Image
IMAGE
An exact and complete copy or counterpart of any thing. Christ is called “the image of God,” 2Co 4:4 Col 1:15 Heb 1:3, as being the same in nature and attributes. The image of God in which man was created, Gen 1:27 was in his spiritual, intellectual, and moral nature, in righteousness and true holiness. The posterity of Adam were born in his fallen, sinful likeness, Gen 5:3 ; and as we have borne the image of sinful Adam, so we should be molded into the moral image of the heavenly man Christ, 1Co 15:47-49 2Co 3:18 .”An image,” Job 4:16, was that which seemed to the dreamer a reality. The word sometimes appears to include, with the image, the idea of the real object, Psa 73:20 Heb 10:1 . It is usually applied in the Bible to representations of false gods, painted, graven, etc., Dan 3:1-30 . All use of images in religious worship was clearly and peremptorily prohibited, Exo 20:4,5 Deu 16:22 Mal 17:16 1Ch 1:23 . Their introduction into Christian churches, near the close of the fourth century, was at first strenuously resisted. Now, however, they are universally used by Papists: by most in a gross breach of the second commandment, and by the best in opposition to both the letter and the spirit of the Bible, Exo 20:4,5 32:4,5 De 4:15 Isa 40:18-31 Joh 4:23,24 Jer 22:8,9 .The “chambers of imagery,” in Eze 8:7-12, had their walls covered with idolatrous paintings, such as are found on the still more ancient stone walls of Egyptian temples, and such as modern researches have disclosed in Assyrian ruins. See NINEVEH.
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Image
The use of this term in the apostolic writings may be conveniently discussed under three heads.
1. Connexion with idolatry.-Apart from Rom 1:23, where St. Paul is reviewing the corruption of the pagan world and the perversity with which men neglected the living God for the likeness of an image of men, birds, quadrupeds, and reptiles, all our references are found in the Apocalypse and concern the particular form of idolatry that acutely distressed the early Church, viz. the worship of the bust of Caesar. This image is first brought forward in Rev 13:14 f. (but cf. Satans throne at Pergamum, Rev 2:13). The Seer has described the Roman Empire in the guise of a monster rising out of the sea (Rev 2:1 ff.), and its counterpart, a monster from the land (afterwards described as the false prophet), who represents the Caesar-cult and its priests in the Eastern provinces. This sacerdotal land-monster is plausible and seductive, and his inducements to Christians to show themselves good citizens are backed up by miracles. The image or statue of the first monster, i.e. the bust of the Emperor, is set up among the statues of the gods to receive the offerings and devotion of the citizens, and through ventriloquy it seems to have the power of speech. The cult was enforced with all the resources that could be devised, and to counteract it an angel utters fearful judgment on all who worship the monster and his statue (Rev 14:9-11). The supremely happy fate of those who resisted both blandishment and compulsion is depicted in Rev 15:2 f. and Rev 20:4; the punishment of those who conformed, in Rev 16:2 and Rev 19:20. See, further, article Idolatry.
We may note at this point that the word (like ) in classical Greek usually stands for the portrait statues or paintings of men and women; seldom for images of the gods. An instance of its use in the NT which may be regarded as focusing the range of its varied application and as a transition from the above discussion to those which follow, is found in Heb 10:1, where the Mosaic Law is spoken of as being a mere shadow of the coming bliss, instead of representing its reality or being its very image. The shadow is the dark outlined figure cast by the object contrasted with the complete representation () produced by the help of colour and solid mass. The brings before us under the conditions of space, as we can understand it, that which is spiritual (B. F. Westcott, in loc.).
2. Christ as the image of God.-Two of the passages where Christ is spoken of as the image of God are Pauline-2Co 4:4 (the image of God), and Col 1:15 (the image of the invisible God). The first is in a context which clearly points back to the Apostles conversion experiences. All his thought turns on his doctrine of the Divinity of Christ, and the basis of that doctrine was the bright vision he had beheld on the way to Damascus. This was his distinctive gospel, that which marked him off from those who simply knew the human Jesus, blameless and pure though His life had been. In the second passage he is concerned to set before the people of Colossae the overwhelming superiority of Christ as a mediator between man and God, over the many and strange spirits and forces which they thought of as intervening between the Divine and the human. Hence he uses the word , which, even in its material sense already referred to, connotes true representation rather than accidental similarity, and representation of that which is at any rate temporarily out of sight. His thought is that Christ is the external expression as it were of God: at once His representation and manifestation. Ethically and essentially He is at once the Revealer and the Revelation of the Eternal Spirit (J. Strachan, The Captivity and the Pastoral Epp. [Westminster NT, 1910], p. 41). It is not simply that He is like God-He is God manifest. And beyond the reference to the earthly life and ministry of Christ, even primarily perhaps, there is the implication that in the timeless heavenly life He is the , Gods representative acting in the sphere of the visible (cf. Joh 1:18, Heb 1:3). We may state it more fully thus: Christ is the outcome of His Fathers nature, and so related to Him in a unique manner; and He is especially the means by which the Father has manifested Himself to all that is without, from the first moment of creation and for ever, though the centre and focus of that manifestation is the Incarnation. We recall at once the Johannine doctrine of the Logos; the one is a manifestation to the mind of man through Ear-gate, the other (Image) through Eye-gate. A title given to the Logos in the Midrash, the light of the raiment of the Holy One, is suggestive in this connexion. We are reminded also of Christs own word recorded in Joh 14:9 : he that hath seen me hath seen the Father (cf. also Joh 8:19; Joh 8:42). There are other modes of the Divine manifestation; through creation itself he who has an eye to see may behold the invisible things of God (Rom 1:20), but there is no revelation or manifestation so sure, so adequate, so satisfying as that in Christ.
At this point we may notice the striking expression in Heb 1:3 where Christ, in a passage reminding us of Colossians, is spoken of as the very image of Gods substance. The word used is , which meant originally a graving tool and then the impression made by such a tool, especially on a seal or die, and the figure struck off by such seal or die; hence the translations stamped with Gods own character (Moffatt), the impress of Gods essence (Peake). The Son is thus the exact counterpart of the Father, the exact facsimile, the clear-cut impression which possesses all the characteristics of the original. Again it is noteworthy that Philo (de Plant. Noae, 5) speaks of the Logos as the impression on the seal of God. Westcott (in loc.) distinguishes from by saying that the former conveys representative traits only, while the latter gives a complete representation under the condition of earth of that which it figures; and from , which marks the essential form.
3. Man as the image of God or of Christ.-The fundamental text, Gen 1:26-27, is the basis of St. Pauls statement in 1Co 11:7 (cf. Col 3:10). Man is the image of God in those matters of rational and moral endowment which distinguish him from the humbler creation. St. Paul would no doubt have subscribed to Justin Martyrs statement that God in the beginning made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative (Apol. i. 28). In neither the OT nor the NT are we to press for a difference between image and likeness, which are used as synonyms. The image has, however, been marred and obscured by mens sin. Yet there is the glorious possibility of its renewal and restoration. The new man in Christ Jesus bears once more the image of his Creator (Col 3:10); he becomes akin to God, is able to know Him ( ) and His will in all the affairs of life. In this perfected likeness to God human distinctions, whether of nationality, religious ceremonial, culture, or caste, fall away-in it there is no room for Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free man; Christ is everything and everywhere. This agrees with Rom 8:29, in which the elect are spoken of as sharing the image of Gods Son-that He might be the firstborn of a great brotherhood. Thus it matters little whether we speak of bearing Christs image or Gods, and it is fruitless to debate which is prior in time. The two are one. To be conformed to the image of Christ is to share not only His holiness but His glory-a thought brought before us in 2Co 3:18 (We all mirror the glory of the Lord with face unveiled, and so we are being transformed into the same image as himself, passing from one glory to another) and in 1Co 15:49 (as we have borne the image of material man so we are to bear the image of the heavenly Man). In the first of these passages the spirit of the believer is likened to a mirror which receives the unobstructed impression of the glory of the Lord. That glory takes up its abode in the Christian, and instead or fading as in the case of Moses, becomes ever more glorious (cf. Rom 8:11). The assimilation of Christs mind and character involves the assimilation of His splendour. The outer man may perish but the inner man, the real man, waxes more and more radiant, strong, and immortal, till it dwells, like its Lord, wholly in the light. With these passages, and especially with the second, which points forward, we may compare 1Jn 3:2 f., We are to be like him, for we are to see him as he is. While the primary implication is ethical and spiritual it is not the only one in the NT thought of our likeness to Christ.
Literature.-Besides the Commentaries, especially A. S. Peake, Expositors Greek Testament : Colossians, 1903; A. Menzies, The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, 1912; and B. F. Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, 1889; see, for Christ as the image of God, W. L. Walker, Christ the Creative Ideal, 1913, pp. 52f., 60f.; H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, 1912, pp. 65, 83; for man as the image of God, H. Wheeler Robinson, Christian Doctrine of Man, 1911, p. 164f.; on image-worship in the Roman Empire and its parallels to-day, C. Brown, Heavenly Visions, 1910, pp. 70f., 175-183.
A. J. Grieve.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
IMAGE
In a religious sense, is an artificial representation of some person or thing used as an object of adoration; in which sense it is used synonymously with idol. The use and adoration of images have been long controverted. It is plain, from the practice of the primitive church, recorded by the earlier fathers, that Christians, during the first three centuries, and the greater part of the fourth, neither worshipped images, nor used them in their worship. However, the generality of the popish divines maintain that the use and worship of images are as ancient as the Christian religion itself: to prove this, they allege a decree, said to have been made in a council held by the apostles at Antioch, commanding the faithful, that they may not err about the object of their worship, to make images of Christ, and worship them. Baron. ad. ann. 102. But no notice is taken of this decree till seven hundred years after the apostolic times, after the dispute about images had commenced. The first instance that occurs, in any credible author, of images among Christians, is that recorded by Tertullian de Pudicit. 100: 10, of certain cups or chalices, as Beliarmine pretends, on which was represented the parable of the good shepherd carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders: but this instance only proves that the church, at that time, did not think emblematical figures unlawful ornaments of chalices.
Another instance is taken from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. lib. 7: cap. 18, ) who says, that in his time there were to be seen two brass statues in the city of Paneas, or Caesarea Philippi; the one of a woman on her knees, with her arm stretched out; the other of a man over against her, with his hand extended to receive her; these statues were said to be the images of our Saviour, and the woman whom he cured of an issue of blood. From the foot of the statue representing our Saviour, says the historian, sprung up an exotic plant, which as soon as it grew to touch the border of his garment, was said to cure all sorts of distempers. Eusebius, however, vouches none of these things; nay, he supposes that the woman who erected this statue of our Saviour was a pagan, and ascribes it to a pagan custom. Philostorgius (Eccl. Hist. lib. 7: 100: 3.) expressly says that this statue was carefully preserved by the Christians, but that they paid no kind of worship to it, because it is not lawful for Christians to worship brass, or any other matter. The primitive Christians abstained from the worship of images, not, as the Papists pretend, from tenderness to heathen, idolaters, but because they thought it unlawful in itself to make any images of the Deity. Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Origen, were of opinion, that, by the second commandment, painting and engraving were unlawful to a Christian, styling them evil and wicked arts. Tert. de Idol. cap. 3. Clem Alex. Admon. ad Gent. p. 41. Origen contra Celsum, lib. 6: p. 182. the use of images in churches, as ornaments, was first introduced by some Christians in Spain, in the beginning of the fourth century; but the practice was condemned as a dangerous innovation, in a council held at Eliberis, in 305. Epephanius, in a letter preserved by Jerome, tom. 2: Eph 6:1-24, bears strong testimony against images; and he may be considered as one of the first iconoclasts.
The custom of admitting pictures of saints and martyrs into churches (for this was the first source of image worship) was rare in the end of the fourth century, but became common in the fifth. But they were still considered only as ornaments, and, even in this view, they met with very considerable opposition. In the following century, the custom of thus adorning churches became almost universal, both in the East and West. Petavius expressly says (de Incar. lib. 15: cap. 14.) that no statues were yet allowed in the churches, because they bore too near a resemblance to the idols of the Gentiles. Towards the close of the fourth, or beginning of the fifth century, images, which were introduced by way of ornament, and then used as an aid to devotion began to be actually worshipped. However, it continued to be the doctrine of the church in the sixth, and in the beginning of the seventh century, that images were to be used only as helps to devotion, and not as objects of worship. The worship of them was condemned in the strongest terms by Gregory the Great, as appears by two of his letters written in 601.
From this time to the beginning of the eighth century, there occurs no instance of any worship given, or allowed to be given to images, by any council or assembly of bishops whatever. But they were commonly worshipped by the monks and populace in the beginning of the eighth century; insomuch, that in 726, when Leo published his famous edict, it had already spread into all the provinces subject to the empire. The Lutherans condemn the Calvinists for breaking the images in the churches of the Catholics, looking on it as a kind of sacrilege; and yet they condemn the Romanists (who are professed image-worshippers) as idolaters: nor can these last keep pace with the Greeks, who go far beyond them in this point, which has occasioned abundance of disputes among them.
See ICONOCLASTES. The Jews absolutely condemn all images, and do not so much as suffer any statues or figures in their houses, much less in their synagogues, or places of worship. The Mahometans have an equal aversion to images; which led them to destroy most of the beautiful monuments of antiquity, both sacred and profane, at Constantinople Bingham’s Orig. Eccl. b. 8: 100: 8. Middleton’s Letters from Rome, p. 21. Burnet on the Art. p. 209, 219. Doddridge’s Lect. lec. 193. Tennison on Idolatry, p. 269, 275. Ridgely’s Body of Div. qu. 110.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Image
(prop. , tse’lem; ; but also designated by various other Hebrew. terms; often rendered graven image, molten image, etc.). SEE IDOL. For the interpretation of the colossal statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2:31), SEE DANIEL, BOOK OF.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
IMAGE
This article is concerned solely with the subject of humankinds status as being created in the image of God. And this image of God is expressed in all human beings alike, regardless of sex or race (Gen 1:27-28: 2:18; see HUMANITY, HUMANKIND). Concerning images in the sense of idols see IDOL,
IDOLATRY.
A unified being
Human beings are different from all other animals in that they alone are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). This does not merely mean that certain parts of them, such as spiritual, moral or intellectual characteristics, reflect the nature of God. The whole person, exists in Gods image. The eternal God is in some way expressed in human beings, so that they represent God on earth. God has appointed them as the earthly rulers over the created world (Gen 1:27-28).
Certainly, one result of creation in Gods image is that people have spiritual, moral and intellectual characteristics that make them different from all other creatures. If they were not in Gods image, they would not, in the biblical sense, be human. Even if they had the same physical appearance as humans, they would still be no more than animals. An animals animality is something self-contained, so to speak, something entirely within the animal itself. But a human beings humanity is not self-contained. It is not something that exists independently within a person. It is dependent on God in the sense that its relation with God is what makes it human.
Dignity and responsibility
In creating human beings in his image, God has given them a dignity and status that make their relation to him unique among his creatures (Psa 8:3-8; Mat 10:31; Mat 12:12). At the same time God limits their independence. They are not God; they exist only in the image of God. They cannot exist independently of God any more than the image of the moon on the water can exist independently of the moon. People may try to be independent of God, and will bring disaster upon themselves as a result, but they cannot destroy the image of God. No matter how sinful they may be, they still exist in Gods image (Gen 9:6; 1Co 11:7; Jam 3:9).
The story of Adam and Eve shows something of the dignity and responsibility that God gave them (and all human beings through them) as being in Gods image. As Gods representative they authority over the lower orders of creation (Gen 1:28-30; Gen 2:15; Gen 2:19-20). God places them in a world where they can develop mind and body through making rational choices and exercising creative skills. God wants them to enjoy fully this unique life he has given them, but they must do so in fellowship with him and submission to him. They do not have the unlimited right to do as they please, to be the sole judge of right and wrong (Gen 2:15-17).
Since God is unlimited and since people exists in his image, there is a tendency within them to want to be unlimited. But the fact of their being in Gods image means they are not unlimited; they have no absolute independence. They fall into sin when they yield to the temptation to rebel against God and set themselves up as the ones who will decide what is right and what is wrong. They are not satisfied with their unique status as the representative of God; they themselves want to be God (Gen 3:1-7).
The perfect man
In contrast with Adam and Eve, Jesus shows what people in Gods image should really be. Jesus accepted the limitations of humanity, yet found purpose and fulfilment in life, in spite of the temptations. As Gods representative he submitted in complete obedience to his Father, and so demonstrated, as no other person could, what true humanity was (Joh 8:29; Php 2:8; Heb 2:14; Heb 4:15).
There was yet a higher sense in which Jesus reflected the image of God, a sense that could be true of no ordinary person. Jesus was not merely in the image of God; he was the image of God. As well as being human, he was divine. He was the perfect representation of God, because he was God. He had complete authority over creation, because he was the Creator (Joh 12:45; Joh 14:9; 2Co 4:4; Col 1:15-16; Heb 1:3).
By his life, death and resurrection, Jesus undid the evil consequences of Adam and Eves disobedience (Rom 5:12-20). But he has done far more than that. He has become head of a new community. Adam and Eve were made in the image of God and passed on that character to the human race that is descended from them. In like manner Christ shares his image with all who by faith are united with him (Rom 8:29). Although this image of Christ is something that believers in Christ share now, it is also something that they must be continually working towards in their daily lives. It will reach its fullest expression at the return of Jesus Christ (1Co 15:49; 2Co 3:18; Col 3:10; 1Jn 3:2).
While the world is still under the power of sin, people do not enjoy the authority over creation that their status as being in Gods image entitles them to. Only at the final triumph of Jesus Christ will humanity, through Christ, enter its full glory (Heb 2:5-9; Rom 8:19-23). All people may exist in the image of God, but the only ones who will bear Gods image fully are those who by faith become united with Christ. Only Christians will be human as God intended.
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Image
IMAGE.This is the translation in Authorized Version and Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 of . In the Gospels it occurs only in Mat 22:20 || Mar 12:16 || Luk 20:24, where, in Christs answer as to the legality of the Roman tribute, it refers to the likeness of the emperor Tiberius.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Image
IMAGE.In theological usage the term image occurs in two connexions: (1) as defining the nature of man (God created man in his own image, Gen 1:27); and (2) as describing the relation of Christ as Son to the Father (who is the image of the invisible God, Col 1:15). These senses, again, are not without connexion; for, as man is re-created in the image of Godlost, or at least defaced, through sin (Col 3:10; cf. Eph 4:24)so, as renewed, he bears the image of Christ (2Co 3:18). These Scriptural senses of the term image claim further elucidation.
1. As regards man, the fundamental text is that already quoted, Gen 1:26-27. Here, in the story of Creation, man is represented as called into being, not, like the other creatures, by a simple flat, but as the result of a solemn and deliberate act of counsel of the Creator: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Distinctions, referred to below, have been sought, since Patristic times, between image and likeness, but it is now generally conceded that no difference of meaning is intended. The two words image (tselem) and likeness (demth) combine, without distinction of sense, to emphasize the idea of resemblance to God. This is shown by the fact that in Gen 1:27 the word image alone is employed to express the total idea, and in Gen 5:1 the word likeness. Man was made like God, and so bears His image. The expression recurs in Gen 9:6, and again repeatedly in the NT (1Co 11:7, Col 3:10; cf. Jam 3:9 likeness). The usage in Genesis is indeed peculiar to the so-called Priestly writer; but the idea underlies the view of man in the Jahwistic sections as well, for only as made in Gods image is man capable of knowledge of God, fellowship with Him, covenant relation to Him, and character conformable to Gods own. To be as God was the serpents allurement to Eve (Gen 3:5). Psa 8:1-9 echoes the story of mans creation in Gen 1:1-31.
In what did this Divine image, or likeness to God, consist? Not in bodily form, for God is Spirit; nor yet simply, as the Socinians would have it, in dominion over the creatures; but in those features of mans rational and moral constitution in which the peculiar dignity of man, as distinguished from the animal world below him, is recognized. Man, as a spiritual nature, is self-conscious, personal, rational, free, capable of rising to the apprehension of general truths and laws, of setting ends of conduct before him, of apprehending right and wrong, good and evil, of framing ideas of God, infinity, eternity, immortality, and of shaping his life in the light of such conceptions. In this he shows himself akin to God; is able to know, love, serve, and obey God. The germ of sonship lies in the idea of the image. To this must be added, in the light of such passages as Eph 4:24 and Col 3:10, the idea of actual moral conformityof actual knowledge, righteousness, and holinessas pertaining to the perfection of the image. Sin has not destroyed the essential elements of Gods image in man, but it has shattered the image in a moral respect; and grace, as the above passages teach, renews it in Christ.
If this explanation is correct, the older attempts at a distinction between image and likeness, e.g. that image referred to the body, likeness to the intellectual nature; or image to the intellectual, likeness to the moral, faculties; or, as in Roman Catholic theology, image to the natural attributes of intelligence and freedom, likeness to a superadded endowment of supernatural righteousnessmust, as already hinted, be pronounced untenable.
2. The idea of Christ, the Son, as the image (eikn) of the invisible God (Col 1:15; cf. 2Co 4:4) connects itself with the doctrine of the Trinity, and finds expression in various forms in the NT, notably in Heb 1:3who being the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance. Jesus Himself could declare of Himself that he who had seen Him had seen the Father (Joh 14:9). But the passages quoted refer to a supra-temporal and essential relation between the Son and the Father. God, in His eternal being, reflects Himself, and beholds His own infinite perfection and glory mirrored, in the Son (cf. Joh 1:1; Joh 17:5). It is this eternal Word, or perfect self-revelation of God, that has become incarnate in Jesus Christ (Joh 1:14). The consequence is obvious. Bearing Christs image, we bear Gods. Being renewed in Gods image, we are conformed to the image of His Son (Rom 8:29).
James Orr.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Image
I should not have thought it necessary to have noticed this word, being in the general acception of it so very plain and obvious, had it not been so peculiarly made use of in relation to the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, as “the Image of the invisible God.” He and he only, is the image of the invisible God, “the first born of every creature;” and though not openly revealed, yet secretly, and in reality set up from everlasting. Hence, as Christ, thus the glory-man, is declared to “be the brightness of his Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” (Heb 1:3) So this is the very person in whose likeness, Adam the first open man, was created and made; “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Gen 1:26)
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Image
imaj (, celem; , eikon): Its usage falls under 3 main heads. (1) Image as object of idolatrous worship (translations about a dozen words, including , massekhah, molten image (Deu 9:12, etc.); , maccebhah, in the King James Version translated image or pillar, in the Revised Version (British and American) always pillar (Exo 23:24, etc.); , pesel, graven image (Exo 20:4, etc.); celem, image (2Ki 11:18, etc.); eikon, image (e.g. Rev 14:9)); (2) of man as made in the image of God; (3) of Christ as the image of God. Here we are concerned with the last two usages. For image in connection with idolatrous practices, see IDOLATRY; IMAGES; PILLAR; TERAPHIM, etc.
I. Man as Made in the Divine Image
1. In the Old Testament
To define man’s fundamental relation to God, the priestly writer in Gen uses two words: image (celem) and likeness (demuth); once employing both together (Gen 1:26; compare Gen 5:3), but elsewhere one without the other, image only in Gen 1:27; Gen 9:6, and likeness only in Gen 5:1. The priestly writer alone in the Old Testament uses this expression to describe the nature of man, though the general meaning of the passage Gen 1:26 f is echoed in Psa 8:5-8, and the term itself reappears in Apocrypha (Sirach 17:3; The Wisdom of Solomon 2:23) and in the New Testament (see below).
The idea is important in relation to the Biblical doctrine of man, and has figured prominently in theological discussion. The following are some of the questions that arise:
(1) Is there any distinction to be understood between image and likeness? Most of the Fathers, and some later theologians, attempt to distinguish between them. (a) Some have referred image to man’s bodily form, and likeness to his spiritual nature (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus). (b) Others, especially the Alexandrian Fathers, understood by the image the mental and moral endowments native to man, and by the likeness the Divine perfections which man can only gradually acquire by free development and moral conflict (Clement of Alexandria and Origen), or which is conferred on man as a gift of grace. (c) This became the basis of the later Roman Catholic distinction between the natural gifts of rationality and freedom (= the image), and the supernatural endowments of grace which God bestowed on man after He had created him (the likeness = donum superadditum). The former remained after the Fall, though in an enfeebled state; the latter was lost through sin, but restored by Christ. The early Protestants rejected this distinction, maintaining that supernatural righteousness was part of the true nature and idea of man, i.e. was included in the image, and not merely externally superadded. Whatever truth these distinctions may or may not contain theologically, they cannot be exegetically inferred from Gen 1:26, where (as is now generally admitted) no real difference is intended.
We have here simply a duplication of synonyms (Driver) for the sake of emphasis. The two terms are elsewhere used interchangeably.
(2) What, then, is to be understood by the Divine image? Various answers have been given. (a) Some of the Fathers (influenced by Philo) supposed that the image here = the Logos (called the image of the invisible God in Col 1:15), on the pattern of whom man was created. But to read the Logos doctrine into the creation narrative is to ignore the historic order of doctrinal development. (b) That it connotes physical resemblance to God (see (1), (a) above; so in the main Skinner, ICC, in the place cited.). It may be admitted that there is a secondary reference to the Divine dignity of the human body; but this does not touch the essence of the matter, inasmuch as God is not represented as having physical form. (c) That it consists of dominion over the creatures (Socinian view; so also Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, etc.). This would involve an unwarranted narrowing of the idea. It is true that such dominion is closely associated with the image in Gen 1:26 (compare Psa 8:6-8). But the image of God must denote primarily man’s relation to his Creator, rather than his relation to the creation. Man’s lordship over Nature is not identical with the image, but is an effect of it. (d) It is best to take the term as referring to the whole dignity of man, in virtue of his fundamental affinity to God. It implies the possession by man of a free, self-conscious, rational and moral personality, like unto that of God – a nature capable of distinguishing right and wrong, of choosing the right and rejecting the wrong, and of ascending to the heights of spiritual attainment and communion with God. This involves a separation of man from the beast, and his supremacy as the culmination of the creative process.
(3) Does the term imply man’s original perfection, lost through sin? The old Protestant divines maintained that the first man, before the Fall, possessed original righteousness, not only in germ but in developed form, and that this Divine image was destroyed by the Fall. Exegetically considered, this is certainly not taught by the priestly writer, who makes no mention of the Fall, assumes that the image was transmitted from father to son (compare Gen 5:1 with Gen 5:3), and navely speaks of post-diluvian men as created in the image of God (Gen 9:6; compare 1Co 11:7; Jam 3:9). Theologically considered, the idea of the perfect holiness of primitive man is based on an abstract conception of God’s work in creation, which precludes the idea of development, ignores the progressive method of the Divine government and the essential place of effort and growth in human character. It is more in harmony with modern conceptions (a) to regard man as originally endowed with the power of right choice, rather than with a complete character given from the first; and (b) to think of the Divine image (though seriously defaced) as continuing even in the sinful state, as man’s inalienable capacity for goodness and his true destination. If the Divine image in man is a self-conscious, rational and ethical personality, it cannot be a merely accidental or transitory attribute, but is an essential constituent of his being.
2. In the New Testament
Two features may be distinguished in the New Testament doctrine of the Divine image in man: (1) man’s first creation in Adam, (2) his second or new creation in Christ. As to (1), the doctrine of the Old Testament is assumed in the New Testament. Paul makes a special application of it to the question of the relation of husband and wife, which is a relation of subordination on the part of the wife, based on the fact that man alone was created immediately after the Divine image (1Co 11:7). Thus Paul, for the special purpose of his argument, confines the meaning of the image to man’s lordly authority, though to infer that he regards this as exhausting its significance would be quite unwarranted. Man’s affinity to God is implied, though the term image is not used, in Paul’s sermon to the Athenians (Act 17:28 f, man the offspring of God). See also Jam 3:9 (it is wrong to curse men, for they are made after the likeness of God).
(2) More characteristic of the New Testament is the doctrine of the new creation. (a) The redeemed man is said to be in the image of God (the Father). He is renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him (Col 3:10), i.e. of God the Creator, not here of Christ or the Logos (as some) (compare Eph 4:24, after God). Though there is here an evident reference to Gen 1:26 f, this does not imply that the new creation in Christ is identical with the original creation, but only that the two are analogous. To Paul, the spiritual man in Christ is on a higher level than the natural (psychical) man as found in Adam (compare especially 1Co 15:44-49), in whom the Divine image consisted (as we have seen) in potential goodness, rather than in full perfection. Redemption is infinitely more than the restoration of man’s primitive state. (b) The Christian is further said to be gradually transformed into the image of the Son of God. This progressive metamorphosis involves not only moral and spiritual likeness to Christ, but also ultimately the Christian’s future glory, including the glorified body, the passing through a gradual assimilation of mind and character to an ultimate assimilation of His , doxa, the absorption of the splendor of His presence (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 218; see Rom 8:29; 1Co 15:49; 2Co 3:18; and compare Phi 3:21; 1Jo 3:2).
II. Christ the Image of God
In 3 important passages in English Versions of the Bible, the term image defines the relation of Christ to God the Father; twice in Paul: the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God (2Co 4:4); who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15); and once in He: who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance (Col 1:3). These statements, taken in their contexts, register the highest reach of the Christology of the Epistles.
1. The Terms
In the two Pauline passages, the word used is eikon, which was generally the Septuagint rendering of celem (Vulgate: imago); it is derived from , eko, , eoika, to be like, resemble, and means that which resembles an object and represents it, as a copy represents the original. In Heb 1:3 the word used is , charakter, which is found here only in the New Testament, and is translated in Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 ad) figura, the King James Version express image, the Revised Version (British and American) very image, the Revised Version, margin impress. It is derived from , charasso, to engrave, and has passed through the following meanings: (1) an engraving instrument (active sense); (2) The engraved stamp or mark on the instrument (passive sense); (3) The impress made by the instrument on wax or other object; (4) hence, generally, the exact image or expression of any person or thing as corresponding to the original, the distinguishing feature, or traits by which a person or thing is known (hence, English words character, characteristic). The word conveys practically the same meaning as eikon; but Westcott distinguishes them by saying that the latter gives a complete representation, under conditions of earth, of that which it figures, while charakter conveys representative traits only (Westcott on Heb 1:3).
2. Meaning as Applied to Christ
The idea here expressed is closely akin to that of the Logos doctrine in Jn (1:1-18). Like the Logos, the Image in Paul and in Hebrews is the Son of God, and is the agent of creation as well as the medium of revelation. What a word (logos) is to the ear, namely a revelation of what is within, an image is to the eye; and thus in the expression there is only a translation, as it were, of the same fact from one sense to another (Dorner, System of Ch. D., English translation, III, 178). As Image, Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of the invisible God, the objective expression of the Divine nature, the face of God turned as it were toward the world, the exact likeness of the Father in all things except being the Father. Thus we receive the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2Co 4:6). He is the facsimile of God.
3. To What State Does It Refer?
Is Christ described as the Image of God in His preincarnate, His incarnate, or else His exalted state? It is best to say that different passages refer to different states, but that if we take the whole trend of New Testament teaching, Christ is seen to be essentially, and in every state, the Image of God. (a) In Heb 1:3 the reference seems to be to the eternal, preincarnate Son, who is inherently and essentially the expression of the Divine substance. So Paul declares that He subsisted originally in the form of God ( , en morphe theou huparchon, Phi 2:6). (b) In Joh 1:18; Joh 12:45; Joh 14:9, though the term image is not used, we have the idea of the historical Jesus as a perfect revelation of the character and glory of God. (c) In the two Pauline passages (2Co 4:4; Col 1:15), the reference is probably to the glorified, exalted Christ; not to His pre-existent Divine nature, nor to His temporal manifestation, but to His whole Person, in the divine-human state of His present heavenly existence (Meyer). These passages in their cumulative impressions convey the idea that the Image is an inalienable property of His personality, not to be limited to any stage of His existence.
4. Theological Implications
Does this involve identity of essence of Father and Son, as in the Homoousion formula of the Nicene Creed? Not necessarily, for man also bears the image of God, even in his sinful state (see I above), a fact which the Arians sought to turn to their advantage. Yet in the light of the context, we must affirm of Christ an absolutely unique kinship with God. In the Col passage, not only are vast cosmic and redemptive functions assigned to Him, but there is said to dwell in Him all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Joh 1:19; Joh 2:9). In He not only is the Son the final revelation of God to men, the upholder of the universe, and the very image of the Divine nature, but also the effulgence (, apaugasma) of God’s glory, and therefore of one nature with Him as the ray is of one essence with the sun (Joh 1:1-3). The superiority of the Son is thus not merely one of function but of nature. On the other hand, the figure of the image certainly guards against any Sabellian identification of Father and Son, as if they were but modes of the one Person; for we cannot identify the pattern with its copy, nor speak of anyone as an image of himself. And, finally, we must not overlook the affinity of the Logos with man; both are the image of God, though the former in a unique sense. The Logos is at once the prototype of humanity within the Godhead, and the immanent Divine principle within humanity.
5. Relation to Pre-Christian Thought
Both in Paul and in He we have an echo of the Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, and of Philo’s doctrine of the Logos. In the Alexandrine Book of Wisdom, written probably under Stoic influence, Divine Wisdom is pictorially represented as an effulgence (apaugasma) from everlasting light, and an unspotted mirror of the working of God, and an image (eikon) of His goodness (7 26). Philo repeatedly calls the Logos or Divine world-principle the image (eikon charakter) of God, and also describes it as an effulgence of God. But this use of current Alexandrian terminology and the superficial resemblance of ideas are no proof of conscious borrowing on the part of the apostles. There is this fundamental distinction, that Philo’s Logos is not a self-conscious personality, still less a historical individual, but an allegorical hypostatizing of an abstract idea; whereas in Paul and He, as in John, the Divine archetype is actually realized in a historical person, Jesus Christ, the Son and Revealer of God.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Image
Besides the many references to graven and molten images connected with idolatry, which the law strictly forbade the Israelites to make, the word is used in several important connections: for instance, God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion . . . . so God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:1; Gen 9:6. The word translated ‘image’ is tselem, which is the same that is used for idolatrous images, and for the great image in Daniel 2.
It might naturally have been thought that man at his fall would have ceased to be in the image and likeness of God, but it is not so represented in scripture. On speaking of man as the head of the woman, it says he ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as “he is the image and glory of God.” 1Co 11:7. Again, in Jam 3:9, we find “made after the similitude (or likeness, ) of God.” In what respects man is the image and likeness of God may not be fully grasped, but it is at least obvious that an image is a representation. The Lord when shown a penny asked ‘whose image’ is this? They said, Caesar’s. It may not have been well executed, and so not have been a likeness. It may also have been very much battered, as money often is, yet that would not have interfered with its being the image of Caesar: it represented him, and no one else. So man as the head of created beings in connection with the earth represents God: to him was given dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth and in the sea and in the air. This was of course in subjection to God, and so man was in His image.
This is seen in perfection in the second Man, who has in resurrection superseded Adam, who was in this sense a figure or type of Christ. Rom 5:14. Man may be a battered and soiled image of his Creator, but that does not touch the question of his having been made in the image of God.
Likeness goes further; but was there not in man a certain moral and mental likeness to God? He not only represents God on earth, but, as one has said, he thinks for others, refers to and delights in what God has wrought in creation, and in what is good, having his moral place among those who do. The likeness, alas, may be very much blurred; but the features are there: such as reflection, delight, love of goodness and beauty; none of which are found in a mere animal. With Christ all is of course perfect: as man He is “the image of God;” “the image of the invisible God.” 2Co 4:4; Col 1:15.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Image
For idols
Idolatry
Figurative:
– Man created in, of God
Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:1; Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9
– Regenerated into
Psa 17:15; Rom 8:29; 2Co 3:18; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; 1Jn 3:1-3
– Christ, of God
Col 1:15; Heb 1:3
– Of jealousy
Eze 8:3; Eze 8:5 Idol; Idolatry
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Image
(Lat. imago, likeness) A sensory quality reinstated by the mind in the absence of sensory stimulation. — L.W.
MedievalImage and Similitude are frequently used by the medieval scholars. Neither of them needs mean copy. Sometimes the terms are nearly synonymous with sign in general. The alteration of the sense organs when affected by some external object is an image of the latter (species sensibilis); so is the memory image or phantasm. The intelligible species resulting from the operation of the active intellect on the phantasm is not less an image of the universal nature than the concept and the word expressing the latter is. Images in the strict sense of copies or pictures are only a particular case of image or similitude in general. The idea that Scholasticism believed that the mind contains literally “copies” of the objective world is mistaken interpretation due to misunderstanding of the terms. — R.A.
Fuente: The Dictionary of Philosophy
Image
Image. See Idol.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Image
eikon (G1504) Image
homoiosis (G3669) Likeness
homoioma (G3667) Similitude
The distinction between eikon and homoiosis and homoioma is interesting for two reasons. First, these terms were debated in the Arian controversy. In that context the question was: Are these words suitable to represent the relation of the Son to the Father? Second, as used in Gen 1:26 (LXX) these terms raise the question: Does this passage draw a distinction between the “image” (eikon) of God in whichand the “likeness” (homoiosis) of God after whichman was created, and if so, what exactly is the distinction?
During the course of the long Arian debate, a very definite distinction was drawn between eikon and homoiosis and homoioma. Apart from the Arian controversy, eikon and homoioma frequently were used as synonyms. For example, homoiomata and eikones were used interchangeably by Plato to describe the earthly copies and representations of the heavenly archetypes. But when the church needed to defend itself against Arian error and equivocation, it drew a sharp distinction between these two words that was not arbitrary but based on an essential difference of meaning.
Eikon always refers to a prototype that it resembles and from which it is drawna paradeigma. Thus Gregory Nazianzene stated: “For this is the nature of an image [eikonos]:to be an imitation of an archetype.” The monarch’s head on a coin is an eikon (Mat 22:20); the reflection of the sun in the water is an eikon; and the statue in stone or other material also is an eikon (Rev 13:14). The illustration that comes closest to fully revealing the meaning of eikon is that of the relation of a child to his parents, for a child is “a living image” (empsychos eikon) of his parents.
Although homoioma, or homoiosis, implies that one thing resembles another, the resemblance is not necessarily acquired in the same way as is the resemblance of an eikon to that which it resembles. Unlike an eikon, in the case of homoioma and homoiosis, the resemblance is not a derived resemblance but may be an accidental one, as when one egg is like another or when two unrelated men resemble one another. According to Augustine, the imago (image = eikon) includes and involves the similitudo (likeness), but the similitudo (=homoiosis) does not involve the imago. This explains why the New Testament uses eikon to describe the Son’s relation to the Father but does not use any of the homoios (G3664) words to do so. In fact, as soon as the church saw that the homoios word family was not used in good faith, it condemned the use of these words to describe Christ.
Although eikon expresses the truth about Christ’s relation to the Father, this term is inadequate to express the whole truth about a matter that transcends the limits of human thought. Eikon denotes an image that has been derived from an archetype. But because no derived image has the same worth and dignity as its prototype, the use of eikon to describe Christ’s relation to the Father must be compensated for. Because homoiotes, homoiosis, and related words express mere similarity, they do not suitably describe Christ’s relation to the Father. The church, guided by exactly the same considerations, allowed the verb gennan (G1080) but not the verb ktizein (G2936) to be used to describe the Son’s relation to the Father.
The exegetical issue surrounding the use of eikon and homoiosis has to do with the nature of man. In the great fiat announcing man’s original constitution, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” is anything different intended by the second phrase than by the first? Or is the second phrase simply the result of the first”in Our image” and therefore “after Our likeness”? The New Testament claims that man is both the eikon (1Co 11:7) and the homoiosis (Jam 3:9). This whole subject is discussed at length by Gregory of Nyssa, who, with many of the fathers and schoolmen, saw a real distinction between eikon and homoiosis. Thus the great Alexandrian theologians taught that the eikon was something inwhich men were created that was common to all men both before and after the fall (Gen 9:6) and that the homoiosis was something towardwhich man was created, something for him to strive after. As Origen stated: “He received the dignity of the image [imaginis] in the first circumstance, but the perfecting of the likeness [similitudinis] has been preserved for the consummation.”
The influence of Platonic ideas on Alexandrian theologians is evident in that distinction. It is well known that Plato presented the “becoming like God [homoiousthai] according to one’s ability” as the highest scope of man’s life. The schoolmen also drew a distinction, though not the same one, between “these two divine stamps upon man.” Thus in Anselm, “image [imago] is according to the knowledge of truth; likeness [similitudo] is according to the love of virtue.” The first word specifies the intellectual and the second the moral preeminence in which man was created.
Without justification, many interpreters have refused to acknowledge these or any other distinctions between the two declarations in Gen 1:26. The Alexandrians were very near the truth, even if they did not completely grasp it. The words of Jerome (originally applied to the Book of Revelation) may aptly be applied to other passages of Scripture: “as many terms, so many mysteries.” A passage like Genesis 1-3, which is the important history of man’s creation and his fall, is one where we might expect to find mysteriesprophetic intimations of truths that might require ages to develop.
Without attempting to draw a very strict distinction between eikon and homoiosis or their Hebrew counterparts, we may say that the wholehistory of mannot only in his original creation but later in his restoration and reconstitution in the Sonis significantly wrapped up in the double statement of Gen 1:26. Perhaps the reason for this double statement was because God did not stop at the contemplation of man as he was originally created, but looked forward to him as “renewedin knowledge according to the image of him who created him.” Only as a partaker of this double benefit would man attain the true end for which he was ordained.
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Image
denotes “an image;” the word involves the two ideas of representation and manifestation. “The idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from the context” (Lightfoot); the following instances clearly show any distinction between the imperfect and the perfect likeness.
The word is used (1) of an “image” or a coin (not a mere likeness), Mat 22:20; Mar 12:16; Luk 20:24; so of a statue or similar representation (more than a resemblance), Rom 1:23; Rev 13:14-15 (thrice); Rev 14:9, Rev 14:11; Rev 15:2; Rev 16:2; Rev 19:20; Rev 20:4; of the descendants of Adam as bearing his image, 1Co 15:49, each a representation derived from the prototype; (2) of subjects relative to things spiritual, Heb 10:1, negatively of the Law as having “a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things,” i.e., not the essential and substantial form of them; the contrast has been likened to the difference between a statue and the shadow cast by it; (3) of the relations between God the Father, Christ, and man, (a) of man as he was created as being a visible representation of God, 1Co 11:7, a being corresponding to the original; the condition of man as a fallen creature has not entirely effaced the “image;” he is still suitable to bear responsibility, he still has Godlike qualities, such as love of goodness and beauty, none of which are found in a mere animal; in the Fall man ceased to be a perfect vehicle for the representation of God; God’s grace in Christ will yet accomplish more than what Adam lost; (b) of regenerate persons, in being moral representations of what God is, Col 3:10; cp. Eph 4:24; (c) of believers, in their glorified state, not merely as resembling Christ but representing Him, Rom 8:29; 1Co 15:49; here the perfection is the work of Divine grace; believers are yet to represent, not something like Him, but what He is in Himself, both in His spiritual body and in His moral character; (d) of Christ in relation to God, 2Co 4:4, “the image of God,” i.e., essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of the Archetype, God the Father; in Col 1:15, “the image of the invisible God” gives the additional thought suggested by the word “invisible,” that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead, and is therefore unique and perfect; “he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father,” Joh 14:9. “The epithet “invisible.” … must not be confined to the apprehension of the bodily senses, but will include the cognizance of the inward eye also” (Lightfoot).
As to synonymous words, homoioma, “likeness,” stresses the resemblance to an archetype, though the resemblance may not be derived, whereas eikon is a “derived likeness” (see LIKENESS); eidos, “a shape, form,” is an appearance, “not necessarily based on reality” (see FORM); skia, is “a shadowed resemblance” (see SHADOW); morphe is “the form, as indicative of the inner being” (Abbott-Smith); see FORM. For charakter, see No. 2.
denotes, firstly, “a tool for graving” (from charasso, “to cut into, to engross;” cp. Eng., “character,” “characteristic”); then, “a stamp” or “impress,” as on a coin or a seal, in which case the seal or die which makes an impression bears the “image” produced by it, and, vice versa, all the features of the “image” correspond respectively with those of the instrument producing it. In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the very image (marg., ‘the impress’) of His substance.” RV. The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the adequate imprint” (Liddon). The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His charakter), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses in comparison with those mentioned at the end of No. 1. In the Sept., Lev 13:28, “the mark (of the inflammation).”
“In Joh 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:2-3, the special function of creating and upholding the universe is ascribed to Christ under His titles of Word, Image, and Son, respectively. The kind of Creatorship so predicated of Him is not that of a mere instrument or artificer in the formation of the world, but that of One ‘by whom, in whom, and for whom’ all things are made, and through whom they subsist. This implies the assertion of His true and absolute Godhood” (Laidlaw, in Hastings’ Bib. Dic.).
Note: The similar word charagma, “a mark” (see GRAVEN and MARK), has the narrower meaning of “the thing impressed,” without denoting the special characteristic of that which produces it, e.g., Rev 13:16-17. In Act 17:29 the meaning is not “graven (charagma) by art,” but “an engraved work of art.”
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Image
in a religious sense, is an artificial representation of some person or thing used as an object of adoration, and is synonymous with idol. Nothing can be more clear, full, and distinct, than the expressions of Scripture prohibiting the making and worship of images, Exo 20:4-5; Deu 16:22. No sin is so strongly and repeatedly condemned in the Old Testament as that of idolatry, to which the Jews, in the early part of their history, were much addicted, and for which they were constantly punished. St. Paul was greatly affected, when he saw that the city of Athens was wholly given to idolatry, Act 17:16; and declared to the Athenians, that they ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device,
Act 17:29. He condemns those who changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things, Rom 1:23.
That the first Christians had no images, is evident from this circumstance,that they were reproached by the Heathens, because they did not use them; and we find almost every ecclesiastical writer of the first four centuries arguing against the Gentile practice of image worship, from the plain declarations of Scripture, and from the pure and spiritual nature of God. The introduction of images into places of Christian worship, dates its origin soon after the times of Constantine the Great, but the earlier Christians reprobated every species of image worship in the strongest language. It is sometimes pretended by the Papists, that they do not worship the images, but God through the medium of images; or, that the worship which they pay to images is inferior to that which they pay to the Deity himself. These distinctions would be scarcely understood by the common people; and formerly an enlightened Heathen or Jew would probably have urged the same thing. The practice is in direct opposition to the second commandment, and notwithstanding every sophistical palliation, it has always led to a transfer of human trust from God to something else. Hence idolatry, in general, is condemned in Scripture; and all use of images in the worship of God, making or bowing to any likeness, is absolutely forbidden. See ICONOCLASTES and See IDOLATRY.