Is There A Reason Why Jesus Was Male?

[KnightofChrist]

God the Father is truly father.

 

Saying that God (as triune) is truly father and not also truly mother is at affront to Genesis 1:27, "God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

 

If woman is created in the image of God, and motherhood is a characteristic of woman, then it stands to reason that motherhood is a characteristic of God.

 

God is like a mother, God can love and care for us like a mother, but He is not truly a mother. If we say God is truly mother why can we not pray "Our Mother who art in Heaven" or call Him God the Mother? If God truly is mother we should be able to because it would be true that He would be mother as well as father and both would be true.

 

Below is part of the article I posted earlier. Gives good reasons why God is called Father and why God is likened to a mother, but not our mother. For lazy people it's probably TL;DR but if any body cares to please read.

 

Why the Masculine Language to Begin With?

 

Which brings us to a more fundamental issue, namely, "What is the masculine language about in the first place?" Since Christianity, as St. Augustine was overjoyed to learn, holds that God has no body, why is God spoken of in masculine terms?

We could, of course, merely insist that He has revealed Himself in this way and be done with it. That would not, however, help us understand God, which presumably is why He bothered to reveal Himself as Father to begin with. No, if we insist that God has revealed Himself as Father, we must try to understand what He is telling us by it.

Why call God Father? The question is obviously one of language. Before we can answer it, we must observe a distinction between two different uses of language — analogy and metaphor.

Sometimes when we speak of God, we assert that God really is this or that, or really possesses this characteristic or that, even if how He is or does so differs from our ordinary use of a word. We call this way of talking about God analogy or analogous language about God. Even when we speak analogously of God, however, we are still asserting something about how God really is. When we say that God is living, for example, we really attribute life to God, although it is not mere life as we know it, i.e., biological life.

Other times when we speak of God, we liken Him to something else — meaning that there are similarities between God and what we compare him to, without suggesting that God really is a form of the thing to which we compare Him or that God really possesses the traits of the thing in question. For example, we might liken God to an angry man by speaking of "God's wrath." By this we do not mean God really possesses the trait of anger, but that the effect of God's just punishment is like the injuries inflicted by an angry man. We call this metaphor or metaphorical language about God.

When we call God Father, we use both metaphor and analogy. We liken God to a human father by metaphor, without suggesting that God possesses certain traits inherent in human fatherhood — male gender, for example. We speak of God as Father by analogy because, while God is not male, He really possesses certain other characteristics of human fathers, although He possesses these in a different way (analogously) — without creaturely limitations.

With this distinction between analogy and metaphor in mind, we turn now to the question of what it means to call God "Father."

 

The Fatherhood of God in Relation to Creation

 

We begin with God's relationship to creation. As the Creator, God is like a human father. A human father procreates a child distinct from and yet like himself. Similarly, God creates things distinct from and like Himself. This is especially true of man, who is the "image of God." And God cares for His creation, especially man, as a human father cares for his children.

But does not what we have said thus far allow us to call God Mother as well as Father? Human mothers also procreate children distinct from yet like themselves, and they care for them, as human fathers do. If we call God Father because human fathers do such things, why not call God Mother because human mothers do these things as well?

No doubt, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 239) states, "God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature." Scripture itself, as we have seen, sometimes likens God to a mother. Yet, as we have also seen, Scripture never calls God "Mother" as such. Scripture uses feminine language for God no differently than it sometimes metaphorically uses feminine language for men. How do we explain this?

Many feminists simply dismiss this as sexism by the biblical writers. But the real answer rests with the difference between God and human beings, between fathers and mothers and between metaphor and analogy. The Bible sometimes speaks metaphorically of God as Father. But it would be strange for Scripture so often to call God Father and so seldom to use maternal language, if the whole thing were merely a difference in metaphor. By never calling God "Mother" but only likening God to a human mother, Scripture seems to suggest that God is really Father in a way He is not really Mother. In other words, that fatherhood and motherhood are not on equal footing when it comes to describing God. To understand why this is so, let us look at the difference between fathers and mothers.

 

Father and Mother

 

What is the difference between fatherhood and motherhood? A father is the "principle" or "source" of procreation in a way a mother is not. To be sure, both father and mother are parents of their offspring and in that sense both are causes of their offspring's coming-to-be. But they are so in different ways.

Both mother and father are active agents of conception (contrary to what Aristotle thought). But the father, being male, initiates procreation; he enters and impregnates the woman, while the woman is entered and impregnated. There is an initiatory activity by the man and a receptive activity by the woman. Furthermore, modern biology tells us that the father determines the gender of the offspring (as Aristotle held, though for a different reason).

Thus, while father and mother are both parents of their offspring and both necessary for procreation, the father has a certain priority as the "source" or "principle" of procreation. (This "priority as source" is complemented by the mother's priority as first nurturer, due to her procreating within herself and carrying the child within herself for nine months.)

This difference between fathers and mothers for the Fatherhood of God is crucial. As Dominican Fr. Benedict Ashley has argued, so long as we compare God's act of creating to a human father's act of procreation through impregnating a woman, we speak only metaphorically of God as Father. For God does not "impregnate" anyone or anything when he creates; He creates from nothing, without a partner. But if we move beyond the particulars of human reproduction, where a father requires a mother to procreate, and instead speak of the father as "source" or "principle" of procreation, then our language for God as Father becomes analogous rather than merely metaphorical. As a human father is the "source" or "principle" of his offspring (in a way that the mother, receiving the father and his procreative activity within herself, is not), so God is the "source" or "principle" of creation. In that sense, God is truly Father, not merely metaphorically so.

Can we make a similar jump from the occasional metaphorical likening of God to human mothers in Scripture to an analogical way of calling God Mother? No, and here is why: A mother is not the "principle" or "source" of procreation the way a father is. She is a receptive, active collaborator in procreation, to be sure. But she is not the active initiator — that is the father's role as a man in impregnating her. A father can be an analogue for the Creator who creates out of nothing insofar as fathers — while not procreating out of nothing — nevertheless are the "source" or "principle" of procreation as initiators, as God is the source of creation. But a mother, being the impregnated rather than the impregnator, is analogous neither to God as Creator from nothing, nor God as the initiating "source" or "principle" of creation. As a mother, she can be likened to God only in metaphorical ways — as nurturing, caring, etc., as we see in Scripture.

One reason, then, Scripture more often speaks of God as Father than likens Him to a mother is that fatherhood can be used analogously of God, while motherhood can only be a metaphor. We can speak of God either metaphorically or analogously as Father, but we can speak of Him as maternal only metaphorically. Thus, we should expect that masculine and specifically paternal language would generally "trump" feminine and specifically maternal language for God in Scripture. For an analogy tells us how God truly is, not merely what He is like, as in metaphor.

But we can go further. Even on the metaphorical level, it is more appropriate to call God Father rather than Mother. To understand why, we return to the difference between father and mother, this time introducing two other terms, transcendence and immanence.

 

Continue reading: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8279

Edited December 28, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[GeorgiiMichael]

God is like a mother, God can love and care for us like a mother, but He is not truly a mother. If we say God is truly mother why can we not pray "Our Mother who art in Heaven" or call Him God the Mother? If God truly is mother we should be able to because it would be true that He would be mother as well as father and both would be true.

 

Below is part of the article I posted earlier. Gives good reasons why God is called Father and why God is likened to a mother, but not our mother. For lazy people it's probably TL;DR but if any body cares to please read.

 

We don't pray , "Our Mother" because Jesus prayed, "Our Father". This prayer is also directed at the person of the trinity, God the Father.

 

I'm not arguing about the gender of the individual person of the Trinity, I'm arguing about the nature of the Trinity itself. The Trinity, creating humankind in the image and likeness of God, must be mother as well as father in order for woman to be in the image and likeness of God. This distinction does not address the validity of addressing any of the persons of the Trinity as mother. In fact, I agree with you on that point. 

 

All I'm saying is that God as Triune must be mother as well as father in order for women to be fully equal to men as part of Creation which we can all agree that they are. For if God is only "like a mother" then where does the concept of mother come from? 

[Slappo]

God the Father is truly father.

 

Saying that God (as triune) is truly father and not also truly mother is at affront to Genesis 1:27, "God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

 

If woman is created in the image of God, and motherhood is a characteristic of woman, then it stands to reason that motherhood is a characteristic of God.

 

The CCC never refers to God as being mother or as motherhood being a characteristic of God. It says His parental tenderness can be expressed by the image of motherhood, which is quite different than saying motherhood is a characteristic of God.

 

Genesis is not saying that God is transexual... to read that God is both mother and father from Genesis saying that man and woman are created in His image is a great folly. If anything, God is suprasexual. He is above sexuality as male and female.

 

Edited to add: Christ is clearly male though through his gender on Earth and his being both Human and Divine. Christ's masculinity is not what defines him though, it is his Divinity that defines him.

 

 

We don't pray , "Our Mother" because Jesus prayed, "Our Father". This prayer is also directed at the person of the trinity, God the Father.

 

I'm not arguing about the gender of the individual person of the Trinity, I'm arguing about the nature of the Trinity itself. The Trinity, creating humankind in the image and likeness of God, must be mother as well as father in order for woman to be in the image and likeness of God. This distinction does not address the validity of addressing any of the persons of the Trinity as mother. In fact, I agree with you on that point. 

 

All I'm saying is that God as Triune must be mother as well as father in order for women to be fully equal to men as part of Creation which we can all agree that they are. For if God is only "like a mother" then where does the concept of mother come from? 

 

 

 

God as Triune need neither be mother or father. The differences between the Divine Fatherhood of God and the fatherhood of a human are vast. God is Father in that he is authority over all creation and Father of Mankind. The fatherhood of a man is not espoused to the Fatherhood of God. We don't look to God the Father as our role model for fathers, but to St. Joseph.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Slappo

[Apotheoun]

How about we all just dial back the sass just a little bit and re-read that excerpt from the Catechism that Slappo so kindly quoted for us.

 

I say we speak the truth and not worry about whether someone thinks what we say is "sassy."

[Apotheoun]

We don't pray , "Our Mother" because Jesus prayed, "Our Father". This prayer is also directed at the person of the trinity, God the Father.

 

We don't pray "Our Mother," because God is not our mother; instead, the Church is our mother, while God is our Father.  In fact, if you want to get really technical, both scripture and the ancient Church Fathers held that the word God properly applies only the God the Father, while the word Lord applies to the Son (see St. Gregory Thaumaturgus "Declaration of Faith").  Moreover, God is never address in any literal sense in sacred scripture as "mother," while He is literally called our Father and the source of all Fatherhood.

 

 

 

The Declaration of Faith by St. Gregory Thaumaturgus

 

There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image: perfect Begetter of the perfect Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. 

 

There is one Lord, Only of the Only, God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word, Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible, and Immortal of Immortal and Eternal of Eternal. 

 

And there is One Holy Spirit, having His subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. 

[KnightofChrist]

We don't pray , "Our Mother" because Jesus prayed, "Our Father". This prayer is also directed at the person of the trinity, God the Father.

 

I'm not arguing about the gender of the individual person of the Trinity, I'm arguing about the nature of the Trinity itself. The Trinity, creating humankind in the image and likeness of God, must be mother as well as father in order for woman to be in the image and likeness of God. This distinction does not address the validity of addressing any of the persons of the Trinity as mother. In fact, I agree with you on that point. 

 

All I'm saying is that God as Triune must be mother as well as father in order for women to be fully equal to men as part of Creation which we can all agree that they are. For if God is only "like a mother" then where does the concept of mother come from? 

 

I've not been arguing about the gender of any of the Persons of the Trinity, but rather their nature. I don't accept the premise that God IS father and that He IS mother, because He created our first parents male and female. To do so would be error. The premise, whether or not you and others see it, bases our likeness and image of God on gender. Our image and likeness to God is our souls, and intellect. It has nothing to do with gender. Woman is made in the image of God because of her soul and her ability to reason and have intellect, not because she can give birth to a child and become a mother. Woman's likeness to God is not effected by God being likened to a mother but not a mother.

 

The reason we pray Our Father rather than Our Mother is more than just because Christ prayed Our Father rather than Our Mother. It is because He IS our Father and He IS Christ' Father, not our mother, though He is likened to mothers sometimes. 

 

I'll be honest I do not even know how to begin answering the very deep question of where the concept of mother came from other than Eve, the mother of all of us. But rather than seeing that God is not our mother as a negative, and rather than make a false conclusion from this that it is an affront to woman or motherhood. I see it as an proof that woman are very special, uniquely blessed by God, set apart. She can be a mother where as man and God can only be likened to mothers. You should really try and read the article it is very good and informative. 

 

God bless!

 

Sorry for any typos or misspellings! 

Edited December 28, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

There are so many things wrong with thinking that the father is the primary source of creation in the act of procreation, I don't even know where to begin.  

 

This thread is so dumb. 

[Kia ora]

Even when we speak analogously of God, however, we are still asserting something about how God really is. When we say that God is living, for example, we really attribute life to God, although it is not mere life as we know it, i.e., biological life.

 

I don't really understand this.

 

How can we really attribute life to God if it's not 'mere' life as know it? It seems to me that whenever we speak about the living God, we are comparing a living God with a living person, not the other way around.

 

How can we even assert something about how God really is when the words and concepts and meanings we use don't touch him?

 

 

But the father, being male, initiates procreation; he enters and impregnates the woman, while the woman is entered and impregnated.

 

If I may so, this is typically male-centred language. I could just as well describe sexual intercourse as a woman enveloping or grabbing the man, which would give the agency to the woman.

 

 

Thus, while father and mother are both parents of their offspring and both necessary for procreation, the father has a certain priority as the "source" or "principle" of procreation.

 

The father is given priority as the 'source' because he has a penis and a penis is good for stabbing things. To me, stabbing things does not seem like a foundation at all for establishing priority or principality.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Kia ora

[KnightofChrist]

There are so many things wrong with thinking that the father is the primary source of creation in the act of procreation, I don't even know where to begin.

This thread is so dumb.

Now you're reading selectively. The author did not state the man IS the "primary" source of procreation. But that the man is the "principle" or "source" of procreation IN A WAY a mother is not. This way is that he enters and impregnates the woman, while the woman is entered and impregnated. The man gives, ie in a way is the source, and the woman receives. I'm not seeing what's so dumb about that.

[KnightofChrist]

I don't really understand this.

How can we really attribute life to God if it's not 'mere' life as know it? It seems to me that whenever we speak about the living God, we are comparing a living God with a living person, not the other way around.

Because it is not a biological life. But He is alive. He is a living Spirit.

How can we even assert something about how God really is when the words and concepts and meanings we use don't touch him?

Just because we cannot fully understand God does not mean how He has chosen to reveal Himself does not correctly describe Him.

If I may so, this is typically male-centred language. I could just as well describe sexual intercourse as a woman enveloping or grabbing the man, which would give the agency to the woman.

You could do that but you would be wrong, the man would still be entering the woman and the woman would still be receiving the man within herself. Either way the man gives the woman his sperm and the woman receives it.

The father is given priority as the 'source' because he has a penis and a penis is good for stabbing things. To me, stabbing things does not seem like a foundation at all for establishing priority or principality.

Please find more grown up and proper ways to describe the marriage act. You can deny it all you like the man enters into a woman and she receives.

[Kia ora]

Because it is not a biological life. But He is alive. He is a living Spirit.


Just because we cannot fully understand God does not mean how He has chosen to reveal Himself does not correctly describe Him.

 

It doesn't mean it correctly describes him either. 

 

I think God makes allowances for language, time, place, circumstance. Thus I think the Bible has slavery and genocide in it not because God wants those things, but because people wanted those things.

 

 

You could do that but you would be wrong, the man would still be entering the woman and the woman would still be receiving the man within herself. Either way the man gives the woman his sperm and the woman receives it.

Please find more grown up and proper ways to describe the marriage act. You can deny it all you like the man enters into a woman and she receives.

 

And why is that the principal act? Ejaculation doesn't happen in the moment of penetration, there has to be muscular contractions in the vaginal tract for that to happen. No woman, no sperm. I can just as easily say that the man does not give the woman his sperm, the woman takes it from the man.

 

I think it's arbitrary to make the man into the source for creation because he has a penis. I don't see how the penis going into the vagina proves it either. I don't see why we should see sexual intercourse through the eyes of Aristotle.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Kia ora

[KnightofChrist]

It doesn't mean it correctly describes him either.

Yes it does though not fully.

I can just as easily (and validly) say that the man does not give the woman his sperm, the woman takes it from the man.

Again you could say that but not validly. Her biological functions do not make it possible for to actually take the man's sperm from him. It is a fact of his biological functions the he injects his sperm into the woman. She cannot extract the sperm from him in any true sense.

It's arbitrary to make the man into the source for creation and to impart all the importance into that initial act (which could be seen as a woman taking the man, not the man taking the woman). So I don't see why we should sexual intercourse through the eyes of Aristotle.

Person A gives person B an object, person A is the giver or source of the given object person B is the receiver of the object. Even if person B takes the object person A is still the source of the object and person B still receives the object. Take is synonymous with receive.

I don't believe the author is asking us to view procreation through the eyes of Aristotle. Edited December 28, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Kia ora]

Yes it does though not fully.

 

If I say God is wrathful, is God really wrathful even though he's not wrathful as we understand it?

 

Why do we persist in using these terms if it doesn't describe God fully...?

 

 

Again you could say that but not validly. Her biological functions do not make it possible for to actually take the man's sperm from him. It is a fact of his biological functions the he injects his sperm into the woman. She cannot extract the sperm from him in any true sense.

 

 

I hate to be so blunt about it, but I can't ejaculate by pure force of will.

 

 

Person A gives person B an object, person A is the giver or source of the given object person B is the receiver of the object. Even if person B takes the object person A is still the source of the object and person B still receives the object. Take is synonymous with receive.

 

 

A woman allows a man to give her sperm, unless we're talking about rape. Because if a woman says no, then there's no sex, no opportunity for the sperm to come out and life is not created. The chain of causality runs deeper than just the conjugal act. If the woman is not ovulating, then no matter how many times the man 'initiates', no creation takes place. The man is impotent (pun definitely intended) without the women's creative act. Ovulation is something only the woman can do. Does that mean the woman is the initiator?

 

It seems strange to me that we use an analogy between human fathers and what they do as a reason for *only* calling God the Father, to the complete exclusion of God as the mother. Because even if it's true that we men are the principal partners of the whole thing and we have a special status because of that, does that mean we can never call God the Mother? I acknowledge that God the Father is a privileged appellation that's grounded in over two thousand years of tradition. But I think God has been seen in motherly terms as well.

 

In the Byzantine rite liturgy, this line is sung:

 

From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten You.

 

Two points I'd like to make.

 

God the Father does not have a womb, since he was never incarnated, but he is still understood (in this quotation and appropriation from the Psalms) as a mother.

 

The Greek word used for 'begotten' is the same as to 'give birth to' since the language does not distinguish between the two. The creeds (Nicene, etc) literally say that the Father gives birth to the Son. It's only because of fidelity to the ancientness of the creeds that we continue to use a similarly archaic-in-tone English word 'begotten' and because we don't want to confuse people as the Father didn't give birth to the Son in the same way that women give birth to children.

 

I have another question though. You said:

 

Had Christ been born female it would have be a revelation that God the Father was God the Mother

 

 

Why? God the Father can't have a daughter and still be Father? Because that's what my original question was, I wasn't asking why God isn't a Mother, I was asking Jesus the Son couldn't have been Jesus the daughter.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Kia ora

[MIKolbe]

Off topic posts have been moved to the Lame Board.

 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

If I say God is wrathful, is God really wrathful even though he's not wrathful as we understand it?

God can be wrathful but He is not wrath. God can be angery but to say God is anger would be wrong.

Why do we persist in using these terms if it doesn't describe God fully...?

I'm not answering that question anymore, no matter how many ways you ask it. It's been answered, if you don't like my answer fine.

I hate to be so blunt about it, but I can't ejaculate by pure force of will.




A woman allows a man to give her sperm, unless we're talking about rape. Because if a woman says no, then there's no sex, no opportunity for the sperm to come out and life is not created. The chain of causality runs deeper than just the conjugal act. If the woman is not ovulating, then no matter how many times the man 'initiates', no creation takes place. The man is impotent (pun definitely intended) without the women's creative act. Ovulation is something only the woman can do. Does that mean the woman is the initiator?

None of that changes any of the biological functions of the man in the marriage act. He still impregnates the woman and she is impregnated, he enters into her she is entered into.

It seems strange to me that we use an analogy between human fathers and what they do as a reason for *only* calling God the Father, to the complete exclusion of God as the mother. Because even if it's true that we men are the principal partners of the whole thing and we have a special status because of that, does that mean we can never call God the Mother? I acknowledge that God the Father is a privileged appellation that's grounded in over two thousand years of tradition. But I think God has been seen in motherly terms as well.

God is likened to a mother, as I have repeatedly stated, but He is not a mother.

In the Byzantine rite liturgy, this line is sung:

From the womb, before the morning star, I have begotten You.

Two points I'd like to make.

God the Father does not have a womb, since he was never incarnated, but he is still understood (in this quotation and appropriation from the Psalms) as a mother.

The Greek word used for 'begotten' is the same as to 'give birth to' since the language does not distinguish between the two. The creeds (Nicene, etc) literally say that the Father gives birth to the Son. It's only because of fidelity to the ancientness of the creeds that we continue to use a similarly archaic-in-tone English word 'begotten' and because we don't want to confuse people as the Father didn't give birth to the Son in the same way that women give birth to children.

You'll have to ask a Eastern Rite Catholic/Christian about the hymn. Begotten is not the same as born, again the Son was not born of the Father, He has always existed. To put it in simple terms it means God the Father is head of the Trinity.

I have another question though. You said:



Why? God the Father can't have a daughter and still be Father? Because that's what my original question was, I wasn't asking why God isn't a Mother, I was asking Jesus the Son couldn't have been Jesus the daughter.

Because God would be both the Father and the daughter, God would be a He-She, a contradiction, or the Father would be mother to avoid the contradiction. Then the daughter would have two mothers and that would be contradiction. Edited December 28, 2012 by KnightofChrist