CONSTRUCTING AN IMAGE OF GOD
Robert L. Johnson

From the first century on there has been no end to the controversy over the nature of the God of the Bible. In the second century Marcion held the view that there were two Gods, the good Father of Jesus and the Creator known in the Old Testament. Later others dared to say with the disciples of the Arian, Aetios, “I know God as He is known to Himself.” This was denied by John of Antioch (Chrysostom) in the fourth century who said “He insults God who seeks to apprehend His essential being,” and he goes on to urge that “God is incomprehensible even in His works; how much more in His own essential nature. . . (and) how much more in His own transcendent majesty. . .”

Chrysostom found some support for his views in the writings of Paul, especially the following, (God) “dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16). And from Rom. 11:33, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways.” For Chrysostom “the exceeding greatness” of God is beyond man’s mental grasp and compass. He is incomprehensible.

Most of us would be closer to Paul and Chrysostom than we would be to Aeetes, but nevertheless we still go on struggling to construct an image of God to which we can relate. There is no shortage of descriptive terminology in the Bible.

Some of the names of God in the Old Testament suggest images. Yahweh was or became the personal name for the God of Israel. The origin of the name may be uncertain, but in Ex. 3:13-15 it appears to be connected with the verb “to be.” Yahweh is interpreted as meaning the self-subsistent Being, or the “really existing One” as distinguished from other gods. Or similarly, He is the “I-will-be-with-thee God,” a God who is ever present with His people. “El” or “Elohim” is perhaps the most common name for God. The root of this word probably meant “to be strong.” Strength was the primary characteristic of Deity. “EI Shaddai” is often translated “God Almighty,” although the term should not be restricted to that meaning. “EI Elyon” is translated as the “Exalted One” or “Most High,” but it later became a synonym for “Yahweh.” Several other names and appellations for God are also found in the Old Testament.

Whatever our image of God, it cannot be impersonal or inanimate, but only a Being who can respond to us and be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.

In both Old and New Covenants the Lord is pictured as a God of wrath. There are literally dozens of passages in the Old Testament and numerous verses in the New Testament that speak of the fierce wrath and anger of God. Whatever image of God we may have we should never discount the fact that God’s judgment is real. It has to be real if he is a righteous God. If God were so indifferent to what happened to his children that sin made no difference to him, then he would not be worth worshiping. Paul is unequivocal, “For the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness” (Rom. 1:18). Jesus was equally clear, “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt. 10:28). The writer of Hebrews adds his witness, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31), and “For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29).

We are all fond of the “Shepherd” /Protector image of God in Psalm 23 and other places where the shepherd goes in search of the lost sheep. Most of us probably prefer the Father image of God which is found especially in the New Testament. “As a father pities his children, so the Lord pities those who fear him” (Ps. 103:13). “Your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this: ‘Our Father who art in heaven’” (Mt. 6:8-9). The Father image is easily the most prominent in the New Testament, and yet this image is inadequate. The best fatherhood we know is only a pale suggestion of the Divine. “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him?” (Mt. 7:11). This image of Fatherhood makes worship possible. If God were a mere substance or force we couldn’t praise him or confess our sins to him any more than we could to the force of gravitation.

As we try to construct an image of God we must add the statements of Jesus, “God is Spirit (Jn. 4:24), and of John, “God is love” (1 In. 4:8). Francis McConnell once wrote:

God is the Eternal Mind, Eternal Spirit, Divine Love. But Divine Love doesn’t mean cosmic amiability, always smiling. It is a seriousness of purpose that is continually working toward the moral uplifting of men. It includes a large willingness to forgive and forget. . . but moral purpose must rule every pulsation of the Divine affection.

One of the most common attributes of God is His merciful kindness, as in Ps. 103:8, “The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love,” and 1 Tim. 1:13 where Paul remembers being a persecutor, “I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief.” But Paul also knows that God “has mercy upon whomever he wills and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills” (Rom. 9:18).

We read that God is a God of wrath. He condemns. But He is also a God of mercy. Is there a conflict between the mercy of God and the justice of God? What does this do to the image of God that is evolving in our minds? It seems that we are involved again in a problem of interpretation. If we project God as a cosmic Lawgiver, are we restricting God’s own freedom to make exceptions for one who may fall short in his law-keeping? If the Jews, with their 613 laws of Do’s and Don’ts, could not be justified by law-keeping, then do we assume that the Christian will be justified when he has only about 250 commandments to observe? How many of us even come close to living up to the ideal of the Sermon on the Mount or strictly observe the list of imperatives in Col. 3?

There would appear to be other criteria which must be worked into the equation, such as the degree of one’s knowledge being a factor in imputing his responsibility. To the Pharisees Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would have no guilt, but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn. 9:41), and “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin” (Jn. 15:22). Many scholars contend that the point of Rom. 2:12-16 is that one will be judged by what he actually knows or has had the opportunity to know. This is within the scope of Jesus’ teaching in Lk. 12:48, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.”

My accountability is much greater than the one who cannot read, who has never heard of Christ, or who has been misinformed concerning salvation. —2208 W. Granite, Siloam Springs. Ar. 72761