Doctrine of Man: “Man and woman, four characteristics in their creation”

It is certainly relevant that, right after the Bible describes God creating man in his image, it adds, “…male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). I do not agree with Karl Barth’s view that our sexual differentiation is what “image” means, but we certainly should make an effort to understand how sexual differentiation and image are related.

In a previous article, I described the image from three perspectives, as control, authority, and presence, reflecting God’s attributes of lordship. In none of these aspects is there a difference between men and women. Both sexes reflect God’s control, for he commissions men and women to jointly dominate the earth (Gen. 1:28).

Therefore, both are vassal kings under God, carrying his authority

Both are subject to God's authoritative ordinances, both are charged with building a culture in accordance with those ordinances.

And filling the earth with children, bringing the presence of human beings to the whole world, is obviously a joint responsibility of the sexes.

In the fall, as we will see in more detail later, both man and woman disobey God, and God sends curses, mixed with blessings, upon them equally (Gen. 3:14-19).

It is significant that the curse applies somewhat differently to man and woman. The woman will have labor pains, the man will have pain and toil in working the land. But both are cursed and equally fallen.

Although the Bible indicates that the woman was deceived first (1 Tim. 2:14), it never suggests that women are more or less sinful than men.

Therefore, Christ’s redemption applies equally to both. Scripture never suggests that women are more or less sanctified by Christ’s grace than men. Positively, the Bible teaches:

First: Both men and women are created in the image of God.

Genesis 1:27 makes this point quite explicitly; the passages in 2:20 (“helper…meet”) and 2:23 (“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”) emphasize the unity of nature between man and woman, in contrast (2:19-20) with the relationship between man and animals.

See also 5:1-2. James Hurley points out that “man” in 1:26-27 is a collective (adam—“mankind”). Plural membership is indicated by the expression “male and female” in verse 27; later, both man and woman are given the task appropriate to those created in the image of God (v. 28).23 This is the uniform teaching of Scripture.

The re-creation in the image of Christ is given to all believers without distinction (Col 3:9-11); in fact, this renewal, this sonship (Gal 3:26), is given to believers so indiscriminately that “there can be neither male nor female” (v. 28). applies to what, noun

Second: Men and women are equal in the image of God

There is nothing in Genesis that would lead anyone to assume otherwise. However, some people come to a different conclusion based on what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:7: “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.”

Why does Paul omit to speak of woman as “the image of God,” after having applied this title to man? One might even suppose that Paul is here denying that woman is the image of God and attributing to her a lesser image: that of man.

I agree with CK Barrett that “in this context Paul values the term image only as leading to the term glory.” The reference to “image” is secondary to Paul’s purpose and therefore not applied to the woman; but it informs his OT readers of the basis for affirming that man is the glory of God, “glory” and “image” being approximate but not perfect synonyms.

Paul’s emphasis is on “glory,” which focuses on the honor that one person brings to another. He says that man was created to honor God. Of course, woman was also created to honor God; but in addition, she was created for a second purpose, namely, to honor man.

God made her specifically to be a helper for Adam (Gen. 2:18, 20; cf. Prov. 12:4; Eph. 5:25-29).25 Man honors and glorifies God by uncovering his head, because covering the head connotes subservience to another creature.

26 Such subservience to men is particularly inappropriate for a male prophet, whose function is to speak for God. However, a woman must honor not only God but also men. Indeed, she honors God when she honors the specific task of “helper” for which God created her.

Therefore, unlike man, she honors God best by demonstrating her subordination to the creature who is her partner.

So Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is not that woman does not reflect God; rather, it is that in addition to reflecting God, she was also created to honor man; therefore, her appearance must be suited to this second function. There is no need to say that she reflects God in some inferior way to man.

Does her subordination impair her ability to reflect God? That is an important question to ask at this point. But the answer is certainly no.

Men are also always placed in relationships of subordination to other people (Ex 20.12; Rom 13.1; Heb 13.17), “but this does not harm them in being the image of God.

Jesus himself became subordinate to his Father, and even subordinate to human authority structures, in order to redeem us. Therefore, human authority, in reflecting Jesus, must be a serving authority (Matt. 20:20-28).

The willingness to subordinate oneself to others for the sake of God is, in fact, a component of the image, not something that compromises it.28 Even submission to unjust authority reveals a special likeness to Christ (1 Pet. 2:12, 19–25; 3:14–18).29

It is often by submitting ourselves to others that we best display the ethical components of the divine image. How can we best demonstrate God’s love, longsuffering, gentleness, and self-control if not by submitting ourselves to others?

Third: Sexual differentiation itself reflects God

As indicated earlier, I disagree with Karl Barth that sexual differentiation is the image of God. But I believe that our sexual qualities, like all other human qualities, reflect God.

The question is not whether God is male, female, or both. Remember: to say that our eyes reflect God is not to say that God has eyes; rather, it is to say that our eyes portray something divine. Similarly, our sexuality portrays God’s attributes and capabilities:

1. Human sexuality reflects divine creativity. Through sexual ability, we beget sons and daughters; God does the same through other means (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14ff.; Gal. 4:4ff.; Heb. 2:10; 1 John 3:1-2).

2. The love between husband and wife portrays God's love for His people (Ezek. 16:1-3; Eph. 5:25-33), which begins with a love within the Trinity itself (John 17:26).

3. The covenant relationship between husband and wife (Prov. 2:17; MI 2:14) portrays the covenant relationship between God and man.

4. Scripture describes God in both masculine and feminine terms, although the vast predominance of imagery is masculine. I think the reason is basically that the Bible wants us to think of God as Lord, and lordship in Scripture always has the connotation of authority.

30 Since, in the biblical view, women are subject to the authority of men in the home and in the church, as we will see, there is some embarrassment in speaking of God in feminine terms.

Our need today, in my opinion, is for a much greater appreciation of the lordship of God and Christ. Therefore, in my view, from a biblical perspective, the movement to use unisex or feminine language to refer to God is fundamentally wrong.

5. Yet, women’s very submission also reflects God. The Lord God is not so proud that He cannot be our “helper.” Christ the Lord did not hesitate to be a servant. Godly women are models, often as rebukes, for all who would be leaders (Matt. 20:20-28).31

Wednesday: Men and women equally represent God

I have argued earlier that the primary meaning of image is likeness, not representation. But because images are like, they often represent the things or people they resemble. The distinction is between structure and function, between nature and task.

King Nebuchadnezzar created an image of himself to represent him. When the people worshiped the image, they were expressing their loyalty to the king (Dan. 3:1-6).

Images were understood in this way in the ancient world. Clearly, a similar notion is expressed in Genesis 1:28, for there God gives Adam the task of filling and subduing the earth.

These tasks are similar to what God Himself does in the world. God wants to be known as Lord, which I have explained in terms of control, authority, and presence.

In Genesis 1:28 God gives Adam “dominion,” a type of lordship subordinate to God’s own. Man (generic) is the vassal king of the universe. To subdue the earth is to extend human control over the world.

It also involves authority: God gives Adam the right to name the animals, which in the ancient world is an exercise of authority (Gen. 2:19-20; cf. 2:23; 3:20). Humanity is also to “fill” the earth, that is, make its presence felt everywhere.

This mandate of dominion continues after the fall; this is clear from Genesis 9:1-3. However, sin greatly hinders the fulfillment of God's purpose in the mandate, which is to fill the earth and subject it to people who will glorify Him.

Therefore, the NT places emphasis on the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20), which is also a command to fill and subdue; but in this case, through the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

Through Jesus’ sovereign authority (v. 18), God’s people are to extend their control, authority, and presence throughout the world. We are “ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making his appeal through us” (2 Cor. 5:20; cf. Phil. 2:14–15).32

Consequently, we have the biblical doctrines of sonship, adoption, and inheritance (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26-29; Heb. 2:10; 1 John 3:1-3). In these matters, men and women participate equally.

Scripture makes no sexual distinction. In fact, Galatians 3:26 (“For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus”) precedes the famous “neither male nor female” by two verses. As we have seen, both men and women are given equal original dominion (Gen. 1:27–28).

Does this fact conflict with men's authority over women in the home and in the church? I believe not. Authority and subordination are not, in the abstract, inconsistent with each other.

It is possible to have authority over one sphere but not over another; or to be an authority in one respect but subordinate in another. Individual men rule in some areas, but are subject to those in authority above them.

Jesus himself is both Lord and servant.

Hence, human authority itself is always a serving authority, an authority with responsibility to those under authority (as in Matt. 20:25-28; John 13:12-17; Eph. 5:22-6:9).

Therefore, when Scripture speaks of the primacy of man over woman, it usually coordinates this teaching with reflections on the mutual dependence of the sexes (as in 1 Cor. 7:3; 11:11-12).

Women certainly share in the authority given to Adam. Along with men, they were created to rule the earth (Gen. 1:27-28; 1 Cor. 3:21).

Individually, they are given authority in various spheres: mothers over children (Ex 20:12), older women training younger ones (Titus 2:4), and in some cases, women manage a family business (Prov 31:10–31).

Women exercise authority over all as prophetesses of God (Judg. 4:4; Acts 2:17; 21:9; 1 Cor. 11:5, 10 [“sign of authority”]). They are also under human authority, to be sure; but so are men.

Quoting Matthew 8:9, Stephen B. Clark rightly observes that a person's authority, far from conflicting with submission to a superior, usually finds its source in that submission.

Prophets had authority because they were under the authoritative word of God. Kings, priests, and parents also have authority because God decreed it. The apostles had authority because of their obedience to Jesus’ commission.

Remember my earlier observation that a woman's head covering (1 Cor. 11:10), a sign of submission, is also a sign of her own authority as a prophetess. authority

Summary and conclusion

Women and men equally reflect God, even in their sexual differences, even in their differences in authority and submission.

The reason is that the image of God encompasses all that is human. Therefore, both men and women resemble God and are called to represent him throughout creation, exercising control, authority, and presence in his name.

This doctrine is not at all inconsistent with the subordination of women to men in the home and in the church. All human beings are under authority, both divine and human. Their submission to authority, as well as their own authority, reflects God.