I just have 1 question ...

[ak77]

But when we come to Christ, we are RECREATED, so not really off topic at all.

I agree, and it is an interesting line of thought too, I mean we do not stop reading the Bible at Gen 2 (hopefully), so the new creation does matter (very much): Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:a]">[a] The old has gone, the new is here! - Obviously the old is not completely gone yet, since we still dwell in this mortal body, but that will change as well, and there will be really nothing left of the old creation (if I am not mistaken ).

 

[PaulCyp1]

Since God has no physical nature, "in His image" obviously refers to our spiritual nature, which is no different for men than for women.

 

[Call me Nic]

I agree, and it is an interesting line of thought too, I mean we do not stop reading the Bible at Gen 2 (hopefully), so the new creation does matter (very much): Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come:a]">[a] The old has gone, the new is here! - Obviously the old is not completely gone yet, since we still dwell in this mortal body, but that will change as well, and there will be really nothing left of the old creation (if I am not mistaken ).

Exactly friend, that was my point precisely. More specifically, I was confronting the point of view of your church, because even if God did create man in the image of God and woman in the glory of man (to make them lesser), now that Christ is come, both are equally recreated into the image of Christ. Which should put their bias and misogyny to rest.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Yeah, well ... I turned around when I was born again 17 years ago - and I am single. What if I get married, should I turn around back where I was? (Just kidding, not going to get married ) (actually it is not so funny, being in my shoes, if your pastors really think that single women are indeed somehow evil, or at least not quite right ... no matter how obedient you are, how much you serve, there is always that nagging sensation that you are less of a Christian, even less human ... )"

Thanks! I think my congregation (most of the leadership, sadly) is trying to spin this angle (I mean the order of creation) due to some underlying misogynist Bible interpretation (like all women are evil, and they just want to ruin the world etc, etc ... and they are actually serious about it). I am rather upset, sorry, this was just the last piece of this series performed yesterday by one of our best pastors, so I am extremely disappointed (to say the least).

So far as I've seen in the last year plus some, every use of the word misogynist has been from a viewpoint in error. The 'school' that teaches words like that and the views associated with them is (apparently) very large and wrong and growing.
Not that some of the things you noted after 25 "good years"? (I think you posted)
are not something to be concerned about......
just the wording / adjectives used in describing it are not Scripturally sound I think.
(and thus also, potentially, the views expressed and the attitudes may not be as well)

I guess I have to get out, these messages are extremely harmful both spiritually and mentally ... it is just so sad, this congregation was working so well for 20-25 years, and then it just went downhill ... I was just hoping that it will change (for the last 1,5-2 years), and things get back to normal. Anyway, thanks for your reply!

"....get back to normal..."

Raising the dead, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind,
laying down each one their lives for one another daily,
preferring other's needs are met well before their own ?
unlimited peace, joy and righteousness daily without measure ?

i.e. Scriptural "normal" ?

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

This is actually an explicit teaching of Scripture in the direct sense (that is to say being made directly in the image of God, as opposed to indirectly), which is what some mean when they say something along these lines, and it is unfortunate that our present culture will make that difficult to digest even though anything of God should be accepted humbly and thankfully, because all things exist the way they do ultimately for our own good (our best good being that God glorify Himself, but that is a loaded post for another time).

While Genesis 1:27 in isolation may not seem to be obviously indicating man's primacy in imaging God, Paul exposits this account to be unequivocally communicating that truth in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9:

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

The following verses go on to admonish humility despite this fact, reminding us that we are the image of God, not God Himself. However, being the direct image of God affords a distinct honour and responsibility that must be respected. Hence why the woman is commanded to not only submit to but reverence her husband (Ephesians 5:33, the word for reverence being phobos from which we derive the word phobia, which is to fear; in the context, the fear being that which comes from a high respect of the position that God has granted the man).

Woman possesses the image of God, but does so indirectly through the man, since she is made in man's image and man in God's. If you are thinking after the pattern of Christ (Philippians 2:5-8, Romans 12:2) then this should bother as much as a man is warranted to be bothered by being only made in the image of God and not being God Himself. God reserves His glory for Himself and does not share it (Isaiah 48:11), and expects man not to arrogantly pursue it to his own hurt (Genesis 11:4-8). Likewise, God reserves man's distinct position for himself and expects him not to share it nor the woman to pursue it to her own hurt (Isaiah 3:12, 1 Peter 3:5-6).

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8)

If the Son of God incarnate, the very Lord of glory (James 2:1) can submit and show humility, I think we ought to hold women to the same standard considering Christ only behaved humble (Matthew 26:53-54) despite being Lord of heaven and earth, but humans are humbled by their very nature and whether they enjoy it or not (Luke 14:11). I see the OP does not dispute anything regarding submission, but that is not the point of designating the need for submission and humility in this context. Those points are auxiliary to confronting the issue of pride that causes women to suppress the understanding of their humble position before men that would cause them to despise the idea that man is more directly representative of God and she is more directly representative of man and the nature of man's relation to God.

There is much to say about the distinct function, beauty and glory of the godly woman's role, but it is unnecessary in the grand scheme of present ministry to elevate the woman in her mind every time you mention her need for humility.

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Thanks! I think my congregation (most of the leadership, sadly) is trying to spin this angle (I mean the order of creation) due to some underlying misogynist Bible interpretation (like all women are evil, and they just want to ruin the world etc, etc ... and they are actually serious about it). I am rather upset, sorry, this was just the last piece of this series performed yesterday by one of our best pastors, so I am extremely disappointed (to say the least).

You might approach the pastors who preached such unbiblical ideas with the passages suggested in this forum. Then, if they don't change their thinking, feel free to find another Bible believing church. The Christian Reformed Church would welcome you, though different pastors and elders vary on this teaching.
I believe that the Bible teaches the truth that God created both male and female in his likeness and image (Genesis 1:26,27) but that he gave them different roles to perform in their equality before him. The male was to be the servant-leader; he was created first and named Eve before their fall (Genesis 2:23), a fact to which Paul pointed in describing male and female's different functions (1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 1 Timothy 2:9-15; in marriage, Ephesians 5:22-33). The female was created as the male's suitable helper (Genesis 2:20b-22). The male is to love the female, that is, to serve her needs within marriage; then, God will raise him up to be the servant-leader. In all passages, look for the principles rather than the cultural applications that the biblical writers may make of the main ideas.

 

[George the Intercessor]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

NO. God created Adam and did a symbolic act on Adam. The Lord took a rib from Adam and used it to create Eve; thus, declaring through works of power that men and women are forever equals. Be discerning since people even distort Scripture to appeal to their egos.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

NO. God t Adam and did a symbolic act on Adam. The Lord took a rib from Adam and used it to create Eve; thus, declaring through works of power that men and women are forever equals. Be discerning since people even distort Scripture to appeal to their egos.

That is so human to say "forever equals", with connotations(due to their egos, and other mis-information) of "equality" often foreign to God's Word.....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You might approach the pastors who preached such unbiblical ideas with the passages suggested in this forum.

Could you be specific what are you think unbiblical ideas you have heard the pastors themselves speak (and especially not hearsay, and not from someone who may be wrong or right but we don't know ) ?

 

[Colter]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

"in our image" means that, just as the Father is the source of the Trinity, man has the Though Adjusters within him, that is a fragment of the pure spirit of God. When we seek Gods will, it is the Father within us that speaks the will of God.

 

[Colter]

The creator is the source of all personality types, masculine and feminine.

 

[hedrick]

On 1 Cor 11:7: Paul says that God is the image and reflection of God, and woman is the reflection of man. Note the omission of image: he does not say that woman is in the image of man. Presumably he's not denying Gen 1:27.

Note also that in 1 Cor 11:11 ff he moves in a symmetrical direction. Remember that Paul was probably dictating this letter. I've always suspected he realized he had just said something that might imply an inferiority he didn't intend. So 11ff restores the necessary balance.

 

[The Times]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

An Image is beyond the scope of gender. An image pertains to being. The being of God being imprinted in humanity, woman inclusive.

Man was created in the Image of God, woman was formed from the side of the man, his genes that is XX genes. According to Paul and the Apostles this only designates hierarchy of headship, not as to Image.

 

[Marvin Knox]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

Absolutely not.

I don't know how God could have been more clear in telling us that both man and woman are created in His image.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:27

 

[SkyWriting]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave neither slave nor free,
nor is there male and female,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[SkyWriting]

Absolutely not.

I don't know how God could have been more clear in telling us that both man and woman are created in His image.

"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Genesis 1:27

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave neither slave nor free,
nor is there male and female, or Bruce Jenners,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus

 

[Marvin Knox]

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave neither slave nor free,
nor is there male and female, or Bruce Jenners,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus

What does that have to do with the OP?

 

[Ken Rank]

is that view/teaching biblical, that only men are created in the image of God, and women are not?

The idea that Chavah (Eve) came from Adam's rib is actually not accurate. The word being used there actually means his "side." Chavah came from Adam's side and since she came out of him, the only conclusion we can draw without additional evidence is that genetically they were the same minus of course, their sex. So if Adam was made in God's image, I really don't see a way to argue against Chavah also being in His image beyond God appearing to be, at least for identification sake, a 'He.'

 

[FatalHeart]

This is actually an explicit teaching of Scripture in the direct sense (that is to say being made directly in the image of God, as opposed to indirectly), which is what some mean when they say something along these lines, and it is unfortunate that our present culture will make that difficult to digest even though anything of God should be accepted humbly and thankfully, because all things exist the way they do ultimately for our own good (our best good being that God glorify Himself, but that is a loaded post for another time).

While Genesis 1:27 in isolation may not seem to be obviously indicating man's primacy in imaging God, Paul exposits this account to be unequivocally communicating that truth in 1 Corinthians 11:7-9:

"For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man."

The following verses go on to admonish humility despite this fact, reminding us that we are the image of God, not God Himself. However, being the direct image of God affords a distinct honour and responsibility that must be respected. Hence why the woman is commanded to not only submit to but reverence her husband (Ephesians 5:33, the word for reverence being phobos from which we derive the word phobia, which is to fear; in the context, the fear being that which comes from a high respect of the position that God has granted the man).

Woman possesses the image of God, but does so indirectly through the man, since she is made in man's image and man in God's. If you are thinking after the pattern of Christ (Philippians 2:5-8, Romans 12:2) then this should bother as much as a man is warranted to be bothered by being only made in the image of God and not being God Himself. God reserves His glory for Himself and does not share it (Isaiah 48:11), and expects man not to arrogantly pursue it to his own hurt (Genesis 11:4-8). Likewise, God reserves man's distinct position for himself and expects him not to share it nor the woman to pursue it to her own hurt (Isaiah 3:12, 1 Peter 3:5-6).

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Philippians 2:5-8)

If the Son of God incarnate, the very Lord of glory (James 2:1) can submit and show humility, I think we ought to hold women to the same standard considering Christ only behaved humble (Matthew 26:53-54) despite being Lord of heaven and earth, but humans are humbled by their very nature and whether they enjoy it or not (Luke 14:11). I see the OP does not dispute anything regarding submission, but that is not the point of designating the need for submission and humility in this context. Those points are auxiliary to confronting the issue of pride that causes women to suppress the understanding of their humble position before men that would cause them to despise the idea that man is more directly representative of God and she is more directly representative of man and the nature of man's relation to God.

There is much to say about the distinct function, beauty and glory of the godly woman's role, but it is unnecessary in the grand scheme of present ministry to elevate the woman in her mind every time you mention her need for humility.

Wise.

 

[SkyWriting]

What does that have to do with the OP?

The OP about men and women?

is that view/teaching biblical,
that only men are created in
the image of God,
and women are not?

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile,
neither slave neither slave nor free,
nor is there male and female, or Bruce Jenners,
for you are all one in Christ Jesus