Feminism is the temptation to be like God and man

Been mulling this over more recently.

I think these two posts a year ago accurately pointed out some of the systematic effects of feminism, but didn’t get to the heart of the issue.

So in Genesis 1, you have God creating man in his image:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The key point is verse 27. God made man in his image, not man and woman. Very easy to miss if you don’t read closely.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man [i]does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

Paul uses a similar argument in 1 Corinthians on head coverings.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Skip over to Genesis 3, and Eve is tempted to be (‘ĕlôhı̂ym — elohim) “like God” or the “as gods.”

That’s one of the interesting nuances of the English translation here as KVJ translates it “as gods” (elohim — lit. gods) which would mean that Adam and Eve would become gods. Most other English translations put it as “like God” (elohim — the supreme God).

Interesting parallel to Jesus in John 10 and Psalm 82 here.

John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’ (elohim)? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [f]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.

In any case, we know the rest. Eve is punished thusly,

Genesis 3:16b Yet your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you.”

Her temptation from pre-fall and post-fall has always been the same: to be like/as God, and to be like/as man (who is made in the image of God).

I suppose, in essence, it is envy personified.

Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45), “the capital vices are so closely akin to one another that one springs from the other. For the first offspring of pride is vainglory, which by corrupting the mind it occupies begets envy, since while it craves for the power of an empty name, it repines for fear lest another should acquire that power.” Consequently the notion of a capital vice does not exclude its originating from another vice, but it demands that it should have some principal reason for being itself the origin of several kinds of sin. However it is perhaps because envy manifestly arises from vainglory, that it is not reckoned a capital sin, either by Isidore (De Summo Bono) or by Cassian (De Instit. Caenob. v, 1).

Reply to Objection 2. It does not follow from the passage quoted that envy is the greatest of sins, but that when the devil tempts us to envy, he is enticing us to that which has its chief place in his heart, for as quoted further on in the same passage, “by the envy of the devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2:24).

I did a little more digging and came across this excerpt from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae.

St. Ambrose used to instruct people thus:

“Vainglory and pride are one and the same thing. Vainglory manifests its works, so that people see how you go along, how adroitly you do things, while pride then begins to disdain everyone. Vainglory is like a worm—at first it crawls and bends. But when it grows wings, it flies up high, and that is what pride is like.”

This from orthochristian shows the interactions between vainglory and pride. Vainglory in the form of flattery can lead to pride, or a high view of one’s self can lead to vainglory.

Difference between had a pretty good analysis.

Vainglory is a condition that results from the human desire to be seen, appreciated, acknowledged, and accepted. It is often attributed to people who are attention seekers and have a thirst for honors, rewards, status, or other forms of acknowledgment from other people. The pattern of attention is outward and decentralized. In a sense, vainglory is what an audience or other people think of a certain person.

People with vainglory are described as boastful of their achievements whether large or small. They celebrate their accomplishment or qualities in a grand scale. If their assumptions or achievements are ignored or disproved, they act like it was a matter of no consequence.

That’s most women in today’s culture, feminism or not. Feminism is just one of  the way pride and vainglory manifests as envy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Feminism is the temptation to be like God and man

  1. Paul says:

    This is exactly what I’m currently investigating; is woman NOT (directly) made in the image of God? I’m stilling trying to find a theologian treatise somewhere in Church history on this. Have not yet found it. Some counter verses that need attention

    Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man(kind) in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

    “Let them” as reference to man(kind) “in our image”, seems to suggest a plurality.

    Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

    This is a bit out of place, but should be considered

    Genesis 9:6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

    Is murder of women out of scope here?

    Romans 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers

    “image of his Son” includes women.

    1 Corinthians 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.

    “we have borne the image” again a plurality

    Colossians 3:10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

    seems sex neutral

  2. Paul says:

    Now that I think of it…

    1 Corinthians 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust

    If the we includes women, then women are said to have borne the image of Adam (the man of dust), NOT the image of Eve. Similar to Rom 8:29 where “image of his Son” likely includes women, whereas Son could refer to the 2nd person of the Trinity only, but is more likely referring to his post-resurrection state (“firstborn AMONG many brothers”), hence includes his bodily state. We could of course argue if in a post-resurrection body there is still a difference between male and female (“no marriage in the resurrection”, which strongly suggests no sexuality).

    This shows that at least sexual difference between male and female is likely not part of “the image of Adam”, and most likely also not part of “the image of his Son”.

    It still leaves open the question what the Gen 1:27 and 1Cor11:7 imply.

  3. earl says:

    I’d agree with the fact feminism is the temptation for women to be like God and man. However I’m trying to wrap my head around the difference between man…and mankind when it comes to the image and likeness of God.

    This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

    Genesis 5:1-2

  4. Bee says:

    Paul,

    Some passages in the Old Testament are explained, revealed in the New Testament. I Corinthians 11:7 is given to us to explain, amplify, and shine more illumination on Genesis 1:26, 27. When Christians try to understand Genesis 1 by only looking at Genesis they reach wrong conclusions.
    Deep Strength has correctly used I Corinthians 11 to understand the meaning of Genesis 1.

    “Things which are Concealed in the Old Testament are Revealed in the New Testament”

  5. SirHamster says:

    Heard a speaker claim that man and woman together are the image of God. There is a sense that feminine qualities are present in God, but I disagreed with his thought that women map closer to the Father because their ability to bear life reflects the Father’s creative power. John describes children being born of a husband’s will, and a pregnancy begins with a man penetrating a woman’s void.

    Also not sure if the presence of shared qualities is sufficient to be an image; yet man alone is not good, man and woman are very good.

    I see more parallel in the Son submitting to the Father in all things as the wife (and church) are to submit to their head. The Father, and man, initiates; the Son, and woman, follow.

  6. Daniel says:

    1 Peter 3:7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be cut off.

    Man is made in the image of God, and yet he is weak. When we compare our own frailty to God’s perfection, we are humbled. We stand in need of forgiveness every day.

    Women are weaker than men. When we notice our wife’s sinfulness, we should be reminded of how often we fail Christ, and how lovingly he deals with us.

    We we should forgive her continually, and value her as a co-heir in Christ. By grace she has been made a “son” of God.

    She is second in the created order. Woman is from man, and for man. The spiritual grace that she has been given is not a justification to usurp the created order, but to submit to it.

  7. bstormcrow says:

    No, this is careless exegesis. Look at verse 27 again. It doesn’t say that God created them “man and woman.” It says “male and female.” These are the words zakar and neqaybah. Why is this significant? It’s significant because “Adam,” or “man,” is the name of the human race as well as the name of the first male. Both men and women, both males and females, are called by the name “Adam” because they are both human beings, both part of “man.” Genesis 5:1-2 spells this out:

    This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.

    The same words are used here. They tell us that man (Adam) is made in the image and likeness of God, and man (Adam) = male (zakar) and female (neqaybah). So both men and women have the image of God. “Man” is the name of males and females both. The reason that God wrote in the singular in 1:27, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him” is to emphasis the unity of the race. The race—that is, men and women—is dealt with through Adam—that is, through the first man, and the first male. Both unity and hierarchy are contained in God’s name for the race. The unity and hierarchy together are both men and women died in Adam, not Eve. They’re why Jesus, the second Adam, the man (male) who embodies the new creation, redeems both men and women the same way, and why both have the rights of sons in Jesus Christ. As Paul says in Galatians 3:26-28:

    For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    I recommend the intimidating tome Man and Woman in Christ by Stephen B Clark for his exegesis of Gen 1:26-28, and his exposition of biblical sexuality generally. He argues against the conclusion you’ve come to here at greater length, acknowledging that it’s been debated in the church. Here’s a quote from him:

    It is natural to draw a further implication from Gn 1:27-28, namely, that God created both men and women in his image and likeness. This point is debated, and this debate will be considered in a later chapter. Here it is enough to make three observations. First, Gn 1:26-31 is about the creation of the human race; the natural implication would be that everything that is said about “man” is true of every human being. Secondly, nothing in Gn 1:26-31 indicates that women do not take part in the commission associated with being in God’s image, namely, having dominion over the living creatures. Rather, the fact that the commission is repeated in v. 28 following the statement about the human race being created male and female- indicates that women share not only the commission but also the image of God which makes the commission possible. Finally, in Gn 1:27, the phrase “male and female he created them” is an elaboration following on “God created man in his own image.” The progression would then be something like this: God created the human race in his own image so that it could have dominion over living things. Moreover, he created the human race male and female so that the race could increase and fill the earth.

  8. @ Paul, all

    Anytime “adam” is referenced it may refer to the first man “Adam” or “mankind” as in the species of man.

    H120 — ‘âdâm — aw-dawm’
    From H119; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.): – X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
    Total KJV occurrences: 541

    H121 — ‘âdâm — aw-dawm’
    The same as H120; Adam, the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine: – Adam.
    Total KJV occurrences: 21

    Therefore, each instance of “adam” in Genesis must be analyzed contextually to if it refers to the man Adam or mankind.

    Phil 3:4 although I myself might have confidence even in the flesh. If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless.

    Given that Paul was basically a Pharisee of Pharisees and knew more about the OT and Law than any of us (it was basically his life to study and understand it), I would trust his interpretation of Genesis when he comments on it 1 Corinthians 11. That would be:

    Man is made in the image and glory of God, and woman is the glory of man.

    The second creation account, Genesis 2, shows us that the man, Adam, is created in the image of God. Then woman is taken out of Adam. Hence, this also confirms the correct reading of Genesis 1 and Paul’s affirmation in 1 Corinthians 11.

  9. @ earl

    This is the book of the generations of Adam (H121 âdâm). In the day when God created man (H120 âdâm), He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man (H121 âdâm) in the day when they were created.
    Genesis 5:1-2

    This seems to echo Genesis 1:27.

    Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

    The latter part of verse 2 (“and He blessed them and named them Man (H121 âdâm) in the day when they were created.”) seems to establish Patriarchy.

  10. @ bstormcrow

    H120 and H121 are basically “adam” which refer to the first man and/or mankind. Therefore, it depends on context. I covered that in this reply:

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2018/02/26/feminism-is-the-temptation-to-be-like-god-and-man/#comment-11255

    Paul gives us that context in 1 Cor 11.

    The Galatians passage is not in the same context as Gen 1-3, 5 and 1 Cor 11. The core of the Galatians passage is unity in Christ. It’s not about creation order and the image of God. Note how Paul in the rest of the 1 Cor 11 passage shows that even though man “was created in the glory and image of God, and that woman is the glory of man” still goes on to say that man and woman are interdependent and all things are from God lest any man develop a superiority complex.

    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

    I’m open to Stephen B Clark’s argument if he addresses 1 Cor 11 in the same context as Gen 1-3, 5. However, if he doesn’t then I’m going to trust Paul’s interpretation over his (for obvious reasons). This is pretty straight forward:

    “or a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”

  11. ray says:

    The male was created from earth, with the ‘pneuma’ of God. Amongst other qualities, this injected some measure of Father’s own spirit, including His masculinity, into the human male. Masculinity is not an accident in males. Men are masculine only because Father is masculine.

    The human female did NOT receive Father’s pneuma; she was created from aspects of the already extant male. The male is masculine, with certain distinct and observable qualities. The female is not masculine. Her spirit is otherwise.

    The satanic offer was to ‘compensate’ Eve via a method separate from God’s transmission of pneuma, such that her qualities would equal, or exceed, those already present in God and man. Precisely like modern feminism, it was an attempt to end-run both the created hierarchy, and the created nature of the female being, by employing outside methods to overcome God’s will and order.

    At the close of Christ’s Millennium, there will be another, final, rebellion against God. I suspect it will again mirror this pattern of rebellion apparent in both the Edenic fall, and in the destruction of the modern West via female covetousness and resentment, i.e., feminism. Speculative but makes sense.

  12. SnapperTrx says:

    You can’t tell this stuff to modern Christian men OR women. In their eyes men and women are equal and interchangeable, though they don’t necessarily come out and say so. To indicate that men are esteemed higher than women in this world (scripture backs that up by indicating that man should not cover his head during praise/prayer/prophesy, but woman should) is to invite trouble. Indeed we are all equal when we enter the kingdom of heaven where there will be no male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, but we aren’t there yet, so that doesn’t apply. Here on earth, however, its women that fill the seats and get the mortgage on the new building paid! Its women who buy the majority of the books, retreats, studies and CDs, so it becomes a high priority to keep them happy. And since they hold the reins on sex, which essentially puts their hands around their husbands testicles, it makes sense to get them to use that power to coerce their husbands into dishing out more dough for church related things like sound systems, new instruments and a van. Empower the women, and the (weak) men will follow. The not weak men will find another church when they see the word of God being misused and for profiteering.

  13. Pingback: Pushing people in a corner danger for indoctrination and loss of democratic values | Marcus Ampe's Space

  14. bstormcrow says:

    I’m really late coming back to this. Life got in the way. But here I go, and at length.

    @deepthought: Your main argument is that 1 Cor 11:7 clearly states that woman is not the image of God. You deal with the Genesis texts from this vantage point. This implies, I suppose, that there’s no other reasonable way to read the passage. But more importantly it implies that there’s no need for another way, since Scripture does not speak against your conclusion.

    But the Scriptures as a whole demonstrate that woman certainly is in the image of God. I’ll make this argument below, and part of the argument is that 1 Cor 11:7 doesn’t need to be read as though it states that woman is not in the image of God. So I’m arguing that your exegesis of 1 Cor 11:7 is wrong because it’s out of alignment with the foundational Scriptural teaching about the image of God. For that reason I’m beginning with Genesis and ending with 1 Cor 11:7. Quotes are from the NASB.

    Here’s Genesis 1:26-28 once more:

    Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
    God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
    God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

    The first thing I want to note is that “him” is a correct pronoun for the collective noun “adam” as well as for the proper noun “Adam.” So it’s not necessarily useful to your argument that Genesis 1:27 says “in the image of God He created him.” I take it that the reason the writer switches pronouns in 1:26 (and in 5:1-2) is to emphasis the unity and the diversity of mankind. The race of “adam” must be viewed as a single (male) organism. But it is also male and female. Both at once. This dual him/them aspect of “adam” entails male headship.

    Starting in Gen 1:26a, then, “adam” is made in God’s image and likeness, and “adam” is also the antecedent for “them” in 1:26b. So “adam” in 1:26a must have a meaning that fits the pronoun “them.” And the meaning that does is “mankind”—which includes both males and females. Is it necessary to mention that there is no usage of “adam” in the Bible as a noun signifying only males/a male? Again: God has just stated His intention to make “adam” in His image, and then He says, “let them rule.” So “them” has “adam” as its antecedent. Which “adam?” The same “adam” who is to be created in God’s image? Yes.

    For Gen 1:27, we have the same issue. The pronouns “him” and “them” are applied to a single antecedent—”adam.” The only meaning of the word “adam” that fits all the pronouns assigned to it in 1:26-27 is the collective meaning: mankind. The same goes for Gen 5:1-2.

    Consider that Gen 1:26 and 1:27-28 form a decree/fulfillment duo. There is no implied juxtaposition of “mankind as males only” and “mankind as both males and females” in view. In fact the opposite is true—there’s an implied unity in the use of the term “adam.” God says in Gen 1:26 that “adam” is to be made in God’s image and to have dominion—in the mandate of dominion the pronoun “them” is used. Then in Gen 1:28, after speaking of man as male and female, this “them” receives the mandate for dominion. The implication is that man as male and female have been made in God’s image and have received dominion.

    I consider these texts enough by themselves to put paid to your contention that woman doesn’t bear the image of God. But I think it’s useful to continue tracing this clear teaching for a little longer.

    The next problem for your reading comes in Gen 9:6, where God says to Noah,

    “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.”

    If your reading is correct, then God did not institute the death penalty for the murder of women, only the murder of men. But there is no danger of that being the meaning of this passage. It would be nonsensical to interpret the word “adam” as switching between its collective meaning and its meaning as a proper name. The term is being used to denote a member of the human race, male or female. Moses isn’t singling out the killing of males only as worthy of the death penalty. Therefore women bear the image of God.

    And Moses could have easily honed in on only males if he’d wanted to. In Hebrew, the word “ish,” like the Greek “aner,” is a non-inclusive word referring to a male member of “adam.” The word “zakar” for male could also be used. Instead the inclusive noun “adam” is used. And once again, “adam” either means (1) the name of the first “ish,” (2) the name of the race of mankind, or (3) a member of that race who could either be male or female.

    The New Testament, consistent with Genesis, assumes that both men and women bear God’s image. James 3:9 says of the tongue that “With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God.” Does James mean that we curse only males among mankind? “Men” here is the Greek “anthropos,” which, like “adam,” is a collective or inclusive noun that includes both men and women. This passage assumes that women too have been made in the likeness of God.

    Col 3:9-11 says,

    Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all.

    This passage is about people being restored to the image of God. “Self” is the word “anthropos,” meaning “man/mankind.” The old anthropos is changed out for the new anthropos. “There is no distinction” among those who receive the new self. This talk of renewal of the anthropos according to the image of God connects the passage to “adam” and the image of God in Genesis. (The Septuagint translates “adam” with “anthropos,” btw.) If you don’t dispute that women as well as men are included in this passage, then the logical implication is that women as well as man are included in the same anthropos, that is, the same race of man, that was created in the image of God, and is now being restored.

    Ephesians 4:20-24 implies the same thing when it talks about the “new self/man (anthropos).” Romans 8:29 could be taken to imply the same thing as well.

    The point is that the New Testament presumes the unity of the race of man, both male and female, in having borne the defaced image of God through Adam and in bearing the renewed image of God through Christ.

    So in light of the biblical teaching of both Old and New Testaments, what is a good reading of 1 Cor 11:7? From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible comes a reading that is sensible and fitting. Gill says that man is called “image and glory of God” while woman is only called “glory of man” for this reason: “But yet man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority.”

    This or something similar is a common exegesis throughout church history. I quote Gill just because he puts it succinctly. To restate his conclusion, the point of 1 Cor 11:7 is the supremacy of the man over the woman in terms of authority. He was created in the image of God to start with. She was created afterward, out of him, derivatively. She received the image of God indirectly. This fits with the truth that men have headship and women are subordinate. Since this passage is about headship, it makes sense that it talks about the image of God too in terms of headship. If 1 Cor 11:7 said that the woman was not the image of God that would be another thing. But it doesn’t.

  15. bstormcrow says:

    @ray No, men are not masculine by way of being the exclusive recipients of the Father’s pneuma. The Bible says clearly that all living things have the pneuma of life in them. Compare Gen 6:17, 7:15, 7:22, Job 12:10. Ergo, woman has the pneuma of life that comes from God the Father.

  16. @ bstormcrow

    Good points. I can tentatively agree to this:

    So in light of the biblical teaching of both Old and New Testaments, what is a good reading of 1 Cor 11:7? From Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible comes a reading that is sensible and fitting. Gill says that man is called “image and glory of God” while woman is only called “glory of man” for this reason: “But yet man was first originally and immediately the image and glory of God, the woman only secondarily and mediately through man. The man is more perfectly and conspicuously the image and glory of God, on account of his more extensive dominion and authority.”

    Transitively, man was made in the image of God, and woman was created from man who is the image of God. So technically, both are created in the image of God.

  17. Paul says:

    @bstormcrow: “He was created in the image of God to start with. She was created afterward, out of him, derivatively. She received the image of God *indirectly*. This fits with the truth that men have headship and women are subordinate.”

    That was EXACTLY my point when I stated:”is woman NOT (directly) made in the image of God?”
    Thanks for your thoughts. I’m still looking for comments on this from the first couple of centuries.

    Still I think this has not been conclusively answered yet. I understand the Adam-representing-all-males-and-females, but that does not really answer the question; it just confirms that Adam has headship. It is telling that the Godhead is described in MALE terms (Father-Son), NOT female. That fits Adam as a male image, and Eve as an indirect, lesser image.

  18. AC says:

    @deepstrength “Transitively, man was made in the image of God, and woman was created from man who is the image of God. So technically, both are created in the image of God. ”

    You are referring to the secondary (or accidental) ways that man images God.

    According to Aquinas in the Summa, there are two senses in which man images God. The chief or primary way resides in the intellect. In this way, both man and woman image Him equally in that these qualities belong to the Divine nature.

    The secondary way of imaging God refers to accidental qualities. Of these, Aquinas says “But these do not of themselves belong to the nature of the Divine image in man, unless we presuppose the first likeness, which is in the intellectual nature; otherwise even brute animals would be to God’s image” So basically, the secondary ways are accidents of nature and do not detract from the primary way of imaging God.

    “Objection 1. It would seem that the image of God is not found in every man. For the Apostle says that “man is the image of God, but woman is the image [Vulg. glory] of man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). Therefore, as woman is an individual of the human species, it is clear that every individual is not an image of God.

    Reply to objection 1: “The image of God, in its principal signification, namely the intellectual nature, is found both in man and in woman. Hence after the words, “To the image of God He created him,” it is added, “Male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). Moreover it is said “them” in the plural, as Augustine (Gen. ad lit. iii, 22) remarks, lest it should be thought that both sexes were united in one individual. But in a secondary sense the image of God is found in man, and not in woman: for man is the beginning and end of woman; as God is the beginning and end of every creature. So when the Apostle had said that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man,” he adds his reason for saying this: “For man is not of woman, but woman of man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”

    Objection 1. It would seem that the image of God is not only in man’s mind. For the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:7) that “the man is the image . . . of God.” But man is not only mind. Therefore the image of God is to be observed not only in his mind.

    On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 4:23-24): “Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man.” Whence we are given to understand that our renewal which consists in putting on the new man, belongs to the mind. Now, he says (Colossians 3:10): “Putting on the new” man; “him who is renewed unto knowledge” of God, “according to the image of Him that created him,” where the renewal which consists in putting on the new man is ascribed to the image of God. Therefore to be to the image of God belongs to the mind only.

    Reply to Objection 1. Man is called to the image of God; not that he is essentially an image; but that the image of God is impressed on his mind; as a coin is an image of the king, as having the image of the king. Wherefore there is no need to consider the image of God as existing in every part of man.

    Objection 2. Further, it is written (Genesis 1:27): “God created man to His own image; to the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” But the distinction of male and female is in the body. Therefore the image of God is also in the body, and not only in the mind.

    Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 5), some have thought that the image of God was not in man individually, but severally. They held that “the man represents the Person of the Father; those born of man denote the person of the Son; and that the woman is a third person in likeness to the Holy Ghost, since she so proceeded from man as not to be his son or daughter.” All of this is manifestly absurd; first, because it would follow that the Holy Ghost is the principle of the Son, as the woman is the principle of the man’s offspring; secondly, because one man would be only the image of one Person; thirdly, because in that case Scripture should not have mentioned the image of God in man until after the birth of the offspring. Therefore we must understand that when Scripture had said, “to the image of God He created him,” it added, “male and female He created them,” not to imply that the image of God came through the distinction of sex, but that the image of God belongs to both sexes, since it is in the mind, wherein there is no sexual distinction. Wherefore the Apostle (Colossians 3:10), after saying, “According to the image of Him that created him,” added, “Where there is neither male nor female” [these words are in reality from Galatians 3:28 (V

    Link to question 93 Articles 1-9

    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1093.htm#article3

  19. Paul
    You are clearly a good god fearing Christian male, who had vigorously read and reread your bible to justify why you are better than women. Unfortunately you have misinterpreted feminism. Feminism is not the desire for women to be like god, but the desire for women to equal men. When god created Adam and Eve he made them equal, he did not make Adam more capable than Eve. Thus as a human race we have moved away from this original equality. If you are still battling with this concept of equality amongst the different genders I would like for you to tell your mother, who birthed, raised and looked after you, and go tell her you are better than her because you are a man. Also I’ve met God and SHE is BLACK, and very unhappy with the never ending misinterpretation of her autobiography.

  20. @ 3rdwavefeminist

    Also I’ve met God and SHE is BLACK, and very unhappy with the never ending misinterpretation of her autobiography.

    So according to you Jesus wasn’t the son of God because He kept calling God the Father.

    Instead of misinterpreting the Scriptures, you should repent, be baptized, and follow Christ.

  21. @DS:

    Do you think that’s a parody account?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s