The Answer from God’s Word:
God being the greatest in all the universe, could He fully explain Himself using the image of a flesh? God puts on this flesh in order to do one stage of His work. There is no significance in particular in this image of the flesh, it bears no relation to the passing of ages, nor does it have anything to do with God’s disposition. Why did Jesus not allow the image of Him to remain? Why did He not let man paint His image so that it could be passed on to later generations? Why did He not allow people to acknowledge that His image was the image of God? … He becomes flesh only so that the Spirit may find an appropriate place to reside when doing His work, the better to achieve His work in the flesh—so that people can see His work, come into contact with His disposition, hear His words, and know the wonder of His work. His name represents His disposition, His work represents His identity, but He has never said that His appearance in the flesh represents His image; that is merely a notion of man. And so, the crucial aspects of the incarnation of God are His name, His work, His disposition, and His gender. These are used to represent His management in this age. His appearance in the flesh bears no relation to His management, being merely for the sake of His work at the time. Yet it is impossible for God incarnate to have no particular appearance, and so He chooses the appropriate family to determine His appearance. If the appearance of God were to have representative significance, then all those who possess facial features similar to His would also represent God. Wouldn’t that be an egregious mistake? … God is Spirit, and man will never be capable of encompassing what His image is in the final analysis. His image can only be represented by His disposition. … Nor can you use the language of mankind to fully epitomize the image of God, for God is too exalted, too great, too wondrous and unfathomable!