As I researched the history and development of what Mormons "believe" and "teach" about God, I found evidence of a difference. Mormons are confused about God. When Mormon leaders and educators speak of God "devotionally" they use the same terminology as Christians. Mormons have been told by their leaders to pray to God the Father, but no one could pray in faith to a being they believed was once a struggling sinful human.

It was my purpose in doing this research to research the Mormon beliefs about God using as reference the language of their most current leaders, educators and apologists. Because so many Mormons say Christian authors on Mormonism make quotations 170 years old which are out of context with current beliefs I will include entire articles or chapters which will include their own footnotes and bibliographies. Following this I will include my own research into what the Bible claims about God.

I will begin with the entire 1992 Encyclopedia on Mormonism article titled, “God” authored by David H. Yarn, Jr.

“Latter-day Saints declare, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (A of F 1). Joseph Smith offered the following clarification: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit" (D&C 130:22; see God the Father; Holy Ghost; Jesus Christ).

“The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct beings who constitute one Godhead. Generally speaking, the Father is the Creator, the Son is the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost is the Comforter and Testifier (cf. MFP 5:26-34; TPJS, p. 190).

Many scriptural passages illustrate the distinct character of the members of the Godhead. For example, at the baptism of Jesus, while he was in the water, the Father's voice was heard from heaven, and the Holy Ghost descended "like a dove" and rested upon the Son (Matt. 3:13-17; see Jesus Christ: Baptism).

All three persons were manifested separately and simultaneously. Also, Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28), and in another place declared, "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22). Further, Jesus pointed to the Father and himself as two separate witnesses of the divinity of his work (John 5:32-37; 8:12-18). On the Mount of Transfiguration the heavenly Father identified the mortal Jesus to Peter, James, and John as "my beloved Son" (Matt. 17:5). Moreover, the Son often prayed to his Father. In Gethsemane he prayed to the Father while in deep anguish (Mark 14:32-39; cf. Luke 22:40-46; D&C 19:16-19), and on the cross he cried out to the Father, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34; cf. Ps. 22:1). All of these passages clearly show that the Father is a being distinct from the Son. Although they are one in mind and purpose, they are two separate individuals and bear testimony of one another (cf. 3 Ne. 11:7-11).

“The way in which the Godhead is one is illustrated by Jesus' prayer that his disciples would be one, even as he and the Father are one (John 17:21-22; cf. 3 Ne. 11:27, 32-36; 28:10-11). Here he was praying for his disciples' unity of mind, purpose, and testimony, not for the merger of their identities into a single being. He prayed that they would be one in desire, purpose, and objective, exactly as he and his Father are (TPJS, p. 372; see Unity).

“The Father, as God, is omnipotent, omniscient, and, through his spirit, omnipresent (see Light of Christ). He is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness. His course is one eternal round. He is a God of truth and no respecter of persons. He personifies love.

“Though Latter-day Saints extensively use the scriptures to learn about God, their fundamental knowledge concerning him is based upon the Prophet Joseph Smith's first vision, the Prophet's subsequent revelatory experiences, and individual personal revelation. While mankind may reason or speculate concerning the existence of God, and his nature, the principal way by which they can know about God is dependent upon his revealing himself to them (see Testimony of Jesus Christ).

“Before A.D. 325, the date of the first Christian ecumenical council at Nicaea, the nature of God was debated by philosophers and people of faith. Since then, the concept of God has been the subject of ecumenical councils, philosophical discussions, and creeds.

None of these is the source of the LDS understanding of God. To be sure, many classical arguments for the existence of God have been advanced, including the ontological arguments of Anselm, the five "proofs" of St. Thomas Aquinas, the teleological argument of Descartes, the ethical argument of Leibniz, and the postulates of practical reason of Kant. As impressive as any of these might be as achievements of the human intellect, none of them is the source of faith in God for Latter-day Saints, whose faith is based upon personal testimony grounded in personal experience (see Epistemology; Faith; Reason and Revelation).

“The last chapter of the Book of Mormon records this promise: "And when ye shall receive these things [of God], I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things" (Moro. 10:4-5). The personal witness that one receives in answer to prayer is called a testimony. Latter-day Saints teach that through this source a person can receive a sure witness that God lives, a confirmation regarding the various principles that the scriptures teach, and clarification where it is needed.

“Belief in God, or a measure of faith in him, is essential to finding the reality of his existence. Inasmuch as God exists, and human beings are his children, it is important for men and women to know these facts because such knowledge is a component of eternal life (John 17:3).

Individuals need to know that they are themselves eternal beings, that they are dependent upon God for their earthly existence (cf. Mosiah 2:21), and that their future condition depends on how they relate to God and keep his commandments (see Commandments; Obedience).

“God loves his children and has provided the means for them to realize their divine potential (see Godhood). God has given humankind the program for his children as a whole (see Plan of Salvation), and through the gift of the Holy Ghost he gives special guidance to individuals as they seek it (see Inspiration). God revealed his will to prophets in ancient times and to apostles in the meridian of time, and he continues to reveal himself to living prophets and apostles in the latter days.

“Learning of God's existence creates the desire to know him, and know what he would have one do or be. As one's faith and knowledge of God increase, one desires more and more to keep God's commandments and feel close to him (see Faith). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that knowing the true character of God forms the basis for the faith that leads to salvation (Lectures on Faith 4:1; see Lectures on Faith). Jesus promised that the Comforter, or Holy Ghost, would be sent to one who keeps God's commandments (John 14:26). The ideal is to enjoy that influence continuously.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us: yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (TPJS, pp. 345-46). Further, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,-I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form-like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another" (TPJS, p. 345).

“Thus, all humans must learn from God who they are, where they came from, why they are on earth, where they are going, and what their eternal potential is, by studying the scriptures and receiving personal revelation. All things center in God.”

Bibliography
"The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve." MFP 5:26-34.
Kimball, Spencer W. The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball. Salt Lake City, 1982.
McConkie, Bruce R. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Salt Lake City, 1985.
Smith, Joseph Fielding. DS 1:1-55. Salt Lake City, 1954.
Talmage, James E. AF, pp. 29-51. Salt Lake City, 1965.”

Keith H. Meservy, Elohim, Encyclopedia on Mormonism

“Elohim (God; gods; Heavenly Father) is the plural form of the singular noun 'eloah (compare Arabic Allah) in the Hebrew Bible, where it is used 2,570 times as compared to 57 times for its singular. But as one commentator has noted, why this "plural form for "God' is used has not yet been explained satisfactorily" (Botterweck, Vol. 1, p. 272).

“SINGULAR USAGE. Elohim appears in the Hebrew Bible as a common noun identifying Israel's God: "In the beginning God ['elohim] created [singular verb] the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). It was also frequently used interchangeably with Jehovah, the proper name for Israel's God: "And Jacob said, O God ['elohim] of my father Abraham,…the Lord [Jehovah] which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country" (Gen. 32:9; see also Jehovah, Jesus Christ).

“Latter﷓day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name﷓title identifying the Father in Heaven (see God the Father). The First Presidency of the Church has written, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name﷓title "Elohim,' is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race" (MFP 5:26; see also Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency, "The Father and the Son," appendices, Vol. 4).

“PLURAL USAGE. Ancient Israelites used 'elohim also as a proper plural form to refer to gods of nations other than Israel. At such times, the accompanying verbs and adjectives used were also plural. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3; here "other" is a plural adjective).

“Occasionally, Latter﷓day Saints use Elohim in its plural sense as a common noun to refer to the plurality of gods known to exist (TPJS, pp. 371﷓74). However, despite their belief that many lords and gods exist in addition to Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost (D&C 121:28﷓32), they follow the example of Jesus and Paul, who worshiped the Father in Heaven (Matt. 19:17; 1 Cor. 8:4﷓6).”

Bibliography
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren, eds. "Elohim." In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, rev. ed., Vol. 1, pp. 267﷓84. Grand Rapids, Mich., 1977.
Author Keith H. Meservy

ELOHIM FROM PURE ADAMIC LANGUAGE

In the pure Adamic language, the name of Elohim, the Father, is Man of Holiness (signifying that God is a Holy Man), and the name of Christ, the Son, is Son of Man of Holiness or Son of Man. (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., pp. 467; 742-743; Moses 6: 57.) [Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.2, p.78].

Stephen E. Robinson, God the Father, Encyclopedia on Mormonism

“Latter﷓day Saints commonly refer to God the Eternal Father as Elohim, a Hebrew plural ('elohim) meaning God or gods, and to his Son Jesus Christ as Jehovah (see Elohim; Jehovah, Jesus Christ). Distinguishing between the persons of the Father and the Son is not possible with more ambiguous terms like "God"; therefore, referring to the Father as "Elohim" is a useful convention as long as one remembers that in some passages of the Hebrew Bible the title 'elohim does not refer exclusively to the person of God the Father. A less ambiguous term for God the Father in LDS parlance might be "Ahman" (cf. D&C 78:15, 20), which, according to Elder Orson Pratt, is a name of the Father (JD 2:342).

“In Church theology, the doctrine of the nature of God is established more clearly by the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith than by anything else. Here, Joseph Smith saw for himself that the Father and the Son were two separate and distinct beings, each possessing a body in whose image and likeness mortals are created. For Latter﷓day Saints, no theological or philosophical propositions about God can override the primary experience of the Prophet (see First Vision).

“In one sense, it creates a slight distortion to focus on one member of the Godhead and discuss his characteristics in isolation from those of the other two, for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one in mind, one in purpose, and one in character (John 10:30; 17:11, 21﷓23). Most of what can be said of the Father is also true of the Son and vice versa. The Prophet Joseph Smith said that the Son does nothing for which the Father is not the exemplar (TPJS, p. 312; cf. John 5:19﷓20).

“Yet God the Father is not one in substance with the Son or the Holy Spirit, but is a separate being. The Father existed prior to the Son and the Holy Ghost and is the source of their divinity. In classical terms, LDS theology is subordinationist; that is, it views the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to and dependent upon God the Eternal Father. They are his offspring. Thus Joseph Smith referred to the Father as "God the first" to emphasize his priority in the Godhead (TPJS, p. 190). The Son and the Holy Spirit were "in the beginning, with God," but the Father alone existed before the beginning of the universe as it is known. He is ultimately the source of all things and the Father of all things, for in the beginning he begot the Son, and through the instrumentality of his agent, the Son, the Father accomplished the creation of all things.

“Latter﷓day Saints perceive the Father as an exalted Man in the most literal, anthropomorphic terms. They do not view the language of Genesis as allegorical; human beings are created in the form and image of a God who has a physical form and image (Gen. 1:26). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit" (D&C 130:22). Thus, "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) in the sense that the Holy Ghost, the member of the Godhead who deals most often and most directly with humans, is a God and a spirit, but God the Father and God the Son are spirits with physical, resurrected bodies. Latter﷓day Saints deny the abstract nature of God the Father and affirm that he is a concrete being, that he possesses a physical body, and that he is in space and time. They further reject any idea that God the Father is "totally other," unknowable, or incomprehensible. In LDS doctrine, knowing the Father and the Son is a prerequisite to eternal life (John 17:3; D&C 88:49). In the opinion of many Latter﷓day Saints, the concept of an abstract, incomprehensible deity constitutes an intrusion of Greek philosophical categories upon the biblical record.

“The Father, Elohim, is called the Father because he is the literal father of the spirits of mortals (Heb. 12:9). This paternity is not allegorical. All individual human spirits were begotten (not created from nothing or made) by the Father in a premortal state, where they lived and were nurtured by Heavenly Parents. These spirit children of the Father come to earth to receive mortal bodies; there is a literal family relationship among humankind. Joseph Smith taught, "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves" (TPJS, p. 343). Gods and humans represent a single divine lineage, the same species of being, although they and he are at different stages of progress. This doctrine is stated concisely in a well﷓known couplet by President Lorenzo Snow: "As man now is, God once was: as God now is, man may be" (see Godhood). This principle is clearly demonstrated in the person of Jesus Christ, a God who became mortal, and yet a God like whom mortals may become (Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 3:18). But the maxim is true of the Father as well. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret" (TPJS, p. 345). Thus, the Father became the Father at some time before "the beginning" as humans know it, by experiencing a mortality similar to that experienced on earth. There has been speculation among some Latter﷓day Saints on the implications of this doctrine, but nothing has been revealed to the Church about conditions before the "beginning" as mortals know it. The important points of the doctrine for Latter﷓day Saints are that Gods and humans are the same species of being, but at different stages of development in a divine continuum, and that the heavenly Father and Mother are the heavenly pattern, model, and example of what mortals can become through obedience to the gospel (see Mother in Heaven). Knowing that they are the literal offspring of Heavenly Parents and that they can become like those parents through the gospel of Jesus Christ is a wellspring of religious motivation. With God as the literal Father and with humans having the capacity to become like him, the basic religious questions "Where did I come from?," "Why am I here?," and What is my destiny?" are fundamentally answered.

“Latter﷓day Saints also attribute omnipotence and omniscience to the Father. He knows all things relative to the universe in which mortals live and is himself the source and possessor of all true power manifest in it. This is part of what it means to be exalted, and this is why human beings may safely put their faith and trust in God the Father, an exalted being. Nevertheless, in most things dealing with this world, the Father works through a mediator, his Son, Jesus Christ. With few exceptions, scriptural references to God, or even to the Father, have Jesus Christ as the actual subject, for the Father is represented by his Son. On those few recorded occasions when the Father has plainly manifested himself, he has apparently limited his personal involvement to bearing witness of the Son, as at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:17), at the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5), in his witness to the Nephites and Lamanites (3 Ne. 11:7), and in Joseph Smith's First Vision (JS—H 1:17). Christ is the agent of the Father, and since he alone, by his Atonement, has made access to the Father possible, Latter﷓day Saints worship and pray to the Father and offer all other sacred performances to him in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ (Moses 5:8).

“Another important personal attribute of the Father is his perfect love (1 Jn. 4:8). Because of this love, it is the nature of the Father to improve everything and everyone to the extent that they will allow. Out of preexisting chaos, matter unorganized, the Father created an orderly universe. Out of preexisting intelligence, he begat spirit children. Even those of his children who will not cooperate and obey, and who cannot therefore become like him, he still saves, if they will allow it, and places them in lesser kingdoms of glory (D&C 76:42﷓43; see Salvation): "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39). The love of the Father is not limited to those who worship and obey him, although their rewards will be greatest, but it is extended to all of his children. The Father's work, and his glory, is to love and to lift all of his children as far as they will allow him. Latter﷓day Saints believe it is the intention of the Father to make all human beings as happy as they possibly can be. To that end, the Father authored the Plan of Salvation. The Father desires that all human beings be exalted like himself, receive the powers and the joys that he possesses, and experience a fulness of joy in eternity. The limiting factor is the degree to which humans, by exercising their faith and obedience and by making wise choices, will permit the Father to bless them in achieving this goal. Sometimes having faith in God means having faith that the Father's plan will do what it is designed to do—to bring maximum happiness to human beings. Nevertheless, Latter﷓day Saints believe, in contrast to some other views, that the Father will never violate individual agency by forcing his children to exaltation and happiness. Coercion in any degree, even in the form of predestination to the Celestial Kingdom, is abhorrent to the nature of the Father. All relationships to him or associations with him are voluntary.”

Bibliography
Cannon, Donald Q., and Larry E. Dahl. The Prophet Joseph Smith's King Follett Discourse: A Six Column Comparison of Original Notes and Amalgamations. Provo, Utah, 1983.
McConkie, Bruce R. A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, pp. 58﷓65. Salt Lake City, 1985.
Smith, Joseph Fielding. Doct. Salv., Vol. 1, 1﷓17.

Author Stephen E. Robinson

Mother In Heaven
Latter-day Saints infer from authoritative sources of scripture and modern prophecy that there is a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rejects the idea found in some religions that the spirits or souls of individual human beings are created ex nihilo. Rather it accepts literally the vital scriptural teaching as worded by Paul: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." This and other scriptures underscore not only spiritual sibling relationships but heirship with God, and a destiny of joint heirship with Christ (Rom. 8:16-18; cf. Mal. 2:10).

Latter-day Saints believe that all the people of earth who lived or will live are actual spiritual offspring of God the Eternal Father (Num. 16:22; Heb. 12:9). In this perspective, parenthood requires both father and mother, whether for the creation of spirits in the premortal life or of physical tabernacles on earth. A Heavenly Mother shares parenthood with the Heavenly Father. This concept leads Latter-day Saints to believe that she is like him in glory, perfection, compassion, wisdom, and holiness.

Elohim, the name-title for God, suggests the plural of the Caananite El or the Hebrew Eloah. It is used in various Hebrew combinations to describe the highest God. It is the majestic title of the ultimate deity. Genesis 1:27 reads, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them" (emphasis added), which may be read to mean that "God" is plural.

For Latter-day Saints, the concept of eternal family is more than a firm belief; it governs their way of life. It is the eternal plan of life, stretching from life before through life beyond mortality.

As early as 1839 the Prophet Joseph Smith taught the concept of an eternal mother, as reported in several accounts from that period. Out of his teaching came a hymn that Latter-day Saints learn, sing, quote, and cherish, "O My Father," by Eliza R. Snow. President Wilford Woodruff called it a revelation (Woodruff, p. 62).

In the heav'ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I've a mother there.
When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I meet you
In your royal courts on high? [Hymn no. 292]

In 1909 the First Presidency, under Joseph F. Smith, issued a statement on the origin of man that teaches that "man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father," as an "offspring of celestial parentage," and further teaches that "all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and daughters of Deity" (Smith, pp. 199-205).

Belief that there is a Mother in Heaven who is a partner with God in creation and procreation is not the same as the heavy emphasis on Mariology in the Roman tradition.

Today the belief in a living Mother in Heaven is implicit in Latter-day Saint thought. Though the scriptures contain only hints, statements from presidents of the church over the years indicate that human beings have a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father.

Bibliography
Wilcox, Linda P. "The Mormon Concept of a Mother in Heaven." In Sisters in Spirit, ed. Maureen U. Beecher and Lavina F. Anderson. Urbana, Ill., 1987.
Woodruff, Wilford. The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, ed. G. Homer Durham. Salt Lake City, 1968.
ELAINE ANDERSON CANNON

SOURCE: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Topical Guide to the Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1977. http://scriptures.lds.org/tg/contents 11/30/02 4:52 PM

Gen 1:1-2, 26, 2:7
1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
26. Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Psalm 8:1-9
1. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth, who have displayed your splendor above the heavens!
2. From the mouth of infants and nursing babes you have established strength because of your adversaries, to make the enemy and the revengeful cease.
3. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have ordained;
4. What is man that you take thought of him, and the son of man that you care for him?
5. Yet you have made him a little lower than God, and you crown him with glory and majesty!
6. You make him to rule over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, 7. All sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
8. The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the seas.
9. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

THE MAJESTIC NAME OF GOD

Because many are also confused by the plural aspects of elohim, we will spend time defining God's names. One important evidence comes from the way the rabbis translated the Hebrew Bible into the Greek Septuagint [250 BC] using Theos [in the singular] to replace Elohim. This evidences the harmony with the overall reality that Israel stood unique in the ancient world worshiping a monotheistic [though complex] God.

ASSUMPTIONS
I always make assumptions before beginning my research. Those assumptions regard the authority that lies behind my final theological determination. First, my study will conform to Martin Luther’s Sola Scriptura meaning the final theological determination must rely on God’s word alone. Second, I believe “direct statements” in Scripture should be given more authority than “direct implications.” Third, “probable implications” of Scripture are given even less authority. Fourth, because conclusions of students and scholars using inductive conclusions are variable, their conclusions decrease in authority. Fifth, conclusions inferred from general revelation were weighted with less authority than Scripture. Sixth, outright speculations utilizing hypothesis on a single statement in Scripture or on an unclear portion of Scripture must be used with a high degree of uncertainty. My research will limit itself as Augustine taught, “when the Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is or that is? Or if we should presume to say it, how do we prove it?” [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge, Book 4, 1308].

(a) From Philo onward, Jewish commentators have generally held that the plural is used because God is addressing his heavenly court, i.e., the angels (cf. Isa 6:8). Among recent commentators, Skinner, von Rad, Zimmerli, Kline, Mettinger, Gispen, and Day prefer this explanation. Westermann thinks such a conception may lie behind this expression, but he really regards explanation (e) below as adequate.

(b) From the Epistle of Barnabas and Justin Martyr, who saw the plural as a reference to Christ (G. T. Armstrong, Die Genesis in der alten Kirche [Tübingen: Mohr, 1962] 39; R. McI. Wilson, “The Early History of the Exegesis of Gen 1:28, ” Studia Patristica 1 [1957] 420–37), Christians have traditionally seen this verse as adumbrating the Trinity. It is now universally admitted that this was not what the plural meant to the original author.

(c) Gunkel suggested that the plural might reflect the polytheistic account taken over by P, though he recognized that this could not be P’s view. As shown above, Gen 1 is distinctly antimythological in its thrust, explicitly rejecting ancient Near Eastern views of creation. Thus modern commentators are quite agreed that Gen 1:26 could never have been taken by the author of this chapter in a polytheistic sense.

(d) Some scholars, e.g., Keil, Dillmann, and Driver, have suggested that this is an example of a plural of majesty; cf. the English royal “we.” It refers to “the fullness of attributes and powers conceived as united within the God-head” (Driver, 14). Joüon’s observation (114e) that “we” as a plural of majesty is not used with verbs has led to the rejection of this interpretation.

(e) Joüon (114e) himself preferred the view that this was a plural of self-deliberation. Cassuto suggested that it is self-encouragement (cf. 11:7; Ps 2:3). In this he is followed by the most recent commentators, e.g., Schmidt, Westermann, Steck, Gross, Dion.

(f) Clines (TB 19 [1968] 68–69), followed by Hasel (AUSS 13 [1975] 65–66) suggests that the plural is used because of plurality within the Godhead. God is addressing his Spirit who was present and active at the beginning of creation (1:2). Though this is a possibility (cf. Prov 8:22–31), it loses much of its plausibility if jwr is translated “wind” in verse 2.

The choice then appears to lie between interpretations (a) “us” = God and angels or (e) plural of self-exhortation. Both are compatible with Hebrew monotheism. Interpretation (e) is uncertain, for parallels to this usage are very rare. “If we accept this view, it will not be for its merits, but for its comparative lack of disadvantages” (Clines TB 19 [1968] 68).

On the other hand, I do not find the difficulties raised against (a) compelling. It is argued that the OT nowhere else compares man to the angels, nor suggests angelic cooperation in the work of creation. But when angels do appear in the OT they are frequently described as men (e.g., Gen 18:2). And in fact the use of the singular verb “create” in 1:27 does, in fact, suggest that God worked alone in the creation of mankind. “Let us create man” should therefore be regarded as a divine announcement to the heavenly court, drawing the angelic host’s attention to the master stroke of creation, man. As Job 38:4, 7 puts it: “When I laid the foundation of the earth … all the sons of God shouted for joy” (cf. Luke 2:13–14).

If the writer of Genesis saw in the plural only an allusion to the angels, this is not to exclude interpretation (b) entirely as the sensus plenior of the passage. Certainly the NT sees Christ as active in creation with the Father, and this provided the foundation for the early Church to develop a trinitarian interpretation. But such insights were certainly beyond the horizon of the editor of Genesis (cf. W. S. LaSor, “Prophecy, Inspiration and Sensus Plenior,” TB 29 [1978] 49–60). [Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998].

Jack B. Scott wrote this article for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. He says elohim is part of a word group. ~yhil{a/ found in TWOT #93c 0093.0 hla ('lh) Assumed root of the following. (93a) lae ('¢l) god, God. (93b) H;l{a/ ('§lœah) god, God. (93c) ~yhil{a/ ('§lœhîm) gods, God.

'lh is the assumed root of '¢l, '§lœah, and '§lœhîm, which mean "god" or "God." The Ugaritic term for "god" or the "chief god" is 'il, plural 'ilm, occasionally plural 'ilhm (cf. UT 19: no. 163). The Phoenician term is 'l "El"; the plural is 'lm which seems to be construed sometimes as a singular (cf. Z. Harris, Grammar of the Phoenician Language, Jewish Publication Society, 1936, p. 77). The Aramaic is '§l¹h, plural '§l¹hîn. The Akkadian form is ilu.

More probable is the view that '§lœhîm comes from '§lœah as a unique development of the Hebrew Scriptures and represents chiefly the plurality of persons in the Trinity of the godhead.

'§lœah is also a basic Hebrew term for the God of Israel, but is used less frequently (see '§lœah and '¢l, a separate though perhaps related generic term for God).

'¢l. God, god, mighty one, strength. In the common use of the word to denote either the generic name "god" or "the God" of Israel, the ASV and RSV are usually alike. However, in some specialized uses of the term they differ from KJV and from one another, e.g. ASV and RSV treat Jud 9:46 as a proper noun "El-Berith" while KJV translates "god"; Psa 29:1, RSV translates "heavenly beings" while ASV has "sons of the mighty"; Psa 50:1, ASV and RSV have "mighty one," KJV "Mighty God;" Psa 80:10 [H 11], ASV renders "cedars of God," RSV has "mighty cedars" and KJV simply "goodly cedars": Psa 82:1, ASV says "congregation of God" but RSV translates "Divine counsel"; Psa 89:6 [H 7]) ASV and KJV "sons of the mighty" but RSV "Heavenly beings"; Isa 57:5, KJV has "idols" but ASV, RSV read as another Hebrew word, "oaks"; and finally, Ezek 32:21, KJV and ASV "strong among the mighty" while RSV renders it simply "mighty chiefs."

Most specially El is accompanied in Scripture by those epithets which describe him as the Savior God of Israel. As such he is called h¹'¢l hanne'§m¹n "Faithful El" (Deut 7:9 ); h¹'¢l haqq¹dôsh "Holy El" (Isa 5:16); 'el'§met "El of truth" (Psa 31:5 [H 6]; Deut 32:4); '¢l' shadday "Almighty El" (Gen 17:1; Gen 28:3; Gen 35:11; Gen 48:3; Exo 6:3; Ezek 10:5); '¢l gibbôr "El the heroic" (Isa 9:6 [H 5]; Isa 10:21); '¢l' d¢`ôt "El of knowledge" (1Sam 2:3); '¢l hakk¹bôd "El of glory" (Psa 29:3); '¢l 'ôl¹m "El of eternity" (Gen 21:33); '¢l- ƒaddîq "Righteous El" (Isa 45:21); and '¢l qann¹' "Jealous El" (Exo 20:5; Deut 4:24; Deut 5:9; Deut 6:15; Josh 24:19; Nah 1:2).

In contradistinction from all false "els" (gods), he is declared to be '¢l µay the "Living El" (Josh 3:10; 1Sam 17:26, 36; 2Kings 19:4, 16; Psa 42:2 [H 3]; Psa 84:2 [H 3]; Isa 37:4; Jer 10:10; Jer 23:36; Dan 6:20, 26 [H 21,27]; Hos 1:10 [H 2:1]). In accord with strict biblical monotheism he is therefore '¢l 'eµ¹d, the one El (Mal 2:10). And in the passage most quoted elsewhere in the Old Testament El is described in terms of those attributes by which God desired to be known by his people (Exo 34:5-7; cf. Deut 4:31; 2Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17, 31; Psa 103:8; Joel 2:13 etc.).

The very personal relationship between the El of Scripture and his believers is seen in the following epithets: h¹'¢l bêt-'¢l "the El of Bethel" (Gen 31:13; Gen 35:7); '¢l sal`î "El my rock" (Psa 42:9 [H 10]); '¢l y®shû`¹tî "El my Savior" (Isa 12:2); '¢l µayy¹y "El of my life" (Psa 42:8 [H 9]); '¢l gœm¢r `¹l¹y "El the performer on me" (Psa 57:3); "the El of..." (Gen 49:25; etc.); '¢lî "My El" (Psa 89:26 (H 27]; Psa 102:24 [H 25]; Psa 118:28); h¹'¢l m¹`ûzzî "El my fortress" (2Sam 22:33); h¹'¢l ham'az®r¢nî µ¹yil "El the girder of me with strength" (Psa 18:32 [H 33]); h¹'¢l hannœt¢n n®q¹môt lî "the El giving me vengeance" (Psa 18:47 [H 48]; 2Sam 22:48).

Frequently therefore we find the term "El" combined with or associated with the personal name for Israel's God, Yahweh (Josh 22:22; Psa 85:8 [H 91; Psa 118:27; Isa 42:5; etc.) which testifies that he is indeed '¢l nœ´¢' El who forgives (Psa 99:8) and consequently h¹'el y®shû`¹t¢nû "El of our salvation" (Psa 68:19-20 [H 20-21]).

'§lœah. God, god (ASV, RSV similar). The exact relationship between this name for God in Scripture and '¢l or '§lœhîm is disputed and far from settled. It occurs in some of the oldest OT poetry (Deut 32:15, 17) and very frequently (forty-one times) in the debates between Job (an ancient believer) and his friends. It appears therefore to be an ancient term for God which was later dropped for the most part until the time of the exile and after, when there was great concern for a return to the more ancient foundations. It is not frequently used outside Job. It occurs once in Isa, once in Prov, twice in Hab, four times in the Ps, and then in the postexilic books: 2Chr, Neh, and Dan, a total of five times. Marvin H. Pope in his Book, El in the Ugaritic Texts, has noted that '§lœah never has the article although it is once determined by the suffix (Hab 1:11) and found once in the construct (Psa 114:7). He further points out that it never occurs in combination with another divine name.

'§lœhîm. God, gods, judges, angels (Generally, agreement is found in ASV and RSV, however in some passages where the meaning is not clear they differ from KJV: Exo 31:6, where RSV has "God" but KJV "the judges"; similarly in Exo 22:28 [H 27] where RSV has "God" but KJV "the gods" or as a margin "judges.") This word, which is generally viewed as the plural of '§lœah is found far more frequently in Scripture than either '¢l or '§lœah for the true God. The plural ending is usually described as a plural of majesty and not intended as a true plural when used of God. This is seen in the fact that the noun '§lœhîm is consistently used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular.

Albright has suggested that the use of this majestic plural comes from the tendency in the ancient near east toward a universalism: "We find in Canaanite an increasing tendency to employ the plural Ashtorot 'Astartes', and Anatot 'Anaths', in the clear sense of totality of manifestations of a deity"' (William F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2d ed., p. 213). But a better reason can be seen in Scripture itself where, in the very first chapter of Gen, the necessity of a term conveying both the unity of the one God and yet allowing for a plurality of persons is found (Gen 1:2, 26). This is further borne out by the fact that the form '§lœhîm occurs only in Hebrew and in no other Semitic language, not even in Biblical Aramaic (Gustav F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, p. 88).

The term occurs in the general sense of deity some 2570 times in Scripture. Yet as Pope has indicated, it is difficult to detect any discrepancy in use between the forms '¢l, '§lœah, and '§lœhîm in Scripture (Marvin H. Pope, El in the Ugaritic Texts, p. 10).

When indicating the true God, '§lœhîm functions as the subject of all divine activity revealed to man and as the object of all true reverence and fear from men. Often '§lœhîm is accompanied by the personal name of God, Yahweh (Gen 2:4-5; Exo 34:23; Psa 68:18 [H 19], etc.).

While the individual occurrences of the term '§lœhîm for God are far too numerous to treat here, some significant appositives and descriptive phrases or clauses associated with the name are given below. These descriptive words attached to the noun '§lœhîm really serve as titles and indicate the various titles by which God's people came to know him. The term '§lœhîm is the favorite term in titles. They are usually attached by means of the construct, the relative clause or by participial phrases rendered as titles.

The first category of titles pertains to his work of creation: Isa 45:18, "God, Former of the Earth"; Jon 1:9 "God of Heaven Who Made the Sea and the Dry Land."

A second category of titles expresses God's sovereignty: Isa 54:5, "God of All the Earth"; 1Kings 20:28, "God of the Hills"; Jer 32:27, "God of All Flesh." "The God of All the Kingdoms of the Earth" (cf. Isa 37:16); God of Heaven (Neh 2:4, 20); "Yahweh God of the Heaven" (Gen 24:7; 2Chr 36:23); God in the Heaven (2Chr 20:6); "The Lord God of the Heaven and God of the Earth" (Gen 24:3; see Deut 4:39; Josh 2:11); and finally "God of gods and Lord of Lords, the Great, the Mighty, and the Terrible Who Does Not Regard Favorites and Does Not Take Bribes" (Deut 10:17). All of these titles may be subsumed under the rather brief "God Most High" (Psa 57:2 [H 3]).

As sovereign God, '§lœhîm is often described as Judge: simply "God Judge" (Psa 50:6; Psa 75:7 [H 8]) or "GodJudge in the Earth" (Psa 58:11 [H 12]). Another category of titles focuses around God's majesty or glory. Among these we find "God of Eternity" (Isa 40:28); "God of Justice" (Isa 30:l8); "God of Certainty" (Isa 65:16); "Living God" (Jer 10:10); and "This Holy God" (1Sam 6:20).

By far the most frequent category of titles are those pertaining to the Savior God. Here we include numerous constructs in which God is linked to individuals whom he has called: "Their God" (Gen 17:8); "The God of Abraham" (Gen 26:24); "The God of Abraham... and the God of Isaac" (Gen 28:13); "The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exo 3:6), etc. (More than one hundred such titles are found in the Old Testament.) Sometimes to these titles is added the personal name, "Yahweh" (Gen 24:12).

Similarly, we find titles linking God by the construct grammatical form to Israel as a whole or to some part of it: "God of the Armies of Israel" (1Sam 17:45) or "God of Jerusalem" (2Chr 32:19). All of these represent God as savior of his people as does the simple "God of Salvation" 1Chr 6:35; Psa 18:46 [H47],etc.; cf. Psa 88:1 [H2]).

And finally, we find titles expressing the intimacy of God with his people: "The God of Nearness" (Jer 23:23); "Your God in Whom you Trust" (2Kings 19:10); "God Your Chastener" (Deut 8:5); The God Feeding Me My Life Long Until Now" (Gen 48:15); "God of My Righteousness" (Psa 4:1 [H 2 ]); "God of My Mercy (Psa 59:17 [H 18]); "God of My Strength" (Psa 43:2) and "Our God Being Merciful" (Psa 116:5).

Bibliography:
Albright, W. F., "The Names Shaddsi and Abram," JBL 54: 175-92._____, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Johns Hopkins, 1957.
______, Archeology and the Religion of Israel, Johns Hopkins, 1942. Bailey, Lloyd R., "Israelite El Sadday and Amorite Bel Sade," JBL 87: 434-38.
Cross, Frank Moore, "Yahweh and the God of the Patriarchs," HTR 555: 226-59. _____, "El and Yahweh," JSSS 1: 25-37. ______, "'My God' in the Old Testament," EQ 19:7-20.
Davidson, A. B., The Theology of the Old Testament, Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Della Vida. G. Levi, "El Elyon on Genesis 14:18-30," JBL 63:1-9.
Drafkorn, Ann E., "Ilani/Elohim," JBL 76: 216-24. Eedermans, B. D., The Religion fo Israel, Leiden, Universtaire pers Leiden, 1947. Teigin, Samuel J., "The Origin of 'Eloh, 'God,' in Hebrew," JNES 3: 259.
Gordon, Cyrus H., "Elohim in its Repeated Meaning of Rulers, Judges," JBL 54: 140-44.
Jacob, Edmond, The Theology of the Old Testament, Harper Brothers, 1955. Keil, Karl F., Manual of Historico-Critical Introducion to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, I, Eerdmans, 1952.
Kelso, James A., "The Antiquity of the Divine Title," JBL 20: 50-55. Kohler, Ludwig, Old Testament Theology, Westminster, 1957.
Kuhn, H. B., "God, Names of," in APEB. May, H. G., "El Shaddai," JBL 60: 114-45. _____, "The Patriarchal Ideal of God," JBL 60: 113-28. Miller, Patrick D., "El the Warrior," HTR 411-31.
Pope, Marvin H., El in the Ugaritic Texts, Brill, 1955.
Richardson, TWB, p, 89. Segal, M. H., "El, Elohim, and YHWH in the Bible," JQR 46: 89-115. Thomas, D. Winton, "A Consideration of Some Unusual Ways of Expressing the Superlative in Hebrew," VT 3: 209-24.
Van ALlman, J. J., A Companion to the Bible, Oxford, 1958.
Weingreen, J., "The Construct-Genetive in Hebrew Syntax," VT 4: 50-59.
Wilson, Robert Dick, "The Names of God in the Old Testament," PTR 18: 460-92.

Jack B. Scott

Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

BROWN DRIVER AND BRIGGS ON THE NAME YAHWEH
02326 hwhy i.e. hw (Qr yn"doa]), or hwIhy/ (Qr ~yhil{a/), in the combinations hwhy ynda & ynda hwhy (vd. yn"doa]), and with prep. hA'hyB;, hA'hyl;, hw"hyme (Qr yn"doaB;, yn"doal;, yn"doame), do not give the original form.). II. 1. hwhy is used with ~yhla with or without suffs. a. ^yh,l{a/. b. with ~k,yhel{a/. c. with Wnyhel{a/. d. c. ~h,yhel{a/. e. with wyh'l{a/. f. with yh;l{a/. g. with %yIh;l{a/. h. with ~yhla, probably always due to later editors, or to a Qr which has crept into the text. 2. the phrase hwhy ynIa] is noteworthy: a. after rma either alone or before relative and other clauses. b. after [dy yk (a); (b) with ~kyhla; (g) with ~hyhla; (d) before relative and other clauses; (e) with various forms of vdq; (z) with ytrbd. c. after yKi in various combinations. d. emphatic. 3. hwhy is also used with several predicates, to form sacred names of holy places of Yahweh. (pg 217)

THEOLOGICAL WORDBOOK ON YAHWEH

J. Barton Payne wrote the article on Yahweh for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. He wrote, hwhy Yahweh the older form and rare synonym of h¹yâ (q.v.), be, become. (ASV and RSV similar, but RSV, lie, Eccl 11:3.)

The root signifies either existence, e.g. of a tree trunk, being at rest where it falls (Eccl 11:3), or development, e.g. of Nehemiah's alleged scheme to become king of Judah (Neh 6:6). Only three other instances of h¹wâ II are preserved in the Hebrew OT (Gen 27:29; Eccl 2:22; Isa 16:4), though h¹w¹' remains as the standard form of the verb "to be" in biblical Aramaic.

Yahweh. The Tetragrammaton YHWH, the LORD, or Yahweh, the personal name of God and his most frequent designation in Scripture, occurring 5321 times (TDNT, III, p. 1067) in the OT (KJV and ASV, the Lord, or, in those contexts where the actual title "Lord" also occurs, GOD, except KJV, Jehovah, in seven passages where the name is particularly stressed (Exo 6:3; Psa 83:18 [H 19]; Isa 12:2; Isa 26:4] or combined with other elements, such as Jehovah Jireh (Gen 22:14; cc Exo 17:15; Jud 6:24; ASV, consistently Jehovah)).

The tetragrammaton YHWH is not ordinarily written with its appropriate Hebrew vowels. But that the original pronunciation was YaHWeH seems probable, both from the corresponding verbal form, the imperfect of h¹wâ, anciently yahweh, and from later representation of YHWH in Greek iaoue or iabe. An apocopated form of h¹wâ in the imperfect, that occurs in Eccl 11:3, is y®hû' (otiose aleph, GKC, p. 211). This in turn may account for the shorter name YHW in the fifth century B.C. Elephantine papyri and the initial elements, y®hô-, yô-, and y¢- (KB, p. 369) in such names as Jehozadak, "Yahweh (is) righteous," or Joel, "Yahweh (is) God.".

As to the meaning of the name, we are safer if we find the character of God from his works and from the descriptions of him in the Scripture rather than to depend on a questionable etymology of his name. See further the writer's remarks in "The Pronunciation of the Tetragram" in The Law and the Prophets, J. H. Skilton, ed., Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974, pp. 215-24. R.L.H.].

God's name identifies his nature, so that a request for his "name" is equivalent to asking about his character (Exo 3:13; Hos 12:5 [H 6]). Critical speculation about the origin and meaning of "Yahweh" seems endless (cf. L. Kbhler, OT Theology, pp. 4246; IDB, 11, pp. 409-11); but the Bible's own explanation in Exo 3:14 is that it represents the simple (Qal) imperfect of h¹wâ "to be," I am [is] what I am. The precise name Yahweh results when others speak of him in the third person, yahweh "He is." Albright, it is true, has championed a causative rendering, "I cause to be, I create" (From the Stone Age to Christianity, 2d ed., 1946, p. 198; D. N. Freedman, JBL, 79: 151-56); but this is rightly criticized as "conjuring up a nonexistent Hiphil form" (N. Walker, JBL, 79: 277).

The use of Yahweh as a divine name goes back to earliest times (Gen 4:1, 26; Gen 9:26), although the documentation for its employment among other early cultures appears questionable (IDB, II, p. 409). In Exo 6:3 the Lord explains to Moses that by his name Yahweh he had not been "known" to the patriarchs, meaning "know" (see y¹da`) in its fullest sense: the name was in use (Gen 12:8; Gen 15:2, 7, 8) but was not appreciated in the redemptive significance that it acquired under Moses (J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the Divine Name). For even the so-called P document, which critics have hypothesized as contradicting the Bible's claims to the earlier use of Yahweh (ibid., pp. 3-6), utilizes it in premosaic proper nouns (Jochebed, Exo 6:20; Num 26:59).

Commencing with the later judges (1Sam 1:3), the name Yahweh is often combined with ƒ®b¹'ôt, "hosts" (armies, q.v.). The Tetragrammaton occurs in every OT book except Eccl and Est. It appears in the ninth century Moabite inscription of Mesha (line 18). From the eighth century onward the element "Yau-" is employed in Aramaic names and in Mesopotamian references to Hebrew rulers, Only in pre-NT times was God's personal name replaced with the less intimate title '¦dœn¹y (Gr.,kurios) "Lord.".

Scripture speaks of the Tetragrammaton as "this glorious and fearful name" (Deut 28:58) or simply "the name" (Lev 24:11). But it connotes God's nearness, his concern for man, and the revelation of his redemptive covenant. In Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:3, the general term '§lœhîm (q.v.) "deity," is appropriate for God transcendent in creation; but in Gen 2:4-25 it is Yahweh, the God who is immanent in Eden's revelations. In Gen 9:26-27, Elohim enlarges Japheth, but Yahweh is the God of Shem; the latter is especially used in references to the God of Israel. In Psa 19 the heavens declare the glory of El (vv. I -6); but the law of Yahweh is perfect, and Yahweh is "my strength and my redeemer" (vv. 7-14 [H 8-15]; cf. G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law, p. 41). Yet the distinction is not pervasive: Psalms 14 and Psalms 53 are practically identical except for the divine names employed; book I of the Psalter (Psa 1-41) simply prefers Yahweh, and book II (42-72), Elohim. Ultimately the connotations of the name Yahweh are fulfilled in the "covenant of peace," when the God who has been present from the first will be fully present at the last (Isa 41:4); cf. Ezekiel's stress upon God's "sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore" (Ezek 37:26) and his eschatological city's being named YHWH sh¹mmâ "Yahweh is there."

Bibliography:
Abba, R., "The Divine Name Yahweh," JBL 80:320-28.
Albright, W. F., Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, pp. 168-72.
Freedman, D. N., "The Name of the God of Moses," JBL 79: 151-56.
Harris, R. L., "The Pronunciation of the Tetragram," in The Law and the Prophets, ed. J. H. Skilton, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1974, pp. 215-24.
Jacob, E., Theology of the OT, Harper, 1958, pp. 48-54.
Motyer, A. J., The Revelation of the Divine Name, London: Tyndale, 1959.
Payne, J. B., Theology of the Older Testament, Zondervan, 1962, pp. 147-54.
TDNT, III, pp. 1058-81. J.B.P.
J. Barton Payne

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Back in 1:26 we saw God saying man had been formed in the image and likeness of God. Since many believe in an Adam-god theory of creation we will examine that language surrounding the image and likeness.

IMAGE
The rarity of µlx “image” in the Bible and the uncertainty of its etymology make the interpretation of this phrase highly problematic. Of its 17 occurrences, 10 refer to various types of physical image, e.g., models of tumors (1 Sam 6:5); pictures of men (Ezek 16:17); or idols (Num 33:52); and two passages in the Psalms liken man’s existence to an image or shadow (Ps 39:7; 73:20). The other five occurrences are in Gen 1:26, 27; 5:3; 9:6. The etymology of comes from a root meaning “to cut” or “hew” as in the formation of an idol for worship. [Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998].

LIKENESS
“Likeness,” twmd , on the contrary, is transparent in its meaning. It has an ending typical of an abstract noun and is obviously related to the verb hmd “to be like, resemble.” The noun can be used to denote a model or plan (1 Kgs 16:10). [Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998].

BOTH IMAGE AND LIKENESS TOGETHER
Both terms, are found together in a ninth-century old Aramaic inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh to describe the statue of King Haddu-yisi, the oldest pairing of these terms.

Five main solutions have been proposed

1. "Image” and “likeness” are distinct. According to traditional Christian exegesis (from Irenaeus, ca. 180 A.D.), the image and the likeness are two distinct aspects of man’s nature. The image refers to the natural qualities in man (reason, personality, etc.) that make him resemble God, while the likeness refers to the supernatural graces, e.g., ethical, that make the redeemed godlike. While these distinctions may be useful homiletically, they evidently do not express the original meaning. The interchangeability of “image” and “likeness” (cf. 5:3) shows that this distinction is foreign to Genesis, and that probably “likeness” is simply added to indicate the precise nuance of “image” in this context.

2. The image refers to the mental and spiritual faculties that man shares with his creator. Intrinsically this seems a probable view, but it is hard to pin down the intended qualities. Among the many suggestions are that the image of God resides in man’s reason, personality, free-will, self-consciousness, or his intelligence. Owing to the sparsity of references to the divine image in the OT, it is impossible to demonstrate any of these suggestions. In every case there is the suspicion that the commentator may be reading his own values into the text as to what is most significant about man. For these reasons, most modern commentators have either abandoned the attempt to define the image, assuming that its nature was too well known to require definition, or they look for more specific clues in Genesis as to how the image was understood.

3. The image consists of a physical resemblance, i.e., man looks like God. In favor of this interpretation is the fact that physical image is the most frequent meaning of µlx , and that in Gen 5:3 Adam is said to have fathered Seth “after his image,” which most naturally refers to the similar appearance of father and son. P. Humbert (Études sur le récit du paradis, 153–63) insisted that this was all Genesis meant, Gunkel and yon Rad that it was at least part of its meaning. Nevertheless, the OT’s stress on the incorporeality and invisibility of God makes this view somewhat problematic (cf. Deut 4:15–16). The difficulty is increased if, as is usually the case, the material is assigned to the late P source, for this would be too gross an anthropomorphism for exilic literature. And if, as is widely believed, the “image of God” terminology is based on Egyptian and possibly Mesopotamian thinking, it should be noted that the image of God describes the king’s function and being, not his appearance in these cultures. Furthermore, it is argued that the OT does not sharply distinguish the spiritual and material realms in this way. The image of God must characterize man’s whole being, not simply his mind or soul on the one hand or his body on the other. Finally, it may be noted that the ancient world was well aware, partly through the practice of sacrifice, that physiologically man had much in common with the animals. But the image of God is something that distinguishes man from the animal kingdom. The case for identifying the image of God with man’s bodily form or upright posture is therefore unproven.

4. The image makes man God’s representative on earth. That man is made in the divine image and is thus God’s representative on earth was a common oriental view of the king. Both Egyptian and Assyrian texts describe the king as the image of God (see Ockinga, Dion, Bird). Furthermore, man is here bidden to rule and subdue the rest of creation, an obviously royal task (cf. 1 Kgs 5:4 [4:24], etc.), and Ps 8 speaks of man as having been created a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and made to rule the works of God’s hands. The allusions to the functions of royalty are quite clear in Ps 8. Another consideration suggesting that man is a divine representative on earth arises from the very idea of an image. Images of gods or kings were viewed as representatives of the deity or king. The divine spirit was often thought of as indwelling an idol, thereby creating a close unity between the god and his image (Clines, TB 19 [1968] 81–83). Whereas Egyptian writers often spoke of kings as being in God’s image, they never referred to other people in this way. It appears that the OT has democratized this old idea. It affirms that not just a king, but every man and woman, bears God’s image and is his representative on earth.

Westermann has objected to the idea that man is the divine representative on earth. It is meaningful to speak of an individual king as a divine surrogate, but not of a large class or of mankind in general. Nor does he think it is compatible with P’s theology to say with W. H. Schmidt (Schöpfungsgeschichte, 144), “God is proclaimed, wherever man is.… Man is God’s witness”. P makes a sharp distinction between the divine and human realms, which an assertion of the representative nature of man will blur.

These objections show a failure to understand the nature of biblical symbolism. Quite frequently a class of objects may represent an individual, e.g., sacrificial animals represent Israel. And while it would be too much simply to equate God and his representative, man, recognition of his mediating position between God and the rest of creation is quite consonant with biblical symbolism. In a similar way, the high priest represents Israel to God and God to Israel. The ritual system of the OT is not just concerned with establishing the gulf between God and man, but with ways of bridging the gap.

5. The image is a capacity to relate to God. Man’s divine image means that God can enter into personal relationships with him, speak to him, and make covenants with him. This view, most eloquently propounded by K. Barth (Church Dogmatics, III. 1.183–87), is also favored by Westermann. He holds that the phrase “in our image” modifies the verb “let us make,” not the noun “man.” There is a special kind of creative activity involved in making man that puts man in a unique relationship with his creator and hence able to respond to him. But the “image of God” is not part of the human constitution so much as it is a description of the process of creation which made man different. [Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis 1-15, (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, Publisher) 1998].

ISBE ARTICLES ON THE IMAGE OF GOD

International Standard Bible Encylopaedia

James Orr

In Gen 1:26-27, the truth is declared that God created man in His own "image" (tselem), after His "likeness" (demuth). The two ideas denote the same thing-- resemblance to God. The like conception of man, tacit or avowed, underlies all revelation. It is given in as the ground of the prohibition of the shedding of man's blood; is echoed in ; is reiterated frequently in the New Testament <1 Cor 11:7; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Isa 3:9>. The nature of this image of God in man is discussed in other articles-- see especially ANTHROPOLOGY. It lies in the nature of the case that the "image" does not consist in bodily form; it can only reside in spiritual qualities, in man's mental and moral attributes as a self-conscious, rational, personal agent, capable of self-determination and obedience to moral law. This gives man his position of lordship in creation, and invests his being with the sanctity of personality. The image of God, defaced, but not entirely lost through sin, is restored in yet more perfect form in the redemption of Christ. See the full discussion in the writer's work, God's Image in Man and Its Defacement; see also Dr. J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man.
JAMES ORR, International Standard Bible Encylopaedia 1996

D. Miall Edwards - Image International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, 1996

(im'-aj) (tselem; eikon): Its usage falls under 3 main heads.
(1) "Image" as object of idolatrous worship (translations about a dozen words, including maccekhah, "molten image" (Deut 9:12, etc.); matstsebhah, in the King James Version translated "image" or "pillar," in the Revised Version (British and American) always "pillar" (Exo 23:24, etc.); pecel, "graven image" (Exo 20:4, etc.); tselem, "image" (2 Kin 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.

1. 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" (tselem) and "likeness" (demuth); once employing both together (; compare <5:3>), but elsewhere one without the other, "image" only in <1:27; 9:6>, and "likeness" only in <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 f is echoed in , and the term itself reappears in Apocrypha (Sir 17:3; Wisd 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 , 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 ), 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, International Critical Commentary, in loc.). 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 (compare ). 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 with <5:3>), and naively speaks of post-diluvian men as created in the image of God (; compare <1 Cor 11:7; James 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 <1 Cor 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 ( f, man the "offspring" of God). See also (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" , i.e. of God the Creator, not here of Christ or the Logos (as some) (compare , "after God"). Though there is here an evident reference to 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 <1 Cor 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 ; and compare ).

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" <2 Cor 4:4>; "who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" ; and once in He: "who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance" <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 tselem (Vulgate: imago); it is derived from eiko, eoika, "to be like," "resemble," and means that which resembles an object and represents it, as a copy represents the original. In 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 A.D.) 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 ).

2. Meaning as Applied to Christ: The idea here expressed is closely akin to that of the Logos doctrine in . Like the Logos, the Image in Paul and in He 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" <2 Cor 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 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, ). (b) In , 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 <2 Cor 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 fulness of the Godhead bodily" . 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 <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.

D. Miall Edwards, Image, International Standard Bible Encylopaedia, 1996

SUMMARY ON THE IMAGE OF GOD

As a past Mormon I also once believed that God, angels and humans were all of the same class of being at different stages of development. As I looked at the creation accounts I failed to see evidence for that belief emerge. Instead I saw evidence for one complex God standing outside of time, space and matter creating all including heaven, its hosts of angles, the earth and its hosts and all that lives apart from God himself. The creation of man included a command to get busy and look after God's creation with no sense of equality in status or being evidenced.

As I examined the dialogue between God, man and the angel Satan, I saw further evidence for major differences. The first conversation between God and man was a further command from God [Gen 2:16-17]. The second chapter closes with God still appearing as Potter reshaping man in a way that brought forth woman. The Hebrew word for Potter was repeated in v. 8 and again in v. 19 twice.

In chapter three we see Yahweh Elohim say even the serpent representing Satan was fully created [Gen 3:1]. After the fall we see Yahweh Elohim coming into the Garden in a way that his presence could be discerned. From the dialogue that followed we see first evidence for God's holiness in the way he interacted with all three characters present.

Second we see God reminding them of his earlier command in a way that implies he expected them to be obedient.

Third we see the fear evident in the way Adam and Eve tried to shift blame for their own sin as evidence that they understood God would be angry in response.

Fourth we see God speaking to Satan in a way that only a Sovereign God could. He cursed the devil with no worry that his opposition would be harmful to his person.

Fifth we see a prophetic warning for Satan which was a promise for the woman when he said, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel" [Gen 3:15]. In this action of God we see provision being promised to the "seed of the woman" that one day a descendant would crush Satan's head.

Sixth we see evidence for God changing the woman in painful ways [Gen 3:16] that could only be accomplished by a powerful God.

Seventh we see evidence for God changing the man he had created in his image and likeness and given dominion. God changed his dominion into one of servitute to the soil [Gen 3:17-19]. This evidences that this wondeful "image" and "likeness of God" did not mean Adam was really a God. The evidence from this narrative shows God as the creator and Adam as the creature. Also when we examine Adam's dominion, this did not make Adam into a great powerful a being. Really he was subject to suggestions from his wife that were Satanic. The Adam in Genesis was a created "pot" in the hands of the Sovereign Potter.

SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES FOR DIFFERENCES

Numbers 23:19 -- "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"

FROM THE PROPHETS

Isaiah 29:16 -- "You turn {things} around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, that what is made should say to its maker, "He did not make me"; or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?"

Isaiah 45:9 -- "Woe to {the one} who quarrels with his maker-- an earthenware vessel among the vessels of earth! Will the clay say to the potter, 'What are you doing?' Or the thing you are making {say,} 'He has no hands'?" (NAS)

Isaiah 64:8 -- "But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and all of us are the work of Thy hand." (NAS)

1 Samuel 15:29 -- "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." (NAS)

FROM THE WRITINGS

Psalm 139:1-7 -- "O LORD, Thou hast searched me and known {me.} Thou dost know when I sit down and when I rise up; Thou dost understand my thought from afar. Thou dost scrutinize my path and my lying down, and art intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O LORD, Thou dost know it all. Thou hast enclosed me behind and before, and laid Thy hand upon me. {Such} knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is {too} high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? (NAS)

Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 -- "When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on the earth (even though one should never sleep day or night), and I saw every work of God, {I concluded} that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, "I know," he cannot discover." (NAS)

Job 37:5 -- "God thunders with His voice wondrously, doing great things which we cannot comprehend."

FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

Romans 1:22-32 -- "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; {they are} gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."

Romans 3:23 -- "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Titus 1:2 -- "in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,"

1 Corinthians 1:25 -- "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

1 Corinthians 14:33 -- "for God is not {a God} of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints."

I John 3:20 -- "in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things."

THE BIBLE SAYS GOD IS ALONE AND A SPIRIT

Romans 1:22-23 -- "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures."

John 4:24 -- "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

Acts 17:29 -- "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.

Col 1:15 -- "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

1 Tim 1:17 -- "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, {be} honor and glory forever and ever. Amen."

Luke 24:39 -- "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."