Skip to main content

"What about the Bible's 'Feminine Terms' for God?"

Image result for language

Recently I posted an article addressing the question “Should Christians refer to God as 'Mother’?” That article can be found here.

I sometimes hear the objection, 

“But what about all the feminine terms used for God in the Bible?” 

The Bible never actually uses any feminine terms to refer to God. Not even one. 

Neither in the Hebrew Old Testament nor in the Greek New Testament are the pronouns “she” or “her” ever used. By contrast, the masculine third-person, “he” and “his”, is used thousands of times. When Scripture employs any term for God, it is either masculine or non-gender. In both the New and Old Testament God is referred to as “King”, but never “Queen” (that practice is actually condemned). Jesus constantly called God “Father” but never “Mother”. Jesus is described as God’s “Son” but never his “Daughter”. Christ is referred to as our “Bridegroom” but never our “Bride”.


What about feminine imagery for God, such as Deut. 32 or Psalm 123?”

There are rare instances where God’s actions are described using a feminine metaphor (which is different from a feminine term or title). For example, God’s loving protection over us may be compared to a mother bird protecting its young using “like” or “as”. But this is a normal Biblical way of describing men in the Bible as well. David is described to be “like a bear robbed of her clubs” (I Sam 17) and Paul says he is like a nursing mother to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2.7). Because Scriptural language uses such metaphors, that does not mean that Paul wanted to be referred to as “she” nor did David want his kids to start calling him “mother”.

What about the word for “Spirit”? Isn’t the term for the “Spirit” of God feminine?

Yes, but in the context of this discussion, that is misleading. The Hebrew word for breath (spirit and breath are the same word in Hebrew) is feminine. (The word "spirit" is neutered in Greek.)

If you only know English, this may stretch your mind as you are not used to thinking of non-personal nouns as having gender. If you’ve studied German, French or Spanish though, you should easily understand. The French word for “arm” is masculine even if it is a woman’s arm. The French word for “leg” is feminine even if it is a man’s leg. Most body parts in Hebrew are feminine even if they belong to Moses or David. This doesn’t mean we should call Moses “she” any more than we do God.

What about El-Shaddai? Doesn’t that mean the God with breasts?

No, it doesn’t. The traditional translation is “God Almighty”.  There has been some legitimate debate around the possible meanings of “Shaddai”.  However, the possibility of it meaning “the breasted one” has been driven by enthusiastic ideologues instead of decisive linguistic study. This misnomer was presented by an American woman in New York City in the 20th century and was based on how a neighbouring Semitic country used a similar term in reference to its goddess.

As I said in the original post, if we are Christians, we must take God in the way Jesus has revealed him to be whether that fits into our ideology or not. The male-gendered way God has chosen to reveal Himself does not, in large, make Him less accessible to women. In fact, it sometimes makes it easier.


If you've liked this message, please share or leave a comment on the FB link. 

Also, if you would like a FREE chapter from my book, Forbidden Friendships, just email me at

Or, you can get the whole book off Amazon: Here in the USA or Here in the UK


Popular posts from this blog

Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend

[Response to the letter Dear Non-Affirming Christian]
Dear Pro-Gay Christian Friend,

Thank you for taking the time to write me. Sadly, it seems you misunderstand why I met with you for coffee. Please let me explain my motives by defining the words in my salutation above. Would this be too terrible a way to go about it?
Let’s start with ‘friend’ shall we? You rightly question this term as an accurate description of our relationship. For now, let's simply say I mean it as an expression of goodwill. But we will return to it again at the end of the letter.
Then there's this term, 'pro-gay'. By this, I don't mean your personal sexual urges. There have historically been―and are today―countless godly leaders in the church who have deep sexual and romantic attractions to people of the same gender. In spite of their desires, they remain celibate and teach orthodox views of gender and marriage. In your letter, you repeatedly refer to me as a ‘non-affirming Christian’, but I affi…

Jezebel: Our Whorable Queen

[Extract from the bookElijah Men Eat Meat]

Ahab married Jezebel, then he proceeded to worship Baal.’ -1Kg 16
Queen Jezebel is a Baal-snogging, fake-teaching, boob-flaunting, pride-marching, man-manipulating, Yahweh-blaspheming, prophets’ blood-drinking monstrosity of a female.
And that’s being nice.
This daughter of Ethbaal, the Phoenician King, grows up surrounded by power, education, luxury, and evil. Of course, she doesn’t think of it as evil. No one sees their culture’s sins for what they are. It is like air to a child or water to a fish: it’s so much a part of us that we don’t even know it is there. She thinks her culture is the rule by which others should be measured. Yes, Israel is used to being surrounded by pagan neighbours and their debauched royalty. But now we have a problem. The problem is that this ghoulish gal now has a throne in the midst of God’s holy nation. It’s one thing for a boat to be in the sea. It’s quite another thing for the sea to be in the boat. And the nati…

Driscoll Returns, ‘Christian Today’ Melts.

Sometimes in the course of events, a peculiar thing happens that then triggers a response more peculiar still. This is what we now see with the return of Pastor Mark Driscoll to the church scene.
For those unfamiliar with the drama, Mark Driscoll was a church planter and Bible teacher who made a big impact in the least churched city in the USA: Seattle. Thousands professed faith in Christ through his ministry. But he left the church that he had started under dark circumstances. No, it wasn’t adultery as is so often the case with some of these big-name preachers. Rather, it was heavy-handed leadership―resulting in many spiritually crushed church members―that drove him to resign.
Now, three years later, he is leading a new church and many are downloading his sermons once again. This is not without some valid controversy―for reasons we’ll mention soon. But what is most noticeable is not his peculiar return. It is the reaction among those who lean left of classical Christian teaching: the …