IS GOD A WOMAN? (GENESIS 1:26-27

To some readers this might seem to be a heretical question to ask while others might reply, “Of course.”

Much of the discussion begins right in the first chapter of Genesis, where we read:

Then God said,

    “Let us make man in our image,

    after our likeness;

        and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,

                                               and over the birds of the air,

                                               and over the cattle,

                                               and over all the earth,

                                               and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.

    So God created man in his own image

    in the image of God he created him;

    male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:26-27)

Concerning the last two critical lines cited above, Ortlund states, “The inner logic of the whole bound together with the same verb ('created') demands that both male and female alike be dignified as bearers of the divine image.” Similarly, Brauch says, “It is significant that man and woman are not first defined by their sexuality or gender; they are first defined by the fact that together they are created in the image of God.”

But then the interesting questions arise: “Does this mean that God shares the sexual attributes of both males and females?” “If not, what is the nature of this shared correspondence between us and Him?” “Can we then use these common characteristics to get an idea of the nature of God Himself by looking at human behavior and abilities?”

Let us first deal with the question of the sexuality of God, if we can even imagine such a concept. And here I will quote from three Bible scholars, the first two of whom happen to be women.

    Sakenfeld: “A more complete and balanced picture of the God portrayed in the Bible has been encouraged by emphasizing texts in which the deity is compared to a woman...Such texts, supplemented by texts using the imagery of inanimate objects for the deity (e.g. God as rock or shield), are used to undergird and reinforce the classic teaching that God is not biologically made, but is indeed beyond male and female. The small number of texts comparing God to a woman, together with the fact that these are generally comparisons (not direct appellations) results in disagreement about the significance of these resources, particularly whether they provide a warrant for referring to the biblical deity as 'mother' in contemporary theology and prayer.”

    Achtemeier: “God is never called mother in the Bible, though he exercises mother-like love and care for his children. Female terms for God are used in the Bible only in similes, pointing to one activity [only]. If they are interpreted as metaphors, the deity is then connected with the images of birth and suckling, and they erroneously result in the view of a goddess giving birth to all things and persons, who then participate in the divine being. The distinction that the Bible insists on between creator and creature is then lost.”

    Goldstein talks a little more about the biblical texts comparing God to a woman: “God appears to be female at Deut 32:18; cf. Isa 42:14; Ps 2:7.” Before I quote from those passages though, here is what else Goldstein says, “In Hebrew the 'Spirit' of the Lord is feminine [in grammatical gender] and could be taken as a separate person, just as was the Holy Spirit in Christianity...” But if we are to consider the three persons of the Trinity, one could also point out that the Spirit's role in ensuring that Mary had a baby is expressed in clearly masculine terms, and that God in flesh, Jesus Christ, certainly appeared in the male form although in Matthew 23:37 He says, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem...How often have I desired to gather your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings...”. So again, trying to assign a particular sex to any person of the Trinity is doomed to fall short of the mark.

Deuteronomy 32:18 – “You were unmindful of the rock that begot you, and you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Actually, in this verse the beginning clause compares God to a male while He is pictured as a woman in the second clause. So although this verse does use metaphoric language, it is equally applied to both sexes.

Isaiah 42:14 – “For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in travail, I will gasp and pant.” Here we clearly have a simile.

Psalm 2:7 – “'You are my son, he said, 'this day I become your father.'” Goldstein is clearly off-base in quoting his verse since all modern translations agree that God is referred to as father here, not mother.

Lest some people feel that to have referred to God using feminine language would have been distasteful to those in biblical times, consider this comment by Keener: “Maternal milk was considered best...God is here [I Peter 2:2] the source of the milk. In 1 Cor. 3:2 and 1 Thess. 2:7 Paul compares himself to a mother or nurse breastfeeding a baby, and such feminine images for males were neither extremely rare nor, even in antiquity, necessarily demeaning.”

If there are in fact no clear-cut references to God as female, does that mean that only men are made in God's image. Apparently some think so. Marcus Barth explains that “the Greek translation of Hebrew 'ish by anthropos [in Ephesians 5:31] expresses the idea that Adam (anthropos) alone, before Eve was created and without her company, was the carrier of God's image and glory; see Gen 1:27 and I Cor 11:7. Despite its endorsement by some rabbis and other Jews this interpretation of Gen 1:27 is highly questionable. For this verse speaks of 'adam (anthropos) not of 'ish (aner).”

But if the godly imagery in Genesis 2:7 applies equally to men and women, then what does that image entail? The answer differs depending on whom you ask and is hard to pin down, even in general terms. Witness the following statements:

    Schaeffer: “What differentiates Adam and Eve from the rest of creation is that they were created in the image of God. For twentieth-century [or 21^st century] man this phrase, the image of God, is as important as anything in Scripture, because men today can no longer answer the crucial question, 'Who am I?'...The Christian knows that in the flow of history man comes from a different origin. It is not that God has made both man and the great machine of the universe, but that he has made man different from the rest of the universe. And that which differentiates man from the machine is that his basic relationship is upward rather than downward or horizontal. He is created to relate to God in a way that none of the other created beings are.”

    Merrill breaks down the understandings of Genesis 1:27 into two categories: (1) “To be in the image of God cannot mean equivalence between deity and humanity...but only an analogous or corresponding relationship between the two.” (2) “Humanity does not so much share with God his essential reality but, rather, is a representative of that reality. That is, human kind has a functional role to play, a role that requires no ontological [i.e. dealing with the nature of being] commonness with God.” Merrill opts for the second general definition.

    Allen: “The term 'image' has been variously explained as personality, nature (as body and spirit), or capacity for moral decision.”

    Kaiser: “Male and female shared alike and equally in this highest mark yet set on creation. Only later in NT terms will the definitional content of this image become clear (e.g. knowledge, Col. 3:10; righteousness and holiness, Eph. 4:24). In the Genesis record, the precise content of the image is less specific. We see it expressed in concepts such as the possibility of fellowship and communion with God, the exercise of responsible dominion and leadership over the creation owned by God, and the fact that in some unspecified as yet way, God is the prototype of which man and woman are merely copies, replicas and facsimiles.”

    Packer explains that when “the old Reformed theologians dealt with the attributes of God, they used to classify them in two groups: incommunicable and communicable.” Only the latter group is in mind “when it [the Bible] tells us that God made man in His own image (Gen. 1:26f) – namely, that God made man a free spiritual being, a responsible moral agent with powers of choice and action, able to commune with Him and respond to Him, and by nature good, truthful, holy, upright (cf. Eccles 7:29): in a word, godly. Unfortunately, the moral qualities were lost in the Fall.”

    By contrast, Flender says: “The goal and purpose of the image of God in man is dominion over the world...The Old Testament knows nothing of man losing this image through the fall.”

The immediate context of Genesis 1:26-27 obviously concerns mankind ruling over creation, and thus this is the clue, according to a majority (but by no means all) of theologians, to the meaning of image. The following comments echo that thought:

    “The difficulty is that no indication of the likeness is provided, aside from the fact that the humans will function for God in the exercise of dominion over creation (1:26-27). The nature of the likeness has been conceived as physical, personal, or functional; all can easily fall within the semantic range of terms involved. The nature of the likeness of humans to God as far as the Gen. narrative is concerned can be established with relative clarity. The function of dominion is indicated in the passage, so it is reasonable to make function the primary point of the analogy.” (Konkel)

    This image and likeness “would show itself above all in his dominion over the animal creation (26). In the immediate context it showed itself in his ability to have communion with God; ultimately, and perhaps most important of all, it made the incarnation of the Word of God possible. Other implications became clear in the course of continuing revelation.” (Ellison)

    Allen Ross states, “The term 'image' has been variously explained as personality, nature (as body and spirit), or capacity for moral decision. It does not signify a physical representation of corporeality, for God is a spirit. The term must therefore figuratively describe human life as a reflection of God's spiritual nature, that is, human life has the communicated attributes that came with the inbreathing (Gen. 2:7). Consequently, humans have spiritual life, ethical and moral sensitivities, conscience, and the capacity to represent God. The significance of the word 'image' should be connected to the divine purpose for life.”

    “God created Adam and Eve explicitly with the internal equipment (e.g., moral, spiritual, volitional, and rational attributes) to be able functionally to 'subdue,' 'rule,' and 'fill' the entire earth with the presence and glory of God. The very notion of being in God's 'image' likely included reflecting the divine glory, since God himself was essentially a glorious being...” (Beale)

But there is one key aspect of this image which almost all commentators pass over – that of creativity. Perhaps it is just my personal interest in that subject which makes me feel this, but I think that I am on firm ground in wanting to highlight this key characteristic that we have in common with God.

In the first place, in considering the setting in which God's words in Genesis 1:26-27 are given, one cannot just stop with the immediate content of those two verses. We must remember that in this chapter, the one overwhelming aspect of God's personality which is in evidence is His creativity.

Secondly, in considering what attributes are needed by mankind in order to subdue, rule, and fill the world, mere moral, spiritual or volitional qualities are not enough. I would even argue that rational attributes added to the list would not suffice to give humanity the wherewithal to carry out our divine mandate. That is because, at least in my mind, rationality and creativity should not be simply equated with one another. I have known plenty of scientists and engineers during my career and am in a good position to state that a high IQ alone is seldom able to break new ground in understanding the world around us to the point of being able to make a positive (or even a negative) impact on it. Some of the most incompetent chemists I have ever met had come from Ivy League schools and passed their undergraduate classes with straight A's. On the other hand, others barely squeaked by in their classwork but ended up being prolific inventors because of their highly creative personalities.

Thirdly, there are at least a few Bible commentators who apparently agree with me. Leland Ryken says, “We read in Genesis 1:27 that 'God created man in his own image.' Exactly what does this mean? When we first read about the image of God in people in Genesis 1, we have as yet heard nothing about God as redeemer or the God of providence or the covenant God or the God of moral truth. The one thing that we know about God is that he created the world. In its immediate narrative context, then, the doctrine of the image of God in people emphasizes that people are, like God, creators.

And he cites Dorothy Sayers as writing: “How then can [man] be said to resemble God? Is it his immortal soul, his rationality, his self-consciousness, his free will, or what, that gives him a claim to this rather startling distinction? A case may be argued for all these elements in the complex nature of man. But had the author of Genesis anything particular in his mind when he wrote? It is observable that in the passage leading up to the statement about man, he has given no detailed information about God. Looking at man, he sees in him something essentially divine, but when we turn back to see what he says about the original upon which the 'image' of God was modeled, we find only the single assertion, 'God created.' The characteristic common to God and man is apparently that: the desire and the ability to make things.”

One final aspect of creativity is brought out by Ross: “Human life, male and female, thus has great capacity and responsibility by virtue of being the image of God. First, humans may produce life – their own, spiritual-physical life. If humans are to imitate God, then creating life is a basic part of that task. A man and a woman can produce a living soul. This privilege is part of their blessing from God, a blessing that includes divine enablement. For believers, childbirth is an act of worship, a sharing in the work of God, the one who created life.”