Journal: Eikon
Volume: EIKON 02:1 (Spring 2020)
Article: Humanity As The Divine Image In Genesis 1:26–28
Author: Peter J. Gentry

Eikon 2.1 (Spring 2020) p. 56

Humanity As The Divine Image In Genesis 1:26–28

Peter J. Gentry

Peter J. Gentry is the Donald L. Williams Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

So much ink has been spilled debating and discussing the imago dei. Can anyone possibly improve our thinking on this topic? Is an attempt to do so arrogance?

Recent study undertaken on the primary sources since the publication of the second edition of Kingdom through Covenant in June of 2018 has led me to a better grasp and understanding of the ancient texts. I would like to focus here on the consensus in scholarship today and seek to show what can be improved or needs to be altered as far as this consensus is concerned. In the conclusion I shall seek to interpret what this means for human being and function in the world.

State Of The Art

Let us first note a few important publications on the imago dei. Some show the consensus existing today while others represent the most recent treatments.1

We begin with the treatment of dĕmut (likeness) and ṣelem (image) in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT). The articles are by Preuss and Stendebach, respectively, and derive from the original German publications of 1974 and 1989, respectively.2 Both scholars assert that dĕmut and ṣelem are almost indistinguishable in meaning. Further, they assert that the prepositions bĕ (in) and kĕ (according to) are semantically

Eikon 2.1 (Spring 2020) p. 57

indistinguishable and are to be understood in the sense of beth essentiae, or beth of identity. Stendebach concludes,

“in any event, v. 26b is not describing the content of humans being created in the divine image, since although 1:26, 28 do associate this notion with dominion over the non-human part of creation, 5:3 and 9:6 do not. Genesis 5:3 involves a genealogy in which Adam is said to have become the father of a son according to his image. Here the reference to dominion makes no sense. The same applies to 9:6, which justifies th...