Is God Male or Female?

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

God is the author of the Bible. He says He is not a man and He refers to Himself in the masculine. If one verse doesn't convince people then neither will a thousand.

 

I hate to sound overly simplistic here, and someone else may have already pointed this out but:

The bible says man was created in the image of God, and then woman was created as a help-meet to man.

Seems pretty simplistic and straight forward to me that God is male.

Regarding the verse mentioned above that says, "God is not a man that he should...." I think it means, "God is not a mortal man" at that point. Not "god is not male."

 

But you are forgetting that the term "man" in Hebrew, "adam", and Greek, "anthropos", are "generic", where they are also used to include "woman". Your reasoning implies that only "man" and not "woman" was created in the Image of God. Then, are you saying that "woman" is in the image of man? Not Scriptural. That God is "male" is very evident in both Testaments.

 

No, you are not right. This verse does NOT show that God is not a "male". The argument here is that since God is not a human being, He does not lie or change His mind as we are prone to do. It has nothing to with the gender of God. The Hebrew "elohim" is masculine and plural, and refers to Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

It is pretty simple unless your a liberal minded fat belly who doesn't believe the Bible. When you throw out the Bible you can believe what you want to.
The more outrageous you are in what you conjure up the more people will pat you on the back and tell you what a genius you are. That is the world for ya.

 

ShannonL, you are speaking to fellow Christians here (assuming that you are one), and your language is both arrogant and rude. Either have something positive to say, or go read your Bible!

 

I think it means "God is not a man". He is not a mortal man, He is not an immortal man, He is not a moral man, He is not a perfect man, He is not any kind of a man. He is not a man, period. He DOES refer to Himself in the masculine. It is the height of arrogance to refer to Him as a she since He refers to Himself as a He. He is unique and as such cannot be subdivided into categories as human beings can. What next? Are we going to try and decide what race He is, and then what nationality.
Just my thoughts.

 

I'll go out on a limb here.
God in scripture refers to Himself as male. Jesus is male. Back when the scriptures were written, nobody would have ever entertained the thought to refer to the Creator of the universe as anything but male. In other words, it would have never "entered their minds."
All that being true, God created both male and female, so He knows all there is to know about both. So when I think of Jesus, I think of a male entity. But when I think of God and all that He is, I believe as Creator of both genders, "He" is big enough to understand and encompass both, and is the only One who can.

 

I am right because all I did was quote a verse and agree with it. If you are defining "male" in biological terms then, no, He is not a male. If you are defining male in terms of His characteristics then, yes, He is masculine. God divided human beings into males and females. Animals can be divided into males and females. God is not an animal. God is neither a male human nor female human. There is no such thing as male gods and female gods. My point was that since He refers to Himself in the masculine then so will I. If "masculine" = "male" then He is male.

 

I am right because all I did was quote a verse and agree with it. If you are defining "male" in biological terms then, no, He is not a male. If you are defining male in terms of His characteristics then, yes, He is masculine. God divided human beings into males and females. Animals can be divided into males and females. God is not an animal. God is neither a male human nor female human. There is no such thing as male gods and female gods. My point was that since He refers to Himself in the masculine then so will I. If "masculine" = "male" then He is male. </font>[/QUOTE]You say that God's "characterstics" are "male". Then, where did the female get her distinct "charactersticts" from, if not from God?

 

God decided on these characteristics. He did not donate them as parents might with DNA. Nowhere in scripture does God refer to Himself as a "male". I feel like I am splitting hairs or nitpicking unnessasarily. I just don't want to fall into the trap of defending cultural political correctness OR merely defending tradition for the sake of tradition. I looked at scripture and find that God says He is not a man but does refer to Himself with masculine pronouns. I am just not convinced that we can use the term "male" when there is no such thing as a "female" God. Since we have never experienced the idea of a male anything without there being a female something we just simple can't imagine a being which has no such division.

 

I think that men and women being created in the image of God has nothing to do with gender - it has to do with moral attributes, a conscience, a will and intelligence. The things that set us apart from the animals.

I think maleness/masculinity goes beyond gender, and so God, though He has no gender, is still able to be male or masculine.

 

I think that men and women being created in the image of God has nothing to do with gender - it has to do with moral attributes, a conscience, a will and intelligence. The things that set us apart from the animals.

I think maleness/masculinity goes beyond gender, and so God, though He has no gender, is still able to be male or masculine. </font>[/QUOTE]Marcia, I agree. But would like to stress the point that the Being of God, that is the Godhead, can only be described as in the masculine "gender". There is no room for any hint of the Godhead being anything but "male"

 

I prefer terminology such as masculine/feminine which have a functional nuance.

The Spirit of God (while refered to as "He" in the Scripture) carries out the traditional role with the children of God assigned to the feminine side of humanity, giving birth, nurturing, teaching, comforting.


HankD

 

I prefer terminology such as masculine/feminine which have a functional nuance.

The Spirit of God (while refered to as "He" in the Scripture) carries out the traditional role with the children of God assigned to the feminine side of humanity, giving birth, nurturing, teaching, comforting.


HankD </font>[/QUOTE]This is modren day nonsense!

 

Ichtus,

You wrote: "But you are forgetting that the term "man" in Hebrew, "adam", and Greek, "anthropos", are "generic", where they are also used to include "woman".

But I was referring to "order" of things. Clearly, the first human was created in the image of God.
That first human was Adam.
Eve was created from man as a help-mate to man.

Eve is described as giving birth to Cain and Abel and Seth.

Clearly Eve, the second human creation, the help-mate to the first human-creation, is female.

Clearly, the first creation is created in the image-of-god, ergo, the male is in the image of God.

 

I was always taught that God is neither male nor female. We refer to Him as "Him" because He told us to. Am I right?

 

Marcia,

I can understand where you are coming from when you say that you feel "image of God" is not gender related.

However - woman is clearly created differently than man, and woman is clearly specifically created as a help-meet to man. Not even an equal.