Are only Males (Men) made in the image of God and not Women?

Question

I saw in a comment someone say God created men (human males) in His image, but not women in His image (although He did create women), and He gave men not women dominion. That statement got several downvotes without comment. But seems it may be true if we are being honest to the text of Gen 1. However, I am new to even looking at Herbew, let alone interpreting it. Any honest, educated opinions based on the text not one’s preferences:

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man (אָדָ֛ם) in our image, after our likeness: and let them (them inherent in וְיִרְדּוּ֩)[them ones just mentioned] 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 ( הָֽאָדָם֙) in his own image, in the image of God created he him (אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר)

He created them (אֹתָֽם׃) [them ones just mentioned] and female (וּנְקֵבָ֖ה) “

————

Full Hebrew below. Right away, it seems at the end of 27 that female would not need to be explicitly added to what was created if females were included all along. Before that, even the English seems to be saying just males (him in 27, “he him” (אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר)). In 26, it would depend upon whether אָדָ֛ם can (not must) mean only men (if it can mean either only men or both men and women, or if it can only mean men, then the totality of the passages means He only created males in His image; if אָדָ֛ם can ONLY mean both men and women, then we have some contradiction and a debate).

Secondly, this is starting to appear (not 100% sure) that some bibles flat-out mistranslate when they use “mankind” as what has been created in His image. One might wonder about intention vs accident there. Also, 27 does not end with “He created them, male and female”. Thats simply a mistranslation. It says, “He created them [them ones just mentioned], and females”.

Bonus question: why the difference between these for “man” in 26 and 27 ‎אָדָ֛ם
‎ הָֽאָדָם֙

Bonus bonuses: We might consider the sex of God in this question as well. Does anyone know if people assign male or female or neither to the Godhead in light of Father and Son being male and Holy Spirit being neither? Idk. Technically there is no femaleness in any part of the trinity (HS being “neither”, not “both”). Correct? Then again, is it Godhead who is doing the creating or rather God the Father? Idk. Seems God the Father wouldnt be making a female “in His image”, or does it? ———-

26 ‎וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃

27 ‎וַיִּבְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָם֙ בְּצַלְמֹ֔ו בְּצֶ֥לֶם אֱלֹהִ֖ים בָּרָ֣א אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר וּנְקֵבָ֖ה בָּרָ֥א אֹתָֽם׃

Answer 1

Are only Males (Man) made in the image of God and not Women?

Well, Yes and also no. I used to be in agreement with the other commenters that man in verse 1:26 should be understood asexually as humanity and that there is no difference in the inherent image-bearing nature of either male or female humans...

That was until I noticed that Paul didn't seem to share this view:

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. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

So... clearly there is a difference in image-bearing nature of men and women. This is consistent with the fact that the husband is by decree (only because of biology) the head of the wife in the family (Eph 5:22-24) and that women are not permitted to have religious authority over men (1 Tim 2:12). There are even more such distinctions in the Old Testament.

But let us also not forget what else that the Apostles say about the equality between the sexes:

Acts 2:17-18 “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; 18 even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

And

1 Peter 3:7 7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

And also

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So clearly here because women are also able to house the Spirit of God, take part with men in the inheritance, and will ultimately have no distinction with men, let alone the fact that they are a part of what is called humanity, they are made in the image of God even if so, indirectly.

So, Overall it seems that only the male is directly made in the image of God and women less directly by virtue of the created order. BUT in the inheritance, there is no distinction between male and female when we will be fully united with Christ (for now we've only been betrothed and not married - 2 Cor 11:1). So today it seems that women as a biological category have a derivative and less direct capacity to image God, but in the future, there will be no biological limit.

Note: While this seems fundamentally unfair that such a distinction is made by luck of birth, consider the priestly class of the Old Testament. By luck of birth, only the Levites were able to image God as priests to Israel. This didn't make any other clan less valuable in the sight of God, but never the less, only the chance of biology made the distinction between who could serve in the temple in the presence of God and who could not.

Answer 2

Biblically speaking, the answer to this question is quite simple: No.

Both males and females were created in the image of God.

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

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." (Genesis 5:2)

The words "man" and "Adam" in those two verses are of the same Hebrew word "אָדָ֔ם". The only difference between them in the Hebrew sentences is that in Genesis 1:27 the word occurs as a specified definite direct object, indicating the importance of the word "man" (in Hebrew, a common noun might not be definite, whereas a proper name will always be definite) which had not been defined yet as a name. In Genesis 5:2 the word "Adam" occurs in a Hebrew construct chain where two nouns are linked, and this follows the direct-object marker "et" making the whole chain definite. Because it is definite already, the definite article (the) is not necessary to be prefixed to the word "Adam", and is, therefore, absent.

In terms of significance, the two verses are using the very same word. In both cases, the word "man/Adam" appears in masculine singular form--which is instructive, because God has declared that He made both of them in His image and has called them "Adam." In other words, God sees them as "one flesh" (singular). "Adam" was the name God had given to both of them; the male portion of this "Adam" had given his wife the name "Eve"--but her name was not given by God.

God called them "Adam" and says that "Adam" was created in His image.

Answer 3

"No" is the right answer. Both man and woman are created in God's image. But we can go farther and say that not only does the verse affirm women's equality as an image of God, it teaches that the complete image of God involves a man and a woman united.

We find this exegesis especially in Jewish mystical exegesis. Rabbi Isaac Luria, (1534-1572) said

The person to whom our Torah speaks is neither a man nor a woman, but both combined. For this is how Adam was first created and this is how we are in essence: Two half-bodies that are truly one. The minds are two, but the bodies, the souls and the very core of these two people are one and the same.

The Zohar says:

As they set out from their place above, each soul is male and female as one. Only as they descend to this world do they part, each to its own side. And then it is the One Above who unites them again. This is His exclusive domain, for He alone knows which soul belongs to which and how they must reunite. (Zohar, Book I, 85b)

Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch (1834-1882) said:

As the union of a man and woman brings children in their own image, so whenever there is oneness between creation and Creator, between earth and heaven, between body and soul, between spirit and matter, there you will find the Divine Presence in all Her glory.

Unlike in the New Testament, where Jesus reportedly spoke of men who made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake (Matthew 19:12) and Paul taught that a single life is preferred to marriage (1 Corinthians 7:9), for Jews, marriage is a sacred duty. The holiest of men were all married. This is precisely because the image of God is male and female together, and only the union of the two produces offspring in the parents' (or Parent's) image.

Elsewhere, Jesus affirmed the importance of marriage in God's plan of creation:

Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? (Mt. 19:3-5)

The male/female image of God is essential to both creation and procreation. The first commandment of God, after all was "Be fruitful, and multiply." (Genesis 1:28)

Answer 4

Unfortunately or otherwise, the Bible says that God created male humans in His image, and does not say the same about female humans. God also created females. I have no opinion to express about that fact.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man (אָדָ֛ם) in our image, after our likeness: and let them (them inherent in וְיִרְדּוּ֩)[them ones just mentioned] 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 ( הָֽאָדָם֙) in his own image, in the image of God created he him (אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר) He created them (אֹתָֽם׃) [them ones just mentioned] and female (וּנְקֵבָ֖ה) “

A. While אָדָ֛ם (and as a direct object הָֽאָדָם֙ ) can mean either “all the people” (like “mankind”) or “all the males”, it by itself conveys no distinction and does not answer the question either way.

B. “God created he him (אֹתֹ֑ו זָכָ֥ר)” is more explicit and does convey a distinction.

C. At the end of 27, female would not need to be explicitly added to what was created if females had been included all along. (Avoid grabbing English mistranslations, the Hebrew says, “He created them, AND females” and not “He created them, male and female”. “Them” refers to whom has just been discussed as having been created in His image and having dominion. Adding “and females” indicates they aren’t in the “them”.)

D. 1 Corinthians 11:7 is hard to get around

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. (8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.).

I would have thought the default assumption would be that God The Father not The Parent created males in His image and we would need clarity in the other direction to alter that assumption. But, it doesn’t matter; the text is so clear that no initial assumption is needed. From everything Ive seen, this cannot be sincerely and honestly debated by anyone who has all the facts. It IS however vigorously debated by people who either don’t have all the facts or who are not debating sincerely. We need to ask if we want to translate honestly or not, despite desires about what we wish it said.

Answer 5

..Adam is created in the image of God....in the image of God created him. Male and female created them.
The passage raises the question of how can the image of God be both singular and plural? The passage also speaks of God in the singular and plural. .the one of whom the singular/plural Adam is the image. How can God be both singular and plural? How can Adam be both singular and plural?
Genesis 2 is the answer to this enigma of how Adam images God via singularity/plurality. The answer is that woman/eve is created out of man. They are created from the one piece of the ground. They are not created separately from 2 separate pieces if ground. This is what distinguishes Adam from the animals. The context of the creation of Adam in both Gen 1 and Gen 2 is the animals. In Gen 1 Adam is created as the image of God which somehow entails singularity and duality. As the image of God he is not an animal. And as the image of God he is a singular/dual being. In Gen 2 eve is not found amongst the animals. She is not an animal. If Adam had found Eve there it would have been because she was an animal. If she was found there and was suitable for him it would also show that Adam is just an animal ...albeit a very clever animal. What shows that Adam is not an animal is that eve is made from him and not from a separate piece of the ground to him. (The assumption or presumption of the narrative is that the male and female of each animal were made from separate pieces of the ground.... maybe this is what is meant that they were made "kind"?). With eve being made out of him ..Adam is now both a singularity and a duality. This is what Paul is describing when he says "man is the image and glory of God ..woman is the glory of man". Man/Adam is the image of God. Woman is not independently an image of God. If she were created separately then they both were not the image of God but both were only animals. BUT man is not the image of God, he is not completed (it is not good ..the man alone) as the image of God without the woman. Without woman being built out of him Adam is not the (completed) image of God. Thus Paul says man is the glory of God and woman is the glory of man. She is the glory of man because she completes him as the image of God when she is built out of him. So in effect Paul is describing and summarising Gen 1 and 2. Paul is describing the 2 stage making of man in Gen 2 in his words ... man is the glory of God ...woman is the glory of Man. So Paul is saying that glory plus glory equals image.
So in conclusion it is correct to say man/Adam is the image of God. It is not correct to say that woman is an (independent) image of God for that would be 2 images and not like God who is described as a singuarity/plurality. To do so would be to revert both Adam and Eve, man and woman, to being animals and not the image of God. However, it is correct to say that woman being built out of man makes him the image of God. We can see why Paul says she is his glory. So together they are the image of God but only as we realise and acknowledge that woman/Eve is built out of him. [Note: woman/Eve is a special make. She is unique. She is the only living creature that is not made from the ground. All the animals and Adam were made from the ground. Eve is not. She has a special unique place in all creation.] Now we see how Adam in Gen 1 can be described as the image of God as both a singularity and a duality. Gen 2 she us how God made Adam that way by building Eve out of him. Gen 2 shows us that without Eve, without Eve being made out of Adam then Adam would not be the image of God. There is further to reflect on as to Adam imaging God who is also described in Gen 1 as a singularity/plurality. But the precise details of what that means had to wait for the revealing of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit of God.

Answer 6

Thank you all for taking part in this edifying discussion. I am researching the fundamentals of the existence of man and woman. I see Ephesians 5:22-24 instructing wives to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. Expounding that just as the church (bride of Christ) is in submission to Christ Jesus. The husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of it.

When studying God's hierarchy in 1 Corinthians 11:3 (God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman), I wondered how was authority determined. The study took me back to Genesis 1:26 about how God made man ('aw-dam') in his image to have dominion over the earth. I understand this dominance was exercised when Adam named all creatures including woman who was created specifically to be man's helper. I also observed in Genesis 3:17 how in judgement God faulted Adam for #1 hearkening to the voice of his wife AND #2 eating of the fruit he was told not to. Not 1 but 2 failures to exercise his dominance as God intended him to. Furthermore, looking back at verse 16; how God told woman in consequence to her sin, she would desire to usurp her husband's authority but he would still rule over her. This understanding of usurping comes from an argument of how the phrase about 'desire will be to...' is the same language used when God speaks of sin overtaking Cain in Genesis 4:7.

While these passages keep showing man as the authoritative figure, I can't see woman (the subordinate) as the image of God. Logically, this leaves man, not woman, as the bearer of God's image. What sealed this conclusion for me was Paul's explicit teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:7 that man is the image (Greek word eikon, from where we get the word 'icon') and glory of God, while woman is simply described as the glory of man. By this understanding I no longer wonder how authority is determined. Man is God's icon and it seems woman gets to become part of that icon, while still subordinate, when the two become one flesh via marriage (Ephesians 5:31; John 17:21-23). Thank you all for helping with this edification!

Answer 7

This is the great question that needs truthful answers. Those answers cannot be answered by refusing to acknowledge the truthfulness of the Author of all truth of words--the WORD of God. You cannot ignore the difference between His words, "created", "made", "formed", and "established". Biblical Hermeneutics demands accountability to those words. Notwithstanding the common 21st century habit of treating these four special words carelessly interchangeably is all too common in spite of Isaiah 45:18:

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

and, in spite of Isaiah 43:7:

Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

For example, God uses the Hebrew word bara' (create/created) (in Chapter-One of Genesis to show that He had brought something new--never before existing in any "form"--out of nothing. Clearly, God did not "create" the fleshy bodies of man, beasts, and birds out of the dust of the ground. Rather, He uses the Hebrew word, yatsar (form/formed) their physical bodies out of the already existing dust of the ground that God, Himself, had previously "formed" on Day-Three. Moreover, God did not "create" man as a living soul, He--only after completing His forming work including His forming the nostrils of man--breathed life into those nostrils and man--only then--"became a living soul". Accordingly, God uses the Hebrew word, 'asah (make/made) to show that man was "made"--not created, not formed--a living soul.

So the OP's question is right on point. Clearly, this question requires an answer to the questions, "What did God create, what did God make, and what did God form concerning the completed mankind?

Using the KJV, Gen 1:26 reveals the "expressed" plan of God by the WORD of God, who was with God, and who was God, to accomplish the complete "making of man" in God's image and after God's likeness.

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.

However, the very next verse told us ONLY about the very first step of God's complete "making" of man, telling us ONLY about the "created" part of man.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (My emphasis)

Does this mean that God had a flesh and blood body at that time? Clearly NO, because we see that only later--at a certain point in time--was that same Spirit WORD (who was always with God and who was God) was"made flesh"** when He was "made" the Son of God of the seed of David according to the flesh, as shown in Romans 1:3:

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Clearly, Jesus Christ had a beginning as the very Son of God by being "made" of the seed of David--this day Have I begotten thee. The word, "which" (Strongs NT 3588)--not "who"--clearly indicates that this verse is speaking about the Son-ship of The Word of God. Jesus could not save mankind except that He became the Son of man. By becoming the Son of man through Mary, Fathered by the Holy Spirit of God, Jesus could stand in our place as our Savior. He could take our punishment as a Son of man for sin, and still forgive sinners as the righteous God that He is.

The WORD of God's becoming a Son of man is inseparably linked to Jesus' completion of becoming the Savior, who was always an eternal Spirit--an operational capacity and person of the duality of the Almighty Spirit God, and was additionally--at a certain point in time--made to be like the mankind that the plurality Godhead had previously created, made, and formed.

WAS ADAM AND EVE CREATED?

What about Adam? What was created in verse 27? What was Adam's likeness by reason of his specific creation? Since God was not Flesh and blood at that time, Adam's created likeness could not have been as a flesh and blood being. Moreover, Adam could not have been a living soul without the breath of life in his nostrils--nostrils that had not yet been formed. God's image at the time of Adam's "creation" was in God's own image--at that time a duality spirit consisting of more than one Spiritual Operative Capacity, which included the WORD of God who was with God, and who was God.

Well, then, Adam would have also been a plurality spirit--male and female--and God would have had to have called them, "Adam"--NOT Adam and Eve, just like the verse before (v26) where the WORD of God Himself called the plurality God, "us".

That is EXACTLY what we find in verse 27, attributable to ONLY "their created state". He did not name them Adam and Eve. He only named them "Adam" at the "creation stage" of God's complete making of Adam, as we see in Genesis 5:1-2:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

So Adam was "created" as a plural spirit having both male and female operational spirits--in the image of the plural-operational Spirit God.

Then, after being created a plural spirit, an earthy body was prepared for Adam, as we see in that portion of Genesis that deals with the details of "forming" of things that are of the earth, earthy--the generations of the heavens and the earth--Genesis 2:7:

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

So first, that being named "Adam" was "created male and female" out of nothing. Then second, that male-and-female Adam was "formed" of the dust of the ground. Then third, after the male-and-female Adam's nostrils had been formed, that male-and female-Adam was "made" a living soul. BUT THERE IS MORE TO GOD's SPECIAL NARRATIVE.

While still only a male-and-female Adam, God put the male-and-female Adam in the Garden of Eden, gave him the blessing of the trees of the garden as well as the commandment concerning tree of knowledge of good and evil. And still, while still only a male-and-female-Adam, he was given the task to name all cattle, fowl of the air, and beast of the field, which he did. But there was no physical help meet for him (Gen 2:20). They had already been blessed and told to multiply, but spirits can't marry or multiply. Adam needed help--quickly. Adam was a spirit--already been created. Adam was a living soul--already a body having the breath of the living God. But there was no body prepared for a help meet for Adam. A woman was required to help old earthy Adam enjoy the blessings God had promised him.

Gen 2:21-22 provided that woman using the process of "forming" EVE. This forming process, a marvelous example of God's understanding of "GENETICS", right here in "Genesis", shows that God "made" a woman, using the created plural spirit, the formed body, and the living soul of Adam. God's brilliance and understanding enabled Him to accomplish the making of a "temporary" help meet--only until the resurrection of mankind unto eternal life, or to judgment. At that time, neither the male nor the female spirit will be bound by marriage, but rather will be each equally free to either worship God, or to receive justice for refusal to believe God.

Is it any wonder that God chose the woman to be the very help meet of God, Himself, to accomplish the preparation of the body that He (the plurality Spirit God) prepared for Himself, as in Heb 10:5?:

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: (My emphasis)

WHAT A PLAN. WHAT A CREATOR. WHAT A MOTHER'S DAY GIFT!