Is God Male?
Is God Male?
Both the Old and the New Testaments use male language about God. The Greek word theos is unquestionably masculine, and most of the analogies used for God throughout Scripture – such as a warrior, father, king, and shepherd – are male. Does this mean that God is male? If so, it would raise important, and difficult, questions concerning the relationship between male and female believers, as many feminist writers have correctly pointed out.
While it is true that biblical language primarily uses male analogs for God, it is important to note that this has much to do with the sociology and anthropology of ancient Israel, which led to such male analogies being given priority to represent God. Yet, even in this patriarchal cultural context, God was not understood to be sexually male. Furthermore, Israel recognized the importance of female imagery to express aspects of God's character: for example, the image of God as “giving birth”to Israel (Deuteronomy 32: 18), as a midwife who helps with the birthing process (Isaiah 66: 9–11), and as caring for Israel as a mother cares for her child (Isaiah 66: 13). It is too easily forgotten that the provision of bread was seen as a feminine action in this cultural context, and recalling this fact allows us to see God's provision of manna for Israel during the wilderness wanderings in a new light (Exodus 16: 4, 15).
There is also an important question about the status of this language for God. To put the issue succinctly: does the use of male analogs for God imply that God is male? Or the use of female analogs that God is female? In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus (329–89) rejected any idea that God was male because God was referred to as Father, or that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal object because the term was grammatically neutral. The fatherhood of God, Gregory insisted, had nothing to do with sexuality or biological reproduction. Rather, it is a fundamentally relational notion. God is not a woman. God is not a man. God is God.
Earlier, we noted the analogical nature of theological language (pp. 165–7). The use of such analogies means that persons or social roles, largely drawn from the rural world of the ancient Near East, were regarded as suitable models for the divine activity or personality. One such analogy is that of a father. Yet the statement that “a father in ancient Israelite society is a suitable model for God” is not equivalent to saying that “God is a male human being” or that “God is confined to the cultural parameters of ancient Israel.” Neither male nor female sexuality is to be attributed to God, in that this sexuality is an attribute of the created order. There is no reason to suppose that such a polarity exists within the creator God.
Indeed, the Old Testament avoids attributing sexual functions to God, on account of the strongly pagan overtones of such associations. The Canaanite fertility cults emphasized the sexual functions of both gods and goddesses; the Old Testament refuses to endorse the idea that the gender or the sexuality of God is a significant matter. Wolfhart
Pannenberg (1928–2014) makes this point in his Systematic Theology (1990):
The aspect of fatherly care in particular is taken over in what the Old Testament has to say about God's fatherly care for Israel. The sexual definition of the father's role plays no part. [...] To bring sexual differentiation into the understanding of God would mean polytheism; it was thus ruled out for the God of Israel. [...] The fact that God's care for Israel can also be expressed in terms of a mother's love shows clearly enough how little there is any sense of sexual distinction in the understanding of God as Father.
In an attempt to bring out the fact that God is not male, a number of recent writers have explored the idea of God as “mother” (which brings out the female aspects of God) or as “friend” (which brings out the more gender-neutral aspects of God). An excellent example of this is provided by Sallie McFague (born 1933) in her Models of God (1987). Recognizing that speaking of “God as father” does not mean that God is male, she writes:
God as mother does not mean that God is mother (or father). We imagine God as both mother and father, but we realize how inadequate these and any other metaphors are to express the creative love of God. [...] Nevertheless, we speak of this love in language that is familiar and dear to us, the language of mothers and fathers who give us life, from whose bodies we come, and upon whose care we depend.
A similar point is made by the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, which stresses the way in which parental imagery, particularly that of fatherhood, brings out central themes of the gospel:
By calling God “Father,” the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator andcreature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman; he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard; no one is father as God is Father.
The new interest in the issues raised by the maleness of most of the biblical images of God has led to a careful reading of the spiritual literature of early periods in Christian history, resulting in an increased appreciation of the use of female imagery during these earlier periods. An excellent example of this is provided by the Revelations of Divine Love, an account of 16 visions which appeared to the English writer Julian of Norwich (c.1342–1416) in May 1373. The visions are notable for their distinctive tendency to refer to both God and Jesus Christ in strongly maternal terms:
Figure 9.1 Julian of Norwich (c.1342–1416).
Source: Jason Bye / Alamy.
I saw that God rejoices to be our Father, and also that he rejoices to be our Mother; and yet again, that he rejoices to be our true Husband, with our soul as his beloved bride. [...] He is the foundation, substance and the thing itself, what it is by nature. He is the true Father and Mother of what things are by nature.