Is God Male or Female?

Duke Divinity School should not be used as a test of anything orthodox.

 

Martin, I agree with you but this is nothing new. When I had been a believer less than a year, a So. Baptist pastor told me that God is both male and female and he had no problem with any pastor wanting to call God "Mother." He referred to scritpures like that show God's nurturing care and concern (that church, btw, left the So. Baptist fold several yrs. later).

Even though I was a new believer, I knew those scriptures did not mean God was both male and female. Having been exposed to the "Mother-Father God" of some psychics and spiritualists I had known before, I was alarmed at this pastor's words.

God has no gender as we do but makes it clear we should refer to him and think of him in masculine terms.

I think we are going to be seeing more of this kind of thinking (that God can be female).

 

I forgot to say it was in 1991 when that pastor told me he had no problem with thinking of God as female.

 

After speaking on the roles of a godly father in a Christian family, Ergun Caner once made a point saying, "Is God a woman? - No! Is God a man? - No! He is "Father."

When I think of all the things a father is supposed to do, I think I find common ground at least in that description with brother Ergun.

 

Many people will say that God is not gender Spesific but I say Baloney.
God the father is Fully spirit
Jesus is Fully God and fully man and I am 99.9%certain Jesus is a male
Jesus, the second seat of the Godhead Calls Him FATHER so what does that tell you?

when God Came to Abram in the plains of Mamere 3 men appeared to Abram Father, Son, Spirit.
my Bible says nothing about 2 men and a woman visiting Abram

I can give an abundance of Biblical examples
but I want to keep it short.

 

How do you know? Did you go to Duke? Do you know any professors who teach at Duke? Do you know any pastors who were educated at Duke? or is it just your habit to belittle institutions of higher learning because you have none?

But back to the subject. Is God male or female?

It says clearly in Genesis 1 that God made humans in the image of God, both male and female. God is not male or female. [language snipped] God is not human, so it is absurd to insist he be male.

This also reveals the ignorance and shortsightedness of those who worship the bible as if it is God. Another example of the idiocy of Fundamaentalism, proven everyday on this board.

[ June 19, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Take it easy David. Yer blood is boilin.

God refers to himself as He wants to be known. In His word He refeers to Himself in the male gender. People shouldn't mess with that. Of course He has the attributes of male and female as He created us in His image. But He prefers to be known as the Father.

 

Often God is depicted as an old man in hollywood type movies. yet I suppose subliminally people go along with that.

It seems to me weird when people usually feminists refer to God as She. I am not sure their is a precedent set for that in scripture, we are created in His image, yet we are not neccessaraly replicas of that image.

 

The idea that God is both male and female has been around in other "faiths" for thousands of years. Some have also attempted to introduce this "doctrine of demons" into the Christian Faith, especially from the feminist and liberal section of the "Church". There are also some men who support this heresy, so it is not correct to assume that this is something that is promoted only by women.

In a book called, "The New Eve in Christ", by Mary Hayter, she attemts to show from Scripture that the Godhead is not only masculine. Her reasoning is the distorted understanding of her "proof" texts, and her bent to prove something that does not even exist.

On page 24, she says:

"again, the Hebrew term for 'spirit', 'wind', 'breath' of God is feminine (ruch). Swindler lists many references in which he thinks that the feminine Spirit of God is hypostatized, or personified".

Hayter is right on the Hebrew noun "ruch" as being in the feminine gender, as it is in the neuter gender in the Greek, where the word is "pneuma". However, can we conclude that this is evidence that the Holy Spirit is a female? The gender of a word in a language does not allow us to arrive at a dogmatic conclusion that this is evidence for the Holy Spirit being female, and therefore we have "a Godhead comprising a male and female Deity" (Hayter, p.21)

It is incorrect to assume, that, from Genesis 1:26, where God creates man and woman in His Image, that this can be taken as referring to His being male and female.

"In our inage and after our likeness...both words refer here evidently to spiritual resemblance alone, and the duplication of synonyms is intended simply to emphasise the idea of resemblance (cf. the duplication in x.5, 20,31,32; xxv.160" (Dr S R Driver; The Book of Genesis, pp.14-15)

"So, too, God made man in His own 'image', reflecting some of His own perfections: perfect in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and with dominion over the creatures" (Merrill Unger and William White; Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament. pp.398-399)

Any notion that we are "duplicates" of God, as taught by the Word of Faith Movement, is heresy.

Like the feminists, who misuse the use of the Hebrew "ruch" to prove that the Holy Spirit is a female; there are those to use the neuter "pneuma" of the Greek, to show that the Holy Spirit is not a Person. It is clear that in both cases, it is the theological positions of both groups that are being supported, and not what Scripture really teaches. Hence the Jehovah's Wintesses refer to the Holy Spirit as an "active force", and some speak of the Holy Spirit in impersonal terms, and use "personification" for references to Him.

The Personality of the Holy Spirit is confirmed by the many passages which refer personal qaulities to Him. Like, He "teaches", is "grieved", "calls to service", "creates", etc. Language that cannot be used for an impersonal being. Even when we read of "the Spirit itself", as we do in the KJV in Romans 8:26, etc. It is because of a strict translation of the Greek, "all auto to pneuma", which is in the neuter gender. However, the correct reading would be: "the Spirit Himself". In verse 27 Paul speaks of "the mind of the Spirit", and "he intercedes (3rd person) for the saints"; language that can only be used for a Person.

It is of great importance, that in John's Gospel, we have Jesus Himself refer to the Holy Spirit, not by the neuter "ekenio", which would be the grammatical gender in agreement with the neuter "pheuma hagios". But, we read in places in John, like 14:26; 15:26, where Jesus uses the masculine "ekeinos", even though it is used in connection with the neuter "pneuma". It is my opinion, that Jesus was not so much as showing the Personality of the Holy Spirit, which would have been confirmed even by the use of the neuter "ekeino". But, Jesus is clearly referring to the Holy Spirit as a "Male Person", which the use of the language here would show. The change in the gender from the neuter to the masculine, can only be accounted for by the fact that Jesus intended to show the Holy Spirit, not just as a Personal Being, but a Male Person.

 

Actually, I do have higher education and I am not belittling education at all. However, it does need to be actual education, not the pooling of ignorance about God's word. Duke Divinity School is toward the liberal end of theological schools. They don't object to that. They don't pretend to be otherwise. I am not sure that any knowing person would object to what I said. It isn't a matter of opinion.

Well, good study on that passage with critical thinkign will easily show that you have completely missed it. (There is where that higher education comes in.)

Great tactic here ... When you can't win on the merits of the argument, just slam your opponents intelligence. That is always the hallmark of civil discussion. People who have the facts on their side don't have to resort to this kind of tactic.

I don't think anyone says God "has to be" anything. But God did reveal certain things to us, and it would be the height of arrogance to suggest that God didn't know what he was talking about when he said that. If God wasn't a male, then why did he use male terms? He could have used neuter terms to refer to himself? He could have thrown in a feminine here or there. But he did not none of that.

Males aren't males because of their (male body part edited) alone. But even more importantly, God told us that he is a spirit and therefore doesn't have a body at all, much less any body parts. When God did take human flesh, it was as a man.

I agree that it is a stupid question. The answer is abundantly clear from what God said about himself. This is where a place like Duke shows its true colors. When someone says that God is not a male, they are denying the clear teaching of Scripture. Given Duke's view of inspiration, they are not troubled by that. Given the biblical view, it is very troubling.

Nice personal attacks again. But I am sure that the people who believe God are not ignorant or shortsighted. They do not worship the Bible as if it is God. Nor are they idiots. But God has been very clear about his word, and its truth and value, and about who he is. We should not be questioning that.

[ June 20, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: dianetavegia ]

 

I personally was shocked about a newspaper article several years back about Playboy bunnies being on Duke's campus, a *Baptist* institution of higher education.

 

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/resources/quickfacts.html

Duke isn't Baptist, as far as I know.

 

Okay, you're right. Thanks for the correction. It wasn't Duke, it was Wake Forest. I would edit it but the time has run out. So, nevermind.

 

Your interpretation of the Genesis statement is incorrect. Paul was inspired and he gives the correct interpretation in I Corinthians:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man."

What makes man in God's image is not a common anatomy - because God has no anatomy. What makes man - or should I say male - in God's image is his position of rulership in the created order.

In other words, it's a man's world. Deal with it.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Your interpretation of the Genesis statement is incorrect. Paul was inspired and he gives the correct interpretation in I Corinthians:

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man."

What makes man in God's image is not a common anatomy - because God has no anatomy. What makes man - or should I say male - in God's image is his position of rulership in the created order.

In other words, it's a man's world. Deal with it.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, all you are doing here is stirring the pot. You are not contributing to this discussion in a level manner, but making some silly remarks, which goes to show that neither do you understand what Genesis 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 11:7 are really saying.

 

there is some really Christlike behavior going on here.

I am under the assumption we are all followers of Christ here so can we please have a civil discussion without all the name calling and the pot stirring
it is unbecoming of a Christian.

 

Icthus,

Paul said,

"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man."

That explicitly says man's likeness to God is in his headship. That may, indeed, stir the pot in a day in age when the ungodly heresy of feminism reigns, but it is truth nonethessless and directly addresses the subject of God and gender.

Mark Osgatharp