Male and Female God?

Crazy Liz said:

Does that imply that God became male when Christ was incarnated as a human male?

Click to expand...

Christ is both man and God. Does it need to be more complicated than that?

theseed said:

Christ is both man and God. Does it need to be more complicated than that?

Click to expand...

For a trinitarian who wishes to make a statement abut God's sex, I think so.

We certainly can espouse an apophatic theology and refrain from making any statement about it. But if anyone is making a case that God is exclusively male, I think they need to back up that claim.

Jesus was and is God incarnate, and Jesus' incarnation is as a human male. Therefore, the argument that maleness is a part of God seems perfectly reasonable to me. However, the argument that God is exclusively male is much more difficult to defend by a trinitarian. I don't think a case can be made conclusively one way or the other. Genesis 1:27 is probably the strongest evidence we have on this question, and it leans in the direction of both maleness and femaleness being divine characteristics.

Gen. 1 (NASB)
27God created man (A)in His own image, in the image of God He created him; (B)male and female He created them

Man (adam) here includes both male and female persons. Both collectively, are masnuline.

I don't deny that God has feminine traits--that is how the bible defines God's gener (traditional Jewish Culture), and not how may define masculinity or femininity today.

Gotta love them sheeps.

Liz, If Genesis 1 is pure cosmology and Genesis 2, as has been suggested, is an organizing principle and introduction to Genesis 3, which addresses the post-exilic relationship between God and humankind, then it could be hypothesized that gender balance issues, if important to God, would be covered in Chapter 3. What's your take on Chapter 3 as it relates to this issue?

It should be noted that the creation narrative was written around the time of King David (900 BC) and that the Jewish worldview was then as it is now, decidedly patriarchal.

Toney said:

Gotta love them sheeps.

Liz, If Genesis 1 is pure cosmology and Genesis 2, as has been suggested, is an organizing principle and introduction to Genesis 3, which addresses the post-exilic relationship between God and humankind, then it could be hypothesized that gender balance issues, if important to God, would be covered in Chapter 3. What's your take on Chapter 3 as it relates to this issue?

It should be noted that the creation narrative was written around the time of King David (900 BC) and that the Jewish worldview was then as it is now, decidedly patriarchal.

Click to expand...

I think that would be a topic for another thread, in that this thread discusses Genesis 2 as its reference to the image of God may be used to make statements about the nature of God (theology proper). If you would like to discuss Genesis 2 and 3 as they relate to sex and theological anthropology, I'd be happy to engage in that discussion, but I don't think it belongs in this thread.

IndyBelle said:

it cannot be a reference to the doctrine of a "triune" God, i.e., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because the Trinity was developed in the New Testament many thousands of years later.

Click to expand...

The Godhead has always been there.

theseed said:

There singlur nouns in the English language that are collective. Such as "sheep" for example or "dear" for example. And "man" as well.

Click to expand...

Those are not collective nouns. Those are nouns that do not have a plural form distinct from the singular form.

In the animal genre, a good example of a collective noun in english is "cattle".

Another interesting class of nouns are the mass nouns, such as "water".

The "mass" nouns. LOL. No such things as the mass (mess).

StreetPreacher said:

The "mass" nouns. LOL. No such things as the mass (mess).

Click to expand...

A good discussion of these rather interesting words can be found here.

The article does a good job of pointing out the difference between count nouns and mass nouns.

IndyBelle said:

I was doing some reading and came across an interesting topic:

Why would a single, male god make everything in creation as a paired male/female?

Genesis 1:26 (New Living Translation)
"Then God said, "Let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves...."

(The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985) "Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves ...."

The above verse seems to support a dualistic nature for God and uses a plural reference to God.

Is it that God's creation mirrors Their own image, both male and female? Could it have been a mistake in the Bible?

It cannot be a reference to the doctrine of a "triune" God, i.e., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because the Trinity was developed in the New Testament many thousands of years later.

Thoughts?

(I am fairly new to this - I don't know if I'm in the right place - forgive me)

Click to expand...

I will just say that God is not in human form. God is not the human form of males or females. God is spirit. If there are feminine and masculine qualitities to God, they are spiritual,not physical. My view

IndyBelle said:

It cannot be a reference to the doctrine of a "triune" God, i.e., the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit because the Trinity was developed in the New Testament many thousands of years later.

Click to expand...

I know the original post, and my original thoughts were directed at the divine feminine, but this one line in the OP stuck with me...

I have to disagree that the trinity was "invented" in the new testament. A reading of the Wisdom books points not only to the feminine aspect of divinity, but Wisdom declares that she was "with God from the begining", just as John would ltar say of the incarnation, Christ - "and the Word was with God"

The trinity was always there, revealed over the centuries - with God and the Angels (and enemy) revealed first, then Wisdom (the Holy Spirit), and finally the incarnation.

As the singer asked, "what if God were one of us?" - he was!

God could not be viewed as a woman, though the Bible does show God's feminine side, so to speak. Jesus once said...
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing." (Matthew 23:37)
Also, God's wisdom in the Proverbs is personified as a female (e.g., Proverbs 1:20, 8:11, 9:1), yet we are told in the New Testament that Jesus is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24).
But, for the most part, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the Bible as having a male personage. The Bible is inspired of God (2Timothy 3:16), and in it God is always referred to as a "Him" or a "He." So God wanted people to understand Him as a "Him" and a "He."

However, in Genesis chapter 1 we are told that man (mankind; as opposed to "a man") is created in the image of God, both male and female...

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Genesis 1:27)
Therefore, we should not be surprised if God has both a "maleness" and "femaleness" to Him, so both men and women can relate to God. God could be considered as motherly (hen) and yet be called the Heavenly Father (which is what Scripture often calls Him). God is both caring and nurturing, yet powerful and strong.
Of course, God is so far beyond us, that He is certainly not a man or a woman. Though we are made in His image, and reflect some of who God is, we as humans certainly don't represent all that God is. Even if an artist were to paint a self-portrait, the artist himself is far more than his art.

What is remarkable is that God has condescended to reveal himself to us. God became a man, in the person of Jesus Christ and desires to draw us into a relationship with him, which he made possible.

I'm pretty sure if you look at the original hebrew text there is nothing in the writtings that suggests God is male. The hebrew text of the old testament used the word elohim for god. elohim has no gender association. However gradyll makes a good point by suggesting that it is logical to conclude God is male by the appearance of Jesus as a male. In the catholic religion jesus, god and the holy spirit are said to be homouseous. This means they are of the same substance, hence you may conclude that if something is of the same substance it should encompass all of the same properties as each other. However, I feel this teaching is wrong because it suggests that jesus must be finite and infinite at the same time, how can that be? ummmmm. Well anyway I think it is impossible to know exactly what sex God is, good luck trying to find out.

tsai001 said:

I'm pretty sure if you look at the original hebrew text there is nothing in the writtings that suggests God is male. The hebrew text of the old testament used the word elohim for god. elohim has no gender association.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is a word with masculine gender, but, as mentioned above, masculine grammatical gender does not necessarily mean male.

Hi everybody, I really reluctant to share my thought because I received bad remark from the theology dept that I talked like a graduate from that dept.

No doubt the theology students and the teachers have their masters and phD, we do not losed the prerogative to access the realm of conversation about God we love so much and His letters to us which we WANT to share with flame of faith within!

God is seriously an unknown even to a teacher w/a doctorate in theology, but one area He has menifested clearly, His concern and He is love to all of us. He created the moons the stars, and He doesn't mention in genesis that He created a wife, may be that is personal to Him or may be that is not everything to Him (it's everything to some*_^ that He to us now, can stay single and be happy. Since no more detail revealed, let Him a single and be happy, rite?

That us, referred to 3 buddies, God the Father, Son the Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Not parents. It's plural, but it's not mommy daddy here Female first showed up in the history of the planet earth when Eve was created, duplicated from the marrow of Adama's rib (I am not sure it's the reason we all have floating ribs, 1oth-12th). It was not transferred, imported from Heaven, it's "home-made" here on earth! And when we talk about God's image, let's focus on the direct physical appearance, God does not say let's reflect the size of the brests and the reproductive system. Therefore, where the suxuality comes in? It's the look of the eye, the nose, the hair, the mouth, the shoulders, etc etc. When God never mentions He is a female, but let us call HIm heavenly Father, can't we accept Him as a male? No both male and female the same time, that's abnormal to us human reproduction, and to HIm also, ho?

New testament was compiled for all the Christians today, and we have clear understanding of the past. In addition to that, we want the old testament, so, most bible has both testament. Never in any point, which testament replace the other! We can't use the new testament to say the son the Father the Spirit were not there in the "old testament". 4000 years before, John, in the beginning, Jesus was there. After Malachi, God totally sent no one to tell the people what "new testament" will be coming up. Neither He denied there was no Son and the Spirit yet!

Can we allow God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to stay? Let the family stay together, k? happy new year to all. Come back after about 6-8 months, long isolation.

Jimmy Chai

I don't believe that the creator has a gender, but I still refer to well him (lol) as "God" or "Him" because of tradition, and common referance. I don't see why God would need a gender, or even a body for that matter. Of course since I've never seen God, I can only speculate, as any of us can, but personally, that's what makes since to me.

progressivegal said:

I don't believe that the creator has a gender, but I still refer to well him (lol) as "God" or "Him" because of tradition, and common referance. I don't see why God would need a gender, or even a body for that matter. Of course since I've never seen God, I can only speculate, as any of us can, but personally, that's what makes since to me.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and people us "He" when they're not sure anyways. Like when they are expecting a baby they don't refer to the kid as "it" because it's alive, so they say "he".

I guess it's because the male body seems the most gender-neutral. Take away the breasts and guy-thing and the body will seem like a slim young boy, not a girl or a man.

Star_Pixels said:

I guess it's because the male body seems the most gender-neutral. Take away the breasts and guy-thing and the body will seem like a slim young boy, not a girl or a man.

Click to expand...

Really?

As far as I know the only reason why that words that gave God a male gender where used was because they had no gender-neutral words. In the Torah (the first five books of the bible) there are several words used there that imply female gender.

But I believe God is neither just male or just female. God is spirit.