Bible Study God described a (s)he

[dancing queen]

One of my youth club, non-Christian but refering to the God of the bible, described God as (s)he. I just wanted to double check (as I know nothing of the original language the bible was written in) that describing God as He is biblically sound.

Is this correct?

 

[protos]

I'd think so, considering He is referred to as Father, even though there are instances where a motherly figure is described, the association with God is Father.

 

[dancing queen]

Thank you for replying, I thought this thread had been successfully ignored so I am grateful for your input

 

[Guest]

While God is 'sexless' - God has chosen to use the masculine identity when referring to self - Him, Father, He - etc.

Therefore, it is correct to refer to God with masculine identity.

 

[Orion]

Neither purely male, or purely female would ultimately be correct because of the sexless nature of that which we call God. The tendency to place male attributes on God is a product of a male dominated socieity. Women had no value at that time, therefore, seeing God as female wouldn't have even crossed their minds. Yet, they had to somehow relate God to us in ways that WE could understand, such is why we often see God described as "father", but these are just man made identifyers, not bound to absolute truth.

Fact is, God would have, and does have characteristics seen in both male and female. Is it necessarily blasphemous to call God "She"? I'm not sure any of us could say "yes" to that.

 

[Rick W]

Or yellow, red, black, white or any race what-so-ever.
I think it best to just stick with scripture as written. I've known freedom with scripture to go a bit far when even a little is tolerated. Once one takes a little liberty with scripture it's easier to do so again. And that can lead one far from the path in small, little steps.

 

[Guest]

Neither purely male, or purely female would ultimately be correct because of the sexless nature of that which we call God. The tendency to place male attributes on God is a product of a male dominated socieity. Women had no value at that time, therefore, seeing God as female wouldn't have even crossed their minds. Yet, they had to somehow relate God to us in ways that WE could understand, such is why we often see God described as "father", but these are just man made identifyers, not bound to absolute truth.

Fact is, God would have, and does have characteristics seen in both male and female. Is it necessarily blasphemous to call God "She"? I'm not sure any of us could say "yes" to that.

No doubt that the culture was male dominated - however, The Word of God is inspired by God, written through the direction of the Holy Spirit - I believe that God can supercede "cultural norms".

The truth of the matter is that God refers to himself as the "I AM" - and uses the masculine forms to refer to self: He, Father, Abba, etc.

While understanding that God is sexless, I believe it still be proper to refer to God as He wants us to refer to Him as: Abba, Father.

 

[Orion]

No doubt that the culture was male dominated - however, The Word of God is inspired by God, written through the direction of the Holy Spirit - I believe that God can supercede "cultural norms".

The truth of the matter is that God refers to himself as the "I AM" - and uses the masculine forms to refer to self: He, Father, Abba, etc.

While understanding that God is sexless, I believe it still be proper to refer to God as He wants us to refer to Him as: Abba, Father.

If God isn't a male, then God isn't a "He". If God is neither, then why delegate a human term, one that connotes masculine qualities, and completely disregard feminine qualities? And if the word doesn't actually describe God accurately, why would it be in the texts? I think it IS because man needs to see God as masculine (or rather the writers needed to see God as masculine because the feminine was of no value).

Is God more masculine than feminine? If so, then does that make masculine characteristics more Godly than feminine? Where does that leave women? :-?

 

[jgredline]

Can I throw a monkey wrench into the equation?

How is the Holy Spirit described?

 

[Orion]

Yes, I've seen that monkey wrench before. It is a good question!

 

[cyberjosh]

The tendency to place male attributes on God is a product of a male dominated socieity.

Wrong. The Bible clearly piants God as having a Father's nature. Also for the record women recieve a larger than average prominance in the Bible's stories, both in the Old and new Testaments.

Women had no value at that time,

Wrong again. See above. Also in Isaiah and the other prophets an emphasis is placed on the inclusion of the "daughters" of Israel also in eschatalogically significant events.

Yet, they had to somehow relate God to us in ways that WE could understand, such is why we often see God described as "father", but these are just man made identifyers, not bound to absolute truth.

Oh really, so you ascribe a false designation to God inspired Scripture? Brilliant. This makes me wonder, do you believe in the infallibility of Scripture?


As for the topic God has a nature largely associated with the nature of a Father in the OT, since God ordained the head of the household to be male, and as a representation he took on that role for his children Israel. He also has qualities that are ascribed to mothers, such as providence (nourishment) as a mother would a new born child, but God never assumes the nature of a mother, but rather that of a loving Father. This is the clearest protrayal we are given. When we talk about this though we are talking about attributes of God's character and nature but are not ascribing anthropomorphic gender on God.

~Josh

 

[Orion]

Oh really, so you ascribe a false designation to God inspired Scripture? Brilliant. This makes me wonder, do you believe in the infallibility of Scripture?

The bible was written by men. Even if they were inspired, that doesn't mean that it was exact dictation. They wrote how the felt lead to write. So, no, I don't believe that every word in the bible was exactly the words of God.

As for the topic God has a nature largely associated with the nature of a Father in the OT, since God ordained the head of the household to be male, and as a representation he took on that role for his children Israel. He also has qualities that are ascribed to mothers, such as providence (nourishment) as a mother would a new born child, but God never assumes the nature of a mother, but rather that of a loving Father. This is the clearest protrayal we are given. When we talk about this though we are talking about attributes of God's character and nature but are not ascribing anthropomorphic gender on God.

~Josh

Again, "father" is a human term used as a way to ascribe a characteristic on God. God is not an actual father. God is the creator.

 

[jgredline]

For the record, I am in agreement with Alonevoice and cybershark on this.

 

[Guest]

If God isn't a male, then God isn't a "He". If God is neither, then why delegate a human term, one that connotes masculine qualities, and completely disregard feminine qualities? And if the word doesn't actually describe God accurately, why would it be in the texts? I think it IS because man needs to see God as masculine (or rather the writers needed to see God as masculine because the feminine was of no value).

Is God more masculine than feminine? If so, then does that make masculine characteristics more Godly than feminine? Where does that leave women? :-?

Orion - I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. As I pointed out before, it is inspired by God, written through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If God wanted to use feminine terms to describe self, God could have. God chose to refer to Himself with masculine terms. God also choose to use women and provide them with prominence throughout the Scriptures: Ruth, Naomi, Rahab, Esther, Deborah - the female judge.

I believe that leaves women in very good company. The use of masculine terms is not suggesting that men are better, or more Godly.

 

[Rick W]

There has to be some relationship we as humans can relate to. The father/son relationship is the closest thing we experience so that relationship is used.

I've been asked the question, "If God is the father then who is the mother?"
That question shows how strictly some consider God the Father to be as we know "father" or more likely the guy was just being argumentive.

Another human analogy Christ uses quite often is that of the bridegroom and bride. In Jewish culture of the time the groom would be given land from the father. Before the relationship was consumated the groom would then go and prepare a place for her then return for his bride. In much the same way we look for Christ's return.

All in all though I too agree with aLoneVoice and cybershark.

 

[jgredline]

There has to be some relationship we as humans can relate to. The father/son relationship is the closest thing we experience so that relationship is used.

I've been asked the question, "If God is the father then who is the mother?"
That question shows how strictly some consider God the Father to be as we know "father" or more likely the guy was just being argumentive.

Another human analogy Christ uses quite often is that of the bridegroom and bride. In Jewish culture of the time the groom would be given land from the father. Before the relationship was consumated the groom would then go and prepare a place for her then return for his bride. In much the same way we look for Christ's return.

All in all though I too agree with aLoneVoice and cybershark.

A very good point....

 

[Orion]

I can agree to the "He" as an analogy. But God is no more masculine/male than feminine/female. It is all relational for our own sake. All we know, when we are talking about relationships, is what we know. When we talk to someone, they are either a man or a woman. Since we can't call God "It", we assign a human term to that which is supernatural, but it doesn't make it the case. Spirit is spirit.

 

[dancing queen]

Thank you for all of that. By the sounds of things, my safest bet is to stick to the scripture example of describing God as He.

 

[lovely]

God describes Himself as Father, or a He, because it was His intention to make Men after the pattern of leadership, and authority, that He Himself has as the Father of all believers. This is not a value issue, but rather an issue of what one's role is in the plan. Father God has authored a plan, and Christ submits to it. Is Christ less? No, but Christ even said that the things He spoke were those things that the Father instructed Him to speak...He only taught the doctrines of His Father. He was an obedient Son...even unto death. Gender is not the point, but rather role. Men have been given a role of authority in the home, over wives who are to submit, and over children who are to be obedient. Jesus is the bridegroom, and His wife...the church...should be submissive to His headship. The family is a model of a much greater structure, a training ground, but mostly a Gospel picture, of God's plan and relationship with man. God has many names to describe Himself, but we do not know them all truly because of sin's distortion.

God does have a wholeness that man will never have on this earth, and that is that He can produce life and nurture it with food...physical and spiritual. He made us dependant on the family structure to futher teach us of Him. This attribute of producing wife and nurturing it He has given to the woman, but through the seed of men. Her womb and ability to provide food, are also a picture of Him. The seed is also a picture. It's truly not about us, but we are to be living obedient sacrifices to point others to Him. Men may have bad intentions about these Godly principals, but that is the sin of men. Chauvinism, and feminism, are not God's...these are a distortion, and are vain in His sight...they man-centered ideas. Value isn't determined by us, but rather by God...the role that we are in is ordained, and valued by God, if we are His vessels.

Billy Graham served God as the Holy Spirit led him. A believing father whose name we will never know, is also led by the Holy Spirit to serve God in that role. A mother the same, and a believing child the same. If I am a janitor, or a doctor, but working to please God in all, then my value is not subject to the world's views or ideas. God's view is one of truth, and the only one that matters.

He is a 'He' in position, the leader and authority over all creation. It's not about gender, but about getting to know God. The Father of all believers. The lifegiver, the Seed Provider, the Nourisher. Christ, our brother, our kinsmen, and bridegroom is the Son, and the Seed that has produced Life in us. The Holy Spirit our Teacher, our Comforter. Pictures of God exist in all human relationships, but it is the man-centered ideas that break them down, and distort that picture by bringing sin into the mix. This should give us a new encouragement to strive for obedience in these areas so that God's Word is furthered in this world, and in our own hearts.

I am so rushed right now, I hope this makes sense. The Lord bless all of you.

 

[Orion]

Again. . . it's just "human terminology" that was apparently necessary for those back then to have a point of reference in order to attempt to understand an aspect of God. God isn't male. If we recognize the authority of God outside the human understanding of "father and child", then we don't have to place limiting attributes on God.