In some cases, however, He is represented by His Image. Adam saw God in the garden, Abraham entertained Him in his tent, Moses met Him on the mount, Joshua encountered Him at Jericho. These were literal, tangible, material, visible visits of Him Who is the Image and the Word of God. They actually saw His appearance and heard His voice. This, says our Lord, is not possible of the Father (John 5:37). When Philip wished to be shown the Father, our Lord directed him to Himself. “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-10). Then He goes on to show that He is not only the Image, but the Word of God. “I am not speaking from Myself.” “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.” In a few cases we have both the Son and the Father visible at the same time. This occurs only in visions. In the great opening vision of the throne in the Unveiling, Christ is seen as a Lambkin, while there is Another Who sits on the throne. We may be sure that this is not literal. It is a vision. Christ will never be actually metamorphosed into an animal, nor will the Supreme be turned into an august man. Visions are not made of visible objects. They are, essentially, a sight which has no substantial existence. When men set up the worship of an invisible deity, they usually make an image to represent it. This is one of the charges against humanity: that their images degrade the Deity to their own level or below (Rom.1:23). Hence the law forbade all graven images, and Israel, as a rule, has kept clear of them. But this widespread, almost universal, desire to have some tangible, visible representation of God is not wrong in itself. It is an instinctive, God-implanted longing, and God satisfies it by giving mankind a true and adequate Image of Himself in Christ.
In order to clarify our thoughts, let us study a few occurrences of the word “image” in the Scriptures. He Who is God’s Image, and Who spoke as no man ever spoke, used it in contending with the Jews. Taking a minted piece of money, a denarius, He asked, “Whose is this image and inscription?” Their reply was, “Caesar’s.” He responded, “Be paying, then, what is Caesar’s to Caesar, and what is God’s to God” (Matt.22:21).
The fact that we shall partake of this dignity with Him should keep our weak mentality from inferring that the Image of God must be identical with Deity. Real reasoning would insist that the same must eventually be true of us. It would lead at last to absorption into the Deity, a philosophical Nirvana, and endless futile speculations, degrading, not only to the Deity, but to His Image, our Lord Jesus Christ. Let it suffice us that, so perfect is His presentation of the Father, that our eyes are satisfied with seeing God in Him. There are innumerable idols in the world. Each one successfully conceals Him. The Son alone reveals Him.
The above is a good example of Knoch's penchant to elevate the abstract and minimize the concrete. The Image of God is not an image in the sense of, e.g., an image in a mirror, but is actually a real, live human being, and to say that He (Christ) is merely an "adequate" image of God and "satisfies" our eyes in seeing God, is to minimize the actual role and impact of Christ. Just because Christ is visible doesn't automatically make Him something less than God. It actually makes God more real. God in reality is what we are after.
