Is God male?

A Problematic Question

Is God male?

Most, if not all of us, would immediately respond with a resounding No - as God is spirit (John 4:24) and, therefore, an asexual being. However, this question doesn't refer to God's being but to the prevalence of his self-identification with male imagery in the Bible - primarily as Father and Son. Some of us may be puzzled (if not altogether frustrated!) by the question, as this Biblical imagery and language around God have been universally accepted by the Church (and Israel) for millennia. Others, on the other hand, find this question necessary - particularly regarding the current demands for greater gender inclusion, gender redefinition and the growing "demonisation" of traditional masculinity in Western culture. Hence why, not only in academic circles but now even in ecclesiastical ones, theologians are searching for "new and more inclusive images of God that complement and correct the almost exclusively male images of the [Christian] tradition" (italics mine, Migliore, 2014, p.84). Not merely to design liturgy that promotes greater gender inclusion but, more subtly, to distance God from the great evil that is white straight men.

Personally speaking, I don't believe there is any harm in allowing our faith to be questioned. In fact, I believe it should be the norm for us to open ourselves to questions and criticism in a spirit of humility, but also in the knowledge that our interpretation of Scripture may contain imprecisions and errors that must be rectified. God may reveal himself perfectly, but our listening skills are not always that good after all! What I do have a big problem with, though, is how we position ourselves to answer such questioning - often approaching Scripture with an a priori intent to align ourselves to external demands (cultural, ideological or political) rather than allow Scripture to speak for itself "according to the plain meaning conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context" (i.e. literal hermeneutics) even if that means speaking counter-culturally.

A countercultural God

Whereas God, in an act of one-sided divine grace, decided to reveal himself in terms that were understandable to our finite minds (often using cultural imagery and anthropomorphic language) he never subjected the revelation of himself to the culture he spoke into. This is demonstrated, time and time again, in the way the message of the Bible runs counter to culture - both ancient and modern. 

Old Testament examples

For example, with regards to God's relationship to gender, in the Old Testament:

• The torah enshrined women rights in law at a time when neither had any

• Even though Marriage was instituted for life, Moses allowed women to be divorced to protect them from their execution under false accusations brought forward by their husbands

• God would often reveal himself first to women rather than their husbands (as in the case of Samson's mother and Mary, mother of Jesus)

• High positions were not refrained from women - as in the case of Deborah, both prophetess and Judge

• He sent the prophet Elijah to support a Syrian widow, at a time when famine was ravaging the land of Israel

New Testament examples

In the New Testament:

• Jesus  numbered women among his disciples at a time when education and religious training was restricted to men

• He allowed himself to be kissed by prostitutes and touched by women during their menstrual cycle

• He took a detour to converse at length with a "sexually liberal" woman from Samaria

• At his resurrection, he first revealed himself to women rather than his 12 apostles

• The Apostles (especially Paul!) often recognised the ministerial contribution of women in their "special thanks" at the end of their epistles

• They even warned husband that the answer to their prayers was dependent on their treatment of their wives

And these are only countercultural examples related to gender. The list would be far longer if we included broader examples of divine irreverence! 

The reason why I am saying this is to emphasise a key aspect of God's self-revelation as presented in Scripture: God speaks into culture but he does not subject himself to it. As such it is a fundamental mistake to dismiss aspects of his revelation that are at odds with our culture (whatever that may be) on the basis that, when God spoke to man, he did it in a way that was sensitive to the culture he spoke into. With regard to the issue at hand, the argument that God's revelation of himself was male to be relevant to a patriarchal culture that had not yet caught up with equality is weak at best.

Male and female imagery of the Divine

Given God's (and the Apostles'!) disregard of culture when it clashed with divine revelation, God's choice to identify himself with the male gender is even more significant - especially when it comes to his identity as Father and Son. For, according to Biblical revelation, the fatherhood of God and the sonship of Jesus are eternal - pre-dating the Son's incarnation. It's also significant that, despite the fact that the Hebrew word for Spirit is feminine (for the Hebrew language, like Italian, does not have a neuter), the Gospel writers still addressed him with male pronouns when the Greek language offered neutral pronouns. The same can be said about God's identification as a husband to Israel in the Old Testament and to his Church in the New Testament. 

True, it can be argued that at times (rarely), God adopted female imagery to describe himself (Isa. 49:15; 66:12-13; Matt 23:37; John 3:36) - imagery that must not be discounted or dismissed! However, it would be a terrible hermeneutical mistake to use these texts to form the basis for a theology that presents God as impersonal, female or even non-binary. For while God’s behaviour is sometimes portrayed through such female (and even impersonal) imagery, such (rare) imagery is symbolic and limited to his behaviour, not his identity. The same applies to instances when the Apostle Paul adopts similar female imagery to describe his labour and concern for his spiritual children (Gal 4:19) – yet none would think him a woman! To think otherwise, of Paul or God, would be in open disregard to the "plain meaning" of the text.

Maleness and headship

The reason for God's choice to identify himself exclusively with the male gender, I would argue, is because he ordained maleness as an expression of headship - with God being head over all (Eph 1:22; Col 2:10; 1Cor 11:3. This is why God identifies himself with the male gender and why he gave us a son rather than a daughter. This is why, despite his counter-cultural inclusivity of women, Jesus still called 12 men to be his disciples (even though one of them was Judas!) It is also for this reason that the Apostles established that eldership should be determined according to the same principle of headship (1Cor 11:3; 1Tim 3:2-5) - something that they never justified on the basis of culture, but on theological principles established in Genesis and pre-dating the fall (1Tim 2:13). To conclude otherwise would be to dismiss the "plain meaning" of the text and to build alternative doctrine based on theological "constructs" that are weak at best (as in the case of the principle of "Redemptive Movement").

Has God become male?

Going back to the original question: "Is God male?" I feel it is worth mentioning the role of the incarnation in all this. For whereas God may be a spiritual being, God also became flesh in the person of Jesus - a biological man, a change to his divine nature that has not been interrupted by death, for in the same yet glorified body he rose again and ascended back to the Father as the God-man Jesus. Through the incarnation, it could be argued that maleness has become a permanent feature of God. Even prior to it, when Philip asked Jesus to show them the Father, his response was, "Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9). This may not have been the case prior to the Son's incarnation, but there may be grounds to identify the God of the Bible as male in a stricter sense than we'd think.

Addressing the issues with maleness

Having said all this, the root issues behind the question must not be ignored or discounted. For indeed, maleness, headship, patriarchy and even fatherhood and husbandhood have historically been used as an excuse for abuse, violence, exploitation and subjugation - I am a pastor, and believe me when I say that I regularly see the worst humanity has to offer! I may not agree with feminist theology, but I fully justify their existence! However, the right response isn't the "emasculation" of God or the demonisation of masculinity, but rather a humble rediscovery of maleness, headship, patriarchy, fatherhood and husbandhood as God intended it to be - good principles ordained by him to promote selfless service and prosperity for all.

If anything, our trinitarian theology should be a constant reminder that role difference does not mean difference in worth and value. 

Conclusions

In conclusion, to dismiss God's self-identification with male imagery for cultural reasons is not only hermeneutically incorrect but extremely dangerous as it would rob God's self-revelation of qualities that are inherent to his being and enshrined in the principle of headship. The typically male abuse of power cannot be discounted, but we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water and just give in to the demands to "emasculate" God. Our faith should be open to questioning, but our answers must speak to culture according to the "plain meaning" of Scripture, rather than subject Scripture to cultural demands.