The Gender of God: A Biblical Examination of Divine Revelation and Human Language

Please Support the Bible Translation Work of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

$5.00

Introduction: The Contemporary Challenge to God’s Gender

In the last several decades, feminist theology and gender-inclusive movements have increasingly challenged the traditional Christian portrayal of God using masculine language. Voices such as radical feminist Mary Daly, who declared, “If God is male, then male is God,” have attempted to frame biblical Christianity as inherently oppressive and patriarchal. Such assertions have fueled arguments that the language Christians use for God is not merely descriptive but determinative of social structures, implying that masculine God-language contributes directly to the subjugation of women.

From an evangelical and biblical apologetic standpoint, these challenges require a careful and thorough response. The task is not to accommodate contemporary ideological pressures but to investigate whether Scripture itself presents God as male, whether God possesses gender, and whether altering biblical God-language is warranted or faithful to the revelation God has given. To address these questions, we must examine the nature of gender itself, the biblical doctrine of God, the language of divine revelation, and the theological implications of inclusivist proposals.

The Nature of Gender and Its Applicability to God

Gender, as historically understood, is integrally connected to the biological and social realities of human beings. Genesis 1:27 explicitly states, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” This foundational biblical declaration affirms that human beings are distinctly created as male and female, with these distinctions grounded in their physical bodies and reproductive capacities. While sociological understandings of gender may reflect cultural variations and fluid expressions of masculinity and femininity, these expressions do not redefine the biological realities upon which they are built.

Gender identity is therefore rooted in the physical, sexed body—a fact consistently confirmed by Scripture and nature alike. Because God is described in Scripture as spirit (John 4:24), not as a corporeal being with sexed physical characteristics, the conclusion follows that God does not possess gender in the biological or sociological sense.

Unlike the pagan deities of the ancient Near East, such as Baal or Asherah, who were represented with sexual attributes and engaged in mythological reproductive acts, the God of the Bible creates by divine fiat, through His word, not through sexual procreation (Genesis 1:3). God’s self-existence (aseity) and creative power stand wholly apart from the reproductive means familiar within creaturely life. Therefore, both ontologically and functionally, the concept of gender cannot be applied to God.

Scriptural Testimony: Divine Genderlessness Affirmed

Several passages in Scripture make clear that God is not to be equated with human males or females. Numbers 23:19 asserts, “God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.” Likewise, Hosea 11:9 records, “I am God and not man, the Holy One among you.” These statements are not simply declarations of God’s moral superiority but explicit denials of God’s creatureliness, including biological sex.

Deuteronomy 4:15-16 issues a direct prohibition against imaging God in the form of “male or female.” The Israelites, warned against idolatry, were reminded that they “saw no form” when God spoke from the fire at Horeb, thus forbidding any human representation of God based on gendered physical forms. This theological assertion aligns with the broader biblical witness that God transcends the physical limitations and characteristics that define human beings.

John 1:18 declares, “No one has ever seen God,” emphasizing the invisibility and incorporeality of the divine nature. Paul echoes this in 1 Timothy 6:16, describing God as dwelling in “unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.” God’s being is spiritual, eternal, and unbounded by the creaturely distinctions of sex or gender.

Masculine Language and the Divine Revelation

While Scripture affirms that God is spirit and genderless, it overwhelmingly employs masculine names, titles, pronouns, and metaphors when referring to Him. Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai—all these divine names occur in masculine grammatical forms in the Hebrew text. Additionally, the title “Father” is a central designation for God throughout both the Old and New Testaments (Isaiah 63:16; Matthew 6:9). The Son is described as Jesus Christ, the “Son of God” (Mark 1:1), and the third person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, referred to with masculine pronouns in the Greek text (e.g., John 16:13).

Critics argue that because God is genderless, this consistent masculine language is arbitrary and subject to revision. However, Scripture presents this language not as a cultural accident but as God’s deliberate choice in self-revelation. God reveals Himself through human language, and while human language necessarily employs gendered terms when referring to persons, the selection of masculine descriptors in divine self-revelation is intentional.

The significance of the title “Father” is not biological but relational, expressing authority, care, protection, and provision. These relational attributes are not inherently masculine but are conveyed through masculine terminology by divine choice. Attempts to substitute “Mother” or “Parent” or to replace Trinitarian titles with alternatives such as “Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” disrupt the revealed pattern of biblical theology and undermine the relational distinctiveness that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit signify.

Feminine Imagery and Metaphors for God in Scripture

Though the Bible does not use feminine titles or names for God, it does include several feminine metaphors and similes that describe aspects of God’s character and actions. For example, Isaiah 66:13 states, “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you.” In Hosea 13:8, God compares Himself to “a bear robbed of her cubs.” Jesus Himself likens His longing to gather Jerusalem to that of a hen gathering her chicks under her wings (Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34).

These images, however, function as metaphors that highlight specific attributes of God’s relationship with His people—such as comfort, nurture, and protection—not as indications of God’s gender. The consistent pattern remains that these feminine images are supplemental metaphors, not primary titles or names. They enrich our understanding of God’s tender compassion but do not establish a precedent for replacing or neutralizing the masculine language of God’s self-revelation.

Significantly, even in passages where maternal metaphors are employed, the grammatical gender of the verbs and the surrounding divine titles remain masculine. This grammatical consistency underscores that the biblical writers did not understand these feminine images as authorizing a revision of God’s revealed identity.

The Error of Gender-Inclusive God-Language

Inclusivist theologians argue that since God transcends gender, exclusively masculine language distorts the true nature of God and perpetuates male-dominant hierarchies. They propose substituting or supplementing masculine terms with feminine or gender-neutral alternatives, such as referring to God as “Father-Mother,” “Parent,” or even “Mother God.”

However, this approach entails serious theological consequences. First, it imposes human social agendas onto divine revelation rather than submitting human understanding to the authority of Scripture. Second, it implies that God’s self-revelation in Scripture is culturally conditioned and therefore flawed, requiring correction by contemporary human insight. This undermines the doctrine of the inspiration, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, which evangelicals rightly uphold.

Scripture itself warns against such tampering. Deuteronomy 4:2 commands, “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it.” Proverbs 30:6 echoes, “Do not add to his words, or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” Altering God-language on the basis of social or ideological concerns rather than biblical exegesis directly violates this prohibition.

Theological Implications of Divine Masculine Language

The consistent masculine language for God serves several crucial theological functions. First, it affirms the personhood of God. Unlike impersonal forces or abstract principles, God reveals Himself as a personal being who speaks, acts, commands, loves, and judges. Human language lacks a way to refer to persons without gendered pronouns; thus, masculine terms serve as a means to convey personhood without implying biological gender.

Second, the masculine language underscores the relational distinctions within the Godhead, especially between the Father and the Son. The Son’s incarnation as Jesus Christ, a male human being, was not accidental but essential to the plan of redemption (Galatians 4:4). Jesus called God “Father” and taught His disciples to do the same (Matthew 6:9). To replace this language with gender-neutral or feminine substitutes is to sever the connection between Jesus’ teaching, His identity, and the biblical narrative.

Third, the masculine language affirms God’s transcendence and sovereignty. In the biblical cultural context, fathers were typically viewed as heads of households and guardians of legal and social order. These cultural associations, while not exhaustive of God’s nature, convey aspects of His role as Creator, Judge, and Redeemer. To replace these terms with alternatives undermines these relational and theological dimensions.

Responding to the Feminist Critique

The feminist objection that masculine God-language fosters male oppression must be answered not by altering Scripture but by correcting sinful distortions of biblical teaching. The misuse of Scripture to justify abuse or male superiority is a human perversion, not a reflection of God’s character or intent. The New Testament ethic of mutual love, service, and respect (Ephesians 5:21-33; Galatians 3:28) affirms the equal value of men and women before God without altering the language of divine revelation.

The problem is not the masculinity of biblical God-language but the human failure to embody biblical love, justice, and humility. Reforming abusive human structures requires submission to Scripture, not the revision of its content.

Conclusion: The Normative Authority of Biblical Revelation

God is spirit (John 4:24), and as such, He transcends all creaturely categories, including gender. However, the language God has chosen to reveal Himself is predominantly masculine, and this language is neither arbitrary nor incidental. It is woven into the fabric of the biblical narrative and theology, including the incarnation of the Son and the structure of the Trinitarian relationships.

Evangelicals, committed to the sufficiency and authority of Scripture, must resist the temptation to revise divine language under cultural pressures. While the occasional acknowledgment of biblical feminine metaphors is appropriate, replacing or neutralizing the masculine language of God’s self-revelation is not consistent with biblical fidelity.

The right response to abuses committed in the name of masculine God-language is not theological revisionism but biblical repentance and reformation according to the Word of God.

You May Also Enjoy

The Foreknowledge of God: An Evangelical Defense of Molinism and Middle Knowledge

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).