Does God have a gender?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Liam Flecksing

Puritan Board Freshman
My mother recently got into an argument with my uncle about gender and how it applies to God. Just for a little background, my uncle is a non-denominational arminian pastor who says he finds his roots in the Anabaptist tradition.

The conversation sparked from a comment my niece made to my uncle while my mom was present: "dad, you're my father but God is my best father" or something along those lines. My mom replied "he's also your best mother". My uncle quickly told my niece not to listen to my mom because "she's a feminist and doesn't know what she's talking about". He then went on to argue that God is male. My mom started to talk about how God can't be male or female because he transcends male and female distinctions. She wasn't arguing we should call God by "she" and "her" but rather that God clearly presents himself as masculine in holy Scripture, yet that does not mean we can call him male.

I tend to agree with my mom on this. While I might be a little more cautious about applying the title of "mother" to God, some of the fathers did use this or similar language.

“The divine power, though exalted far above our nature and inaccessible to all approach, like a tender mother who joins in the inarticulate utterances of her babe, gives to our human nature what it is capable of receiving.” - Gregory of Nyssa

“In his ineffable essence he is father; in his compassion to us he became mother. The father by loving becomes feminine.” - Clement of Alexandria

“The Word [Christ] is everything to his little ones, both father and mother.” - Augustine

From what I see in the scriptures, God is masculine in nature and must be referred to by masculine pronouns yet that does not make him male. I do not believe we can call God a male for several reasons:

God is immutable, infinite, and formless. What makes a man a man is that he is created with biological characteristics that make him such. God does not have a body, so in what sense could God even be male? If we were to argue that God is indeed restricted by the category of male and female, wouldn't it logically follow that gender existed from all time since God is immutable? It seems to me that if you try to argue that gender hasn't always existed but God is male you fall into nominalism because you say gender is simply a construct of the mind that can be applied to certain creatures based on whether they fulfill certain characteristics.

All in all, the arguments seem to be weak and not based in Scripture and what we know about the nature of God. If anyone has any material (especially patristic) that addresses this issue, please let me know.
 
He does not have gender like humans but has revealed Himself as Father and is always addressed as such. To address Him as mother is impious and idolatrous and not respecting how God has revealed Himself and how Jesus taught us to address Him in the Lord’s prayer. We are also baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit and Jesus always refers to Him as Father and never mother.
 
While God reveals himself as Father and Son, that does not make him “male”. God also likens himself as a mother and even a hen. That does not make him female or chicken. While I would never address God as “Mother” for several reasons, I don’t think it is inherently wrong to say he’s the best mother as well as the best father.
 
God is nether male or female, because he is spirit - Num. 23:19, John 4:24.
Scripture does occasionally use anthropomorphic language that conceptualizes God's character in terms of feminine traits.
Passages using feminine characteristics to describe God never take the step of naming God as Mother, or as female.
The Bible is overwhelmingly male-orientated in its portrayal of God - yet God still is not a man.
Scripture is resolutely male-orientated in its description of his essence and deity (e.g. Father, Son)
Humans are only commanded to address God in masculine forms, thus to call God our Mother, or to so use feminine pronouns is categorically sinful.
 
This might be semantics, but sex and gender aren't necessarily the same. Sex, no. Gender--well, he reveals himself as Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. At any rate, this is why analogical reasoning is important. He is Father, but not male as we understand male.
 
God doesn't have male sex organs, but he's masculine as far as the great majority of predications and descriptions of him in Scripture are concerned. It would be a mistake to say that God is in no way male because he doesn't have anatomy, just like how it would be a mistake to say he's not merciful because he doesn't have passions.
God possesses all that is predicated of him, but in a way far different than we possess the same qualities.
 
I think the very correct replies here reveal the 1CV violation of transgenderism that declares they get to define for themselves what gender and sex they themselves are. They make themselves to be like God - no, even greater in ability than him since God only made male and female and they claim to have made far more.
 
It would be a mistake to say that God is in no way male because he doesn't have anatomy, just like how it would be a mistake to say he's not merciful because he doesn't have passions.

So, just wanting to explore this a little more. Isn't "male" a creaturely category? We realize and say God has no passions, since that is a human category, would it perhaps similarly be inappropriate to say that God is in some way male?
 
Last edited:
So, just wanting to explore this a little more. Isn't "male" a creaturely category? We realize and say God has no passions, since that is a human category, would it perhaps similarly be inappropriate to say that God is in some way male?

Is "male" certainly only a creaturely category though? We still have to deal with the fact that scripture only ever speaks of God in "He / Him / His" terms and never "She / Her / Hers" or "It / It / Its" terms. If that isn't "male", then what do we call it?
 
If I were to overhear this conversation, I'd make a few assumptions:

First, your mother has likely had influences from the mainline churches. (Has she attended? Does a friend have her ear?) These influencers want to make God appealing to 21st century sensibilities and are willing to bend the Scriptures to their own narrative.

Secondly, I'd have concerns about the effects of your uncle upon your family. He's willing to use an ad-hominem argument and also is willing to undermine your mother as she deals with her child.

I'd not guess either person would be convinced by an appeal to the church fathers. Don't try to "win" an argument in this case. Encourage your sister in her interest in God as her creator and redeemer. Maybe some time in the future, casually ask your mother about her views, and be willing to listen.
Thanks for the reply, Jean. It was my niece, not my sister. Also, my mom does have some influence from more liberal voices within evangelicalism, so I tend to disagree with her on some things. Thankfully she has remained in an orthodox PCA congregation (same one I go to). I don't really plan on starting any further conversations with my uncle, he is very set in his theological views. As concerns my mom, it's a touchy subject and she tends to become emotional.
 
Is "male" certainly only a creaturely category though? We still have to deal with the fact that scripture only ever speaks of God in "He / Him / His" terms and never "She / Her / Hers" or "It / It / Its" terms. If that isn't "male", then what do we call it?
I think many, including I, would say that that would be called masculine rather than male in a human gendered sense.
 
Thanks for the reply, Jean. It was my niece, not my sister. Also, my mom does have some influence from more liberal voices within evangelicalism, so I tend to disagree with her on some things. Thankfully she has remained in an orthodox PCA congregation (same one I go to). I don't really plan on starting any further conversations with my uncle, he is very set in his theological views. As concerns my mom, it's a touchy subject and she tends to become emotional.
So sorry for not getting the relationship right; I should have checked back over my response more carefully.
 
I suppose that leaves me wondering, what’s the real difference?

"Male" refers to the biological condition of having sex characteristics of a boy/man. "Masculine" refers to the traits normally associated with boys or men.

It's not weird if someone comments that modern women view their primary roles as "masculine" so much so that they act "masculine" in order to effectually activate some kind of inner power that - if enough girls and women do this - institutes a complementary society or even a social matriarchy as some of them envision.

Taking control of a heterosexual relationship usurping the role of head / worse, being attracted to and engaging in relations with other women are just a couple of the tragic results in the "masculinization" of women. None of these sociopaths are actually "male" in any way, shape or form.
 
God the Father refers to Himself as "Father." Though He does not have a male body parts as He does not have a body.

I will say though that Jesus of Nazareth was male. He needed to be human.
 
Why are the feminists insistent that God is a she, but they never insist that the devil's gender be investigated?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top