Peter Gentry on the image of God

KMK · #1 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 10:59 PM

Dr. Peter Gentry (SBTS) wrote this in an article entitled "Kingdom of God" in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary:

Quote:

The fact that mankind is male and female in itself has nothing to do with the divine image. Instead we should understand the divine image according to the background of the ancient Near East where the setting up of the king's statue was the equivalent to the proclamation of his domination over the area in which the statue was erected. Accordingly man is set in the midst of creation as God's statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation. Man exerts his rule not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent, as God's steward.

I had not heard this before. What do you think?

Contra_Mundum · #2 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 12:25 AM

Sounds like he's trying to make Moses, by calling man the "image of God," is putting a "truth-spin" on prevalent ANE politico-religious thought, when he speaks of the "king's statue" being a proclamation of dominion (and therefore man is God's similar proclamation). This is a certain slant being brough to the text. Is this always where we should begin?

When he says that male/female humanity "in itself has nothing to do with the divine image," I wonder what he means exactly? That God is neither M/F is strictly correct, however, he chooses to express himself mainly in male-language, and certainly the 2nd Person assumed a male body only. And M/F humanity is what embodies the image, individually and collectively. IOW, both are necessary, and indeed without whatever woman brings to the race, the image is "unsuitable".

I can understand wanting to get far away from sexist debates, so as to focus on more central issues, but this blurb has not hit the nail on the head. In trying to avoid trouble regarding a modern flashpoint, he has only succeeded in reducing a point the text actually makes explicit.

And by "objectifying" man as the image, it seems as though he is reduced to an existential quality with a few actions. Where is the emphasis on the moral nature? IOW, is man the image of God because he exercises a little authority? This misses many vital theological points. But the quote is an excerpt, so maybe my criticism isn't totally fair...

KMK · #3 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Sounds like he's trying to make Moses, by calling man the "image of God," is putting a "truth-spin" on prevalent ANE politico-religious thought, when he speaks of the "king's statue" being a proclamation of dominion (and therefore man is God's similar proclamation). This is a certain slant being brough to the text. Is this always where we should begin?

When he says that male/female humanity "in itself has nothing to do with the divine image," I wonder what he means exactly? That God is neither M/F is strictly correct, however, he chooses to express himself mainly in male-language, and certainly the 2nd Person assumed a male body only. And M/F humanity is what embodies the image, individually and collectively. IOW, both are necessary, and indeed without whatever woman brings to the race, the image is "unsuitable".

I can understand wanting to get far away from sexist debates, so as to focus on more central issues, but this blurb has not hit the nail on the head. In trying to avoid trouble regarding a modern flashpoint, he has only succeeded in reducing a point the text actually makes explicit.

And by "objectifying" man as the image, it seems as though he is reduced to an existential quality with a few actions. Where is the emphasis on the moral nature? IOW, is man the image of God because he exercises a little authority? This misses many vital theological points. But the quote is an excerpt, so maybe my criticism isn't totally fair...

Thanks for the response, Rev Buchanan. Could you elaborate on this?

Contra_Mundum · #4 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 12:24 PM

Ken,
I just mean: I do not think that when it comes to interpretation, we need to first understand the "religious milieu" in which Moses wrote, so that all of a sudden the "mysterious" language "image of God" becomes clear. If we needed any help, the NT clarifies the central issue in being the imago dei as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

I don't have the whole article in view, so I do not think I am necessarily being fair to the author. Perhaps his whole discussion of the imago is incidental to his main point. He is focused on "kingdom" and kingdom is about "dominion", etc. I just think Moses really wasn't thinking about Man as the imago dei in comparison to human kings setting up their own monuments to self-importance.

KMK · #5 (**permalink**) 11-27-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Ken,
I just mean: I do not think that when it comes to interpretation, we need to first understand the "religious milieu" in which Moses wrote, so that all of a sudden the "mysterious" language "image of God" becomes clear. If we needed any help, the NT clarifies the central issue in being the imago dei as knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.

I don't have the whole article in view, so I do not think I am necessarily being fair to the author. Perhaps his whole discussion of the imago is incidental to his main point. He is focused on "kingdom" and kingdom is about "dominion", etc. I just think Moses really wasn't thinking about Man as the imago dei in comparison to human kings setting up their own monuments to self-importance.

Thank you, Rev Buchanan. It is an interesting article about how God uses covenants to manifest his kingdom and how man is central in that scheme as the one whom God gives dominion so your hunch is correct. You have cleared up this issue for me with your advice to not read too much of the "religious milieu" of the time into the text. It could be that there is a connection, but it is not the primary meaning of the text.