Christians, then the Holy Spirit actually dwells in us.  Therefore, we are to honor God with our bodies.  This transcends into even how we manage it physically.

If you are like me up until the past couple months, you probably have had little knowledge about how to manage your physical health.  That’s okay!  We have plenty of resources available.  Apps like LIVESTRONG and MyFitnessPal have helped me calculate how many calories I am supposed to have, how to track them for everything I eat, how to track my workout, to being to see a difference in my lifestyle, and then to track my monthly progress.  I would offer these apps and similar online resources to aid you as you learn to manage your health.  So, instead of making fun and simply be shocked at the morbidly obese person on television, let’s actually follow Paul’s teaching and glorify God with our bodies by managing our physical health in a way that is honoring to God.

This post stands as the final installment to my five part series, which has dealt with the doctrine of justification and the differences that exist between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism concerning this doctrine. In my first post, I introduced the debate, explaining what is at stake and gave some context to the issue (read it here). In the second post, I attempted to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). In the third post, I sought to define and explain the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed righteousness (read it here). In the last post, I intended to present a critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification (read it here). In this final post, my goal is to respond to some of the most common objections that Rome has raised against the Protestant doctrine of justification.

[...]

Roman Catholics and Protestants have many doctrinal commonalities. However, they differ, and differ tragically, when it comes to their soteriology and their views of justification. In the first entry to this series, I introduced the discussion, explaining what is at stake and gave some context to the issue (see this post here). In the second entry, I sought to define and articulate the Roman Catholic teaching on justification—righteousness infused through the sacraments (read it here). Last time, I attempted to define and explain the Protestant doctrine of justification—imputed righteousness (read it here). In this post, I intend to present a critique of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification.

The grave and historical error made by Rome is that they have failed to understand and believe the true message of the gospel: that man is saved by grace alone through faith in Christ alone. The damning flaw in Rome’s doctrine lies in its denial of this great truth. Since the Reformation, the most important criticisms of the Catholic view of justification have had to do with its inclusion of and need for meritorious works. While Rome seeks to emphasize that its views on merit should be understood in concert with God’s grace, it neglects the scriptural teaching that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive. The faulty Catholic doctrine of justification has much to do with the many problems in their teachings on merit.

[...]

As with many topics in theology, a discussion of homosexuality must take into account the historical redemptive metanarrative of the Bible. In this scheme, Christians begin by pondering the nature of the world as it was in the perfect and harmonious state of creation. The first two chapters of Genesis explain that God created everything that exists, and everything that he created he deemed to be good. But, this creation was never meant to be an end in itself. Instead, God intended it to bring about his worship.

The metanarrative progresses and the story unfortunately gets worse. As the third chapter of Genesis rolls around, we see that things go very wrong. Adam and Eve rebel against God’s law, and everything in the world is thrown into confusion. What was originally beautiful and harmonious becomes ugly and dreadful. The whole world is thrown out of rhythm. The hearts, minds, emotions, wills, and bodies of men are corrupted by sin. Relationships are disrupted, and everything in existence is contaminated. God would have been just in killing Adam and Eve. After all, the wages of sin is death. They deserved to die. However, God decided to show them mercy. He provided clothes for them to cover them in their shame. He cast them out of the Garden to keep them away from the tree of life, thus protecting them from an existence of eternal dying. God could have demonstrated his wrath on Adam and Eve. Yet he chose to show mercy.

As the storyline of the Bible continues, we see men and women sinning over and over again. Obviously, something is wrong with us. The good news is that God’s plan of redemption provides a remedy for the problem. As the metanarrative continues, we see glimpses of God’s plan to restore creation through the person and work of the Messiah who would come, Jesus Christ.

[...]

Why do we celebrate Easter? Why did Jesus have to die? What was accomplished on the cross? What is important about Christ’s resurrection? Thabiti Anyabwile and Erwin Lutzer help us to think through these important matters.

Rob Bell is dead wrong with his redefinition of “hell.”  He redefines hell in an unbiblical fashion.  Following his discussion of his universalism in Velvet Elvis, he writes,

Heaven is full of forgiven people.  Hell is full of forgiven people.  Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for.  Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for.  The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust.  Ours or God’s (146).

On the next page Bell defines hell as a “way of living out of sync with how God created us to live” (147).  He defines hell one more time by asking the question about what people mean why they use the word “hell”; he claims that people mean “a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be” (148).  In contrast, using Bell’s preferred translation – the TNIV, the word for hell is used thirteen times; in every occurrence, it refers to an eschatological place of judgment. “Hell” is nowhere defined in the Bible as Bell defines it.  He cites absolutely no Scripture in support of his position in Velvet Elvis.  In light of the ample scriptural evidence against his redefinition this present writer wonders why Bell has provided such a definition.

In Love Wins he offers some scriptural support for his position (for a full critique of his position please see Kevin DeYoung’s full critique of Bell’s new book).  Yet he fails to take seriously the claims of Jesus in the verses cited below and also Bell fails to cite any actual source to support his redefinition of hell.  Thus, he is making up his own “hell” in this new book.  To be certain, though he may want to suppose hell is different from an actual place as Jesus explains, Bell is only fooling himself.  The Bible is clear – a literal, eternal place of judgment awaits those who do not come to Jesus for salvation.  Our task is still to preach the gospel to sinners on their way to an actual hell.  To my remarks Bell would probably claim that he believes in literal hell (Love Wins, Kindle edition).  Yet, when he writes “literal” he wants his readers to keep in mind Bell’s redefinition of hell.  To that I would simply examine the Scriptures below and also what is recorded in Revelation in order to reveal his errors.  Perhaps our readers could comment on this post as to how they would refute him if given the chance.

(1)Matt 5:22, 5:29, 5:30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,  23:33; Mark 9:43, 9:45, 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6; 2 Peter 2:4.  The TNIV was searched via biblegateway.com.