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.

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 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 the sanctions against spilling human blood by recalling how God made humankind in his own image. Hence dominion over other creatures can only be a result or purpose of being made in the image of God.”^[3]

Articles by E. Jenni in The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament derive from an original in German appearing in 1971, even though the English translation came out in 1997 after TDOT.^[4] His treatment agrees in essence with the results in TDOT.

The recent commentary of Jean L’Hour may be mentioned.^[5] This commentary, which appeared in 2016, is over 260 pages and deals only with Genesis 1–2:4a. It is the most detailed and extensive exegetical treatment in recent scholarship. The results of L’Hour’s study are in line with the authors of TDOT. In addition, L’Hour considers the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription and concludes that dĕmut and ṣelem are indistinguishable in this ninth century BC Aramaic text. The newer Hebrew lexica, such as the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (2010) and 18th Edition of Gesenius (2009), do not alter the picture significantly. Lastly, in a collection of essays from IVP in 2016, Catherine McDowell popularises her doctoral dissertation published in 2015 and adds material on Genesis 1. She considers dĕmut and ṣelem to be synonymous in both Genesis 1 and the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription. As we will note later in this paper, her considerations of the divine image as sonship support the exposition given independently by myself, C. L. Crouch, and Gavin Ortlund^[6] in earlier publications. In summary, scholars have generally understood dĕmut and ṣelem to be virtually identical in meaning.

For the first and second editions of Kingdom through Covenant, I felt it sufficient to base my study on the description of the words dĕmut and ṣelem in Hebrew in the superb monograph of Randall Garr which appeared in 2003.^[7] While I continue to hold that the description of Garr is both accurate and even-handed, I learned interesting things from my own exhaustive analysis of these words carried out since the publication of the second edition of Kingdom through Covenant on June 30 of 2018.

Lexical Analysis of “Image” and “Likeness”

Lexical and semantic analysis is based primarily on three things: (1) context and usage, (2) cognate languages, and (3) ancient translations. Of these three approaches, usage is primary in establishing meaning.

First, ṣelem is found in seventeen instances in Hebrew and seventeen in Aramaic in the Old Testament. Setting aside the five occurrences in Genesis 1 and 5, six instances refer to images or statues of idols (Num. 33:52; 2 Kgs. 11:18 = 2 Chr. 23:17; Ezek. 7:20; 16:17; Amos 5:26). Three further instances occur in 1 Samuel 6:5, 11 when the Philistines captured the Ark of Yahweh and suffered from boils and mice. They made images of the boils and mice and put them in the ox-cart that carried the Ark back to Israel. Presumably, these images had an apotropaic value. One instance has to do with an image drawn or better etched (חקק) on a wall, possibly in a relief of some sort (Ezek. 23:14 Qr). Two occurrences in Psalms have to do with images that are phantoms or shadows (Ps. 39:7; 73:20), i.e. images that are abstract and non-concrete.

In biblical Aramaic, five instances of ṣelem refer to a statue Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream (Dan. 2:31(2x), 32, 34,35), eleven refer to an idolatrous image or statue he built for his people to worship (Dan. 3:1, 2, 3(2×), 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18), and one case has to do with the expression on his face which is described as “the image of his face” (Dan. 3:19, e.g. facial expression).Extensive usage in Akkadian reveals a similar pattern, referring to an image or statue of a god, king, or general image, to a figurine or bas-relief drawing, to a constellation or one’s bodily stature, and beyond that are metaphorical uses.^[8] Usage in Ugaritic, all epochs of Aramaic, and later phases of Hebrew are similar.^[9].The Septuagint usually renders ṣelem as εἰκών, although εἴδωλον is used in Numbers 33:52, ὁμοίωμα in 1 Samuel 6:5, and τύπος in Amos 5:26.

Turning our attention to the twenty-five instances of dĕmut in the Old Testament (not extant in biblical Aramaic, although the cognate verb דמה is found in Daniel 3:25 and 7:3), aside from three occurrences in Genesis, the bulk of the occurrences are in Ezekiel 1, 8, and 10, where Ezekiel is attempting to describe features in his visions. Sometimes he says x is like y, where the word dĕmut is used for “like” in English. Occasionally he employs the expression דְּמוּת כְ (Exek. 1:28). Daniel 10:16 כִּדְמוּת is similar. Rarely he speaks of דְּמוּת כְּמַרְאֵה־ (Ezek. 1:26, 8:2) or כְּמַרְאֵה דְּמוּת־ (Ezek. 10:1) or uses מַרְאֶה as a synonym.^[10]

The pair of instances in Isaiah (13:4; 40:18) function in a similar way to that of Psalm 58:5. They are abstract and non-concrete. In 2 Kings 16:10, Ahaz saw an altar in Syria and sent his priest in Jerusalem a sketch of the altar and detailed plans for construction (1984 NIV rendering is excellent). Our word is used in 2 Chronicles 4:3 to describe what looked like bulls below the rim in the casting of the bronze sea. Finally, Ezekiel 23:15 refers to an etching on a wall. This passage will be discussed shortly.

A cognate of dĕmut in Hebrew is the verb dāmâ and dēmot in Samaritan Hebrew. The related noun occurs throughout all phases of Aramaic, beginning with the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, to be discussed shortly.^[11] A rare occurrence in Akkadian means a ‘copy’^[12] while in Arabic, a freeze-image or statue is signified.^[13] An indistinct figure or object is the meaning in Tigrinya, a derivative of ancient Ethiopic.^[14] The cognate most significant is Aramaic.

The rendering in the Septuagint is usually ὁμοίωμα (14×) or ὁμοίωσις (5×), εἰκών (Gen. 5:1), ἰδέα (Gen. 5:3), and ὅμοιος (Isa. 13:4).

Can we learn anything new from these data? Let us address directly the claim made often that dĕmut and ṣelem are synonyms or otherwise indistinguishable. First, we can observe from the cognate languages that, at first glance, Egypt and Mesopotamia have only one word for image. Conversely, Aramaic seems to be the only language besides Hebrew which offers both words in its vocabulary. The term ṣelem is a loanword in Arabic, and Wellhausen thought dĕmut was an Aramaic loanword in Hebrew. As we will see, in the bilingual inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh, the Akkadian part has only one word for image, whereas the Aramaic has two different words. Yet further research reveals that Akkadian employs the words tamšīlu and muššulu, derived from a root cognate to משׁל in Hebrew, in a way quite similar to dĕmut in Aramaic; and so Akkadian may have the distinction possible in Aramaic and Hebrew that I shall propose. In Akkadian, the word tamšīlu means (1) “likeness,” “effigy,” “replica;” (2) “image,” “resemblance,” “counterpart.” It can refer to statues, figurines in magic, buildings, or topographic features. The images can be concrete or non-concrete.^[15] The related muššulu can mean (1) “likeness” or (2) “mirror.”^[16] There may be more overlap in meaning between ṣalmu and tamšīlu in Akkadian than ṣelem and dĕmut in Aramaic and Hebrew, but a distinction is nonetheless possible, as we shall see.

Second let us observe that the ancient translators did not normally render dĕmut and ṣelem by the same terms in Greek or Latin. From this we can see they understood them as carrying a different nuance or meaning, however similar or synonymous they might be. They were not just stylistic variants for the ancient translators.

Thirdly, none of the major lexica or lexical studies observe that Ezekiel is the only biblical book besides Genesis which allows us to see both dĕmut and ṣelem employed side by side, nor do they make use of that text to determine whether or not the two words have a different nuance or are identical and completely interchangeable.

Is there a difference in the Old Testament between these two words? Yes, there is, I would claim. The term ṣelem normally refers to an image or statue of a god or human person. The emphasis is on how the image or statue represents this god or human person to the world. Conversely, the term dĕmut focuses on the concept of comparison and likeness. Unlike ṣelem in Hebrew or tamšīlu in Akkadian, dĕmut is never used in the Old Testament of a statue. Instead, the word focuses on the relationship of the copy to the original. Sometimes the word essentially functions precisely the same way as the prefixed preposition kaph.

While two words may be synonyms, what does this really mean in linguistic terms? Even when we are dealing with synonyms, we do not think that the field of meaning or usage of the two words is identical or overlaps perfectly. There is usually some slight difference in nuance between the two words.

Let us look at the usage in Ezekiel 23:14–15 where both terms occur together and also in the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription from the ninth century BC where both terms are also found.

The text in Ezekiel 23:14–15 is as follows:

וַתּ֖וֹסֶף אֶל־תַּזְנוּתֶ֑יהָ וַתֵּ֗רֶא אַנְשֵׁי֙ מְחֻקֶּ֣ה עַל־הַקִּ֔יר צַלְמֵ֣י כַשְׂדִּ֔י֯ים חֲקֻקִ֖ים בַּשָּׁשַֽׁר׃

חֲגוֹרֵ֨י אֵז֜וֹר בְּמָתְנֵיהֶ֗ם סְרוּחֵ֤י טְבוּלִים֙ בְּרָ֣אשֵׁיהֶ֔ם מַרְאֵ֥ה שָׁלִשִׁ֖ים כֻּלָּ֑ם דְּמ֤וּת בְּנֵֽי־בָבֶל֙ כַּשְׂדִּ֔ים אֶ֖רֶץ מוֹלַדְתָּֽם׃

“But she carried her prostitution still further. She saw men portrayed on a wall, figures of Chaldeans portrayed in red, with belts around their waists and flowing turbans on their heads; all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers, natives of Chaldea” (2011 NIV).

The word rendered “portrayed” by the NIV means “drawn,” “etched,” or “inscribed.” The term “figures” in v. 14 is the Hebrew ṣelem and the translation “all of them looked like Babylonian chariot officers” in v. 15 entails the word dĕmut. Contrary to authors of lexica and lexical studies, it seems easy to distinguish dĕmut and ṣelem in this text. The term dĕmut focuses on the relationship of the copy to the original. The term ṣelem, however, focuses on how the physical figures or images in bas-relief impacted those who saw them, i.e. the relationship of the copy to the larger world. The impact and power of the images is that they excited lust in the eyes of the beholder so that they sought political alliances with the Chaldeans. This is metaphorically pictured as fornication by Ezekiel.

Next, consider the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription from the ninth century BC. Professor Alan Millard provides the English Translation in the well-known collection of texts called Context of Scripture. The term dĕmut occurs twice and the term ṣelem also occurs twice. In footnote 10 Millard states,

“[t]he monument is termed dmwt’ at two points and ṣlm at two others, both words clearly referring to the same stone figure. While remembering that Aram. and Heb. are not identical, this parallel use suggests no significant differences of meaning should be sought between the two cognate Heb. words used in a similar way in Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:3.”

This view is affirmed by the recent commentary of L’Hour and also in the lexical studies in TDOT.

Closer analysis may cause us to question this orthodoxy. I have subjected the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription to a careful text-linguistic analysis as modelled by Aaron Schade.^[17] This is important for the literary structure of this text. Macrosyntactic signals clearly mark Focus and Topic and these changes in Focus and Topic correspond to divisions in the text vis à vis the literary structure. As Professor Millard himself recognises, the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription (hereafter TF) actually represents two inscriptions. The first entails the dedication of an earlier statue; the second involves the rededication of the statue currently bearing the inscription.

Read More