• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

The Gender of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter KingCrimson
  • Start date Start date
K

KingCrimson

Guest
So it seems to me that God has no gender. This is fairly straightforward: One's gender is defined by one's sexual organs and the balance of one's brain chemicals. Since God seems to be immaterial, it seems unlikely that He could have either of these. Therefore it would seem to be impossible for God to have a gender and He is referred to as male simply as a reference point throughout the Bible (a God who was referred to as It would seem a bit cold and impersonal, wouldn't you say?).

However, I know there are some Christians who maintain that God is most certainly male. So I'm just curious, are there any rational arguments to support this? Or is it merely blind traditionalism?
 
As far as I know, I don't think there is any evidence saying God is male. God doesn't have a body, so he can't have a gender. But I think that masculinity has a certain power to it, so I think he chose Himself to be called He and Him.
 
Hi KingCrimson,

I think God, being the Creator, defines what is male. He made man's physical being, and while we see maleness only in physcial gender, it is so much more in role and position. He made men and women to be one flesh, but the man is, in the marriage picture, related to God and Christ. Father and Son are pictures here, before us, of who Father God, and Jesus the Son are in relationship to each other. Father and child are who we are in relationship to God the Father, and brother and sisters to Jesus, our brother. So, He defines us, it's not the other way around...we, our earthly relationships, are merely pictures of Him in this sense.

Woman are always related to the Church, who is the Bride, and who has a submissive and distinctly feminine role as the weaker vessel, and in need of a husband's, or father's, care and protection and headship always. (Think before feminism hit the scene so hard. :wink: ) She will also be joined with God, in a 'one flesh' sense soon.

God is male, because this is how He reveals Himself, and as Creator He holds the definition, not us. He is the pattern, and we are the copy. He give us a picture of His Authority, His Headship, His Protection, His Provision, His Knowledge and Wisdom, etc. I would say those attributes of Himself, that He has taken and applied to the position of Husband and Father here, are male. He even compares Himself to man in the way of intimate relations in Song of Solomon. We have a dimmer view of these things in these modern times, with the feminizing of men being so rampant.

I will say, though, that there is a completeness to God that is beyond us. We need a marriage to be one flesh, and even then we are still in need of God. Anyway, woman, is simply man with a womb, but God even uses an attribute of women in a sense. God is El Shaddi. El means Power, or Strength, and Shad actually means breasted one. El Shadai means All Sufficient One. God is able to provide us with all, much like a mother is able to provide a baby with all the nourishment it needs for awhile. Obviously God's power goes far beyond a mother's, and so I see this again as a display of His power and care, not really anything feminine, but certainly loving and nuturing. Jesus also speaks to Jerusalem about gathering her like a hen does her chicks. So, this again is the care mixed with the protection...hidden in Him, much like the church is hidden in Christ, and the wife hidden in the husband. Woman being made for man, and glorifying her husband, the church being made for Christ, and glorifying Him. Men and women are both in His image, but the role and position of men here is a partial picture of who God is to us, as His children and as His church. Like I said, it's hard because we have distorted so many of the pictures these days.

I hope this helps some, and I am sure there are probably better reasons than this, but this is the one I know of.
 
KingCrimson said:
So it seems to me that God has no gender. This is fairly straightforward: One's gender is defined by one's sexual organs and the balance of one's brain chemicals. Since God seems to be immaterial, it seems unlikely that He could have either of these. Therefore it would seem to be impossible for God to have a gender and He is referred to as male simply as a reference point throughout the Bible (a God who was referred to as It would seem a bit cold and impersonal, wouldn't you say?).

However, I know there are some Christians who maintain that God is most certainly male. So I'm just curious, are there any rational arguments to support this? Or is it merely blind traditionalism?
Click to expand...

God is spoken of as male because God creates outside of Himself as does a male.

Jesus also appeared as male and taught us to speak to God the Father (something that had not been revealed till Jesus told us, just a little aside). God the Father transcends the categories of the created world. To pray to the Father is to enter into His mystery as He is and as the Son has revealed Him to us.

The Church is identified in the feminine and rightly so as the woman truly reveals our relationship to God. That is we receive God's love, conceive that love and bring forth its fruit. We are the bride of Christ. Our bodies, male and female, reveal the truth of our relationship to God and it is a marvelous thing.
 
I agree with Lovely on how to understand God's role as Father. She said:

lovely said:
God is male, because this is how He reveals Himself, and as Creator He holds the definition, not us. He is the pattern, and we are the copy. He give us a picture of His Authority, His Headship, His Protection, His Provision, His Knowledge and Wisdom, etc. I would say those attributes of Himself, that He has taken and applied to the position of Husband and Father here, are male.
Click to expand...

And I would second that also with the clarification that God is of course not physically male but that being a Father is a manifestation of His character (in that it says something about his nature rather than any "material characteristics"), and it is precisely (as Lovely says), "how He reveals Himself", and how he chooses to make Himself known. And it needs to be understood in a non-anachronistic fashion in that we don't so much think of God as being similar to males but males as similar and made in the image and character of God in the same role as the protector and spiritual authority. The woman is also of course made in the image of God as well, but she plays a different and very important role in God's grand plan for humanity. God is consistently revealed as male in characteristic and nature in the OT and the NT so that is how we speak of Him.

God Bless,

~Josh
 
Also Lovely I must say I am astounded at how well you tied the role of the man to Christ and the Father as head and the woman to the Church and as being submissive and glorifying her husband as the Church does Christ. That seems to me a very good understanding of it which I had never quite considered in that way. Also your interpretation of El Shaddai also seems a good possibility as I was introduced to that idea of the meaning of the name by Andrew Jukes in his book The Names of God. Anyway you've given me something to think about. Thanks. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
 
cybershark5886 said:
Also Lovely I must say I am astounded at how well you tied the role of the man to Christ and the Father as head and the woman to the Church and as being submissive and glorifying her husband as the Church does Christ. That seems to me a very good understanding of it which I had never quite considered in that way. Also your interpretation of El Shaddai also seems a good possibility as I was introduced to that idea of the meaning of the name by Andrew Jukes in his book The Names of God. Anyway you've given me something to think about. Thanks. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
Click to expand...
Josh,
What are your fellings about Andrew Jukes belief in regards to God reconciling all of mankind?
Bubba
 
Some very good posts, especially lovely. I'll have to think on what you've said for a bit. One objection I have at the outset which you may be able to answer: Your argument seems to be premised upon the fact that God has many traits which are identifiable with men - He is, after all, the Father. This I would agree with. However, simply because God has some male traits does not make Him male. After all, He is frequently referred to in the Bible as the rock, because He is solid and unchanging, or the shield because He is our protector. However, these do not actually mean that God is a chunk of stone or a round wooden protective device. Similarly, I would posit that God's male traits do not actually make Him male, and to suggest that they do is anthropomorphisim. In other words, gender is a distinction that never goes any higher than man.

The main reason why I'm asking is that the book The Shack has created a bit of a stir among some of the more conservative Christians I know, who insist that God appearing as a woman is blasphemy. Frankly I couldn't see why it would be, and no one really seemed to have a better reason than "God is referred to as a He throughout the Bible," and so I began this thread.
 
KingCrimson said:
Some very good posts, especially lovely. I'll have to think on what you've said for a bit. One objection I have at the outset which you may be able to answer: Your argument seems to be premised upon the fact that God has many traits which are identifiable with men - He is, after all, the Father. This I would agree with. However, simply because God has some male traits does not make Him male. After all, He is frequently referred to in the Bible as the rock, because He is solid and unchanging, or the shield because He is our protector. However, these do not actually mean that God is a chunk of stone or a round wooden protective device. Similarly, I would posit that God's male traits do not actually make Him male, and to suggest that they do is anthropomorphisim. In other words, gender is a distinction that never goes any higher than man.

The main reason why I'm asking is that the book The Shack has created a bit of a stir among some of the more conservative Christians I know, who insist that God appearing as a woman is blasphemy. Frankly I couldn't see why it would be, and no one really seemed to have a better reason than "God is referred to as a He throughout the Bible," and so I began this thread.
Click to expand...

It's no argument, just sharing what I see. I am not basing what I have learned on God's commonality with man, but rather pictures of God that are built into human relationships and nature. This is how He reveals Himself, He painted them. I am not saying that God is physically male, but rather this is one way...and He uses it a lot...He reveals Himself to us. Men were Created male as a picture of Him. That's why my point was that He defines Himself, not the other way around. If God says that He is The Rock, I do not portray Him as shifting sand to make a comparison of His nature. Shifting sand is the opposite of the Rock. If I do, then I have distorted the 'picture' that God has chosen to represent Himself, to reveal Himself to me and how He relates to me, and I have also distorted the Truth that HE has attached to it.

I guess some would see it as a form of blasphemy, because it is like taking something good of God, and making it evil...evil meaning against His own clear revelation of Himself. Just as the Pharisees said that Jesus had a demon. We don't compare God to demons, because He is good. This is just not done. I don't compare Him to helpless kittens, because He's not helpless and little. I don't compare Him to shifting sand, because it can not hold a foundation, and God certainly can be our foundation. I don't compare Him to a woman, because He is not a 'weaker vessel', or subject to anyone. Now, I might compare Jesus to a servant, because He came and served. He uses this imagery, to carry a Truth to man, and so it is not a lack of reverence for Him. In the same sense, I don't want to be compared to a goat. As a believer, it would be offensive to me, because I desire to be one of God's lambs. I hope that makes sense, it should at least explain why some people are offended at the comparison of God to a woman.

The Lord bless you.
 
Bubba said:
cybershark5886 said:
Also Lovely I must say I am astounded at how well you tied the role of the man to Christ and the Father as head and the woman to the Church and as being submissive and glorifying her husband as the Church does Christ. That seems to me a very good understanding of it which I had never quite considered in that way. Also your interpretation of El Shaddai also seems a good possibility as I was introduced to that idea of the meaning of the name by Andrew Jukes in his book The Names of God. Anyway you've given me something to think about. Thanks. :)

God Bless,

~Josh
Click to expand...
Josh,
What are your fellings about Andrew Jukes belief in regards to God reconciling all of mankind?
Bubba
Click to expand...

Well in general I agree with many things Jukes believes except for UR. Jukes has an outstanding understanding of Scripture and was a true student of Scripture. I have searched all around and collated a small library of his writings and letters to try to obtain all his extant works, and he has a good grasp of Biblical types and also how to bring out things of significance in the Scripture often otherwise over looked. That being said however I have Jukes' The Restitution of all Things, although I have only read like the first 40 pages of it yet, and he still there shows a good understanding of bringing out God's ultimate plan of Salvation, but as I read it the things he was applying in favor of UR struck me a very millenial in context, meaning that the future "saving" that he was referencing (spoken of by the prophets etc.) and how the firstfruits are blessed to save "later fruits" as the first born is to bless his siblings resonated on a level with me in context of the mellinium when it says we will be ambassadors to the nations when God reigns from Jerusalem. Thus, Jukes explores a much neglected area of eschatology but I think he misapplies the time frame and intent.

But without further going off topic, I'll just say that I love his works, although I don't agree always with all his doctrine.

God Bless,

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

Did God create only the male in His image? Or did He create "man" (human kind) in His image, both male and female? If both, then God must have the characteristics of both ---- not physically, of course; God is spirit, --- but mentally. Does the Bible ever ascribe feminine characteristics to God? Seemingly. The phrase "El Shaddai" is said to mean "God the breasted One".

Perhaps God being referred to as "He" is simply a grammatical construct. Before the present era of gender inclusiveness, one used "he" to refer to any person, male or female. For example, in the following sentence:

If a person wants a job, he should search for it.

The sentence doesn't imply that "person" is restricted to males. Rather the word "he" is simply grammatical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top