God Is Neither Male Nor Female
Dear Phil,
I was shocked to hear you say in class that God is neither male nor female. Would you have no problem with the Oxford University Press version of the Bible? We are treading on dangerous territory when we interpret Scripture to say things that it does not say and draw conclusions that find their roots in the secularization of Scripture.
Jonathan
I was shocked to hear you say in class that God is neither male nor female. Would you have no problem with the Oxford University Press version of the Bible? We are treading on dangerous territory when we interpret Scripture to say things that it does not say and draw conclusions that find their roots in the secularization of Scripture.
Jonathan
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for your question. When I said “God,” I had in mind God the Father. Jesus, of course, has a glorified human body that was and is male. Several biblical reasons have led Christian thinkers throughout church history (e.g., Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Aquinas) to conclude God the Father is neither male nor female:
1. God the Father is a spirit and does not have a body like man (John 4:24; Luke 24:39). What does “male”/“female” mean without a body? Being “male” is a function of one’s genetic makeup. As a spirit, God is not a sexual being. I can think of no biblical data that would lead me to believe that gender is an essential feature of spiritual beings.
2. Women are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). That would seem to imply that neither maleness nor femaleness are essential properties of God. (An essential property is necessary for something to be what it is.) If maleness is an essential feature of God the Father, then femaleness in women is nongodly, i.e., not like God. Since God uses feminine imagery to describe himself on occasion (Deut 32:18; Isa 42:13–14; 46:3; 66:13; Hos 13:8), there must be aspects of God that are distinctively imaged by women.
3. I understand God’s “Father” role and Jesus’ “Son” role to have no sexual component of any kind. These terms are analogous (similar to) but not identical to our human use of these terms. They are similar in that there is a relationship of begetter to begotten. They are dissimilar in that they are non–sexual and eternal. There is no heavenly wife to God the Father or mother to God the Son. Thus, we should think of God the Father and God the Spirit as both transcending and comprehending the categories “male” and “female.”
4. Denying that God the Father is “male” does not deny that God is rightly identified as a Father and rightly referred to with masculine pronouns (which by itself says nothing about sexual gender). Grammatical gender has no necessary bearing on actual gender. There are many words that are masculine in gender in Greek and Hebrew, but which have no actual gender, e.g., rock (lithos), wall (phragmos), law (nomos). The Holy Spirit is referenced with masculine pronouns, but that is no reason to think he is male. The use of masculine pronouns indicates (1) that the Spirit is a person, and (2) that God has chosen to present himself primarily in masculine terms. It is arrogant to think that we know better than God how to refer to him. Since he has chosen to talk about himself with masculine terminology, we should use masculine terminology if our language permits.
The “Inclusive Version” of the Psalms and New Testament published by Oxford confuses the issue of sexual gender and personal roles. For example, they translate “God the Father” as “God the Father–Mother” and “Our Father–Mother, who is in heaven.” God’s fatherhood is not a function of sexual gender, therefore, the absence of sexual gender in God the Father (and God the Spirit for that matter) has no bearing on the appropriate use of “Father” as a title for God.
It is contrary to Scripture and theologically errant to refer to God as our Mother and to use feminine pronouns to refer to God. Claims that the Bible simply reflects Israel’s patriarchal culture should be rejected. Other ancient Near Eastern cultures, which were just as patriarchal as Israel, worshipped both masculine and feminine deities (cf. Judges 3:7; Acts 19:34), and even referred to one and the same God as both “Father” and “Mother.” Scripture provides our rule of faith. We must follow its lead.
Blessings,
Phil
Thank you for your question. When I said “God,” I had in mind God the Father. Jesus, of course, has a glorified human body that was and is male. Several biblical reasons have led Christian thinkers throughout church history (e.g., Jerome, Gregory of Nazianzus, Aquinas) to conclude God the Father is neither male nor female:
1. God the Father is a spirit and does not have a body like man (John 4:24; Luke 24:39). What does “male”/“female” mean without a body? Being “male” is a function of one’s genetic makeup. As a spirit, God is not a sexual being. I can think of no biblical data that would lead me to believe that gender is an essential feature of spiritual beings.
2. Women are made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). That would seem to imply that neither maleness nor femaleness are essential properties of God. (An essential property is necessary for something to be what it is.) If maleness is an essential feature of God the Father, then femaleness in women is nongodly, i.e., not like God. Since God uses feminine imagery to describe himself on occasion (Deut 32:18; Isa 42:13–14; 46:3; 66:13; Hos 13:8), there must be aspects of God that are distinctively imaged by women.
3. I understand God’s “Father” role and Jesus’ “Son” role to have no sexual component of any kind. These terms are analogous (similar to) but not identical to our human use of these terms. They are similar in that there is a relationship of begetter to begotten. They are dissimilar in that they are non–sexual and eternal. There is no heavenly wife to God the Father or mother to God the Son. Thus, we should think of God the Father and God the Spirit as both transcending and comprehending the categories “male” and “female.”
4. Denying that God the Father is “male” does not deny that God is rightly identified as a Father and rightly referred to with masculine pronouns (which by itself says nothing about sexual gender). Grammatical gender has no necessary bearing on actual gender. There are many words that are masculine in gender in Greek and Hebrew, but which have no actual gender, e.g., rock (lithos), wall (phragmos), law (nomos). The Holy Spirit is referenced with masculine pronouns, but that is no reason to think he is male. The use of masculine pronouns indicates (1) that the Spirit is a person, and (2) that God has chosen to present himself primarily in masculine terms. It is arrogant to think that we know better than God how to refer to him. Since he has chosen to talk about himself with masculine terminology, we should use masculine terminology if our language permits.
The “Inclusive Version” of the Psalms and New Testament published by Oxford confuses the issue of sexual gender and personal roles. For example, they translate “God the Father” as “God the Father–Mother” and “Our Father–Mother, who is in heaven.” God’s fatherhood is not a function of sexual gender, therefore, the absence of sexual gender in God the Father (and God the Spirit for that matter) has no bearing on the appropriate use of “Father” as a title for God.
It is contrary to Scripture and theologically errant to refer to God as our Mother and to use feminine pronouns to refer to God. Claims that the Bible simply reflects Israel’s patriarchal culture should be rejected. Other ancient Near Eastern cultures, which were just as patriarchal as Israel, worshipped both masculine and feminine deities (cf. Judges 3:7; Acts 19:34), and even referred to one and the same God as both “Father” and “Mother.” Scripture provides our rule of faith. We must follow its lead.
Blessings,
Phil