An issue that is currently debated relates to the use of
masculine language and imagery for God. In the last few decades
some have called for change in the masculine language we use for
God. Advocates of this position usually argue that the Bible's
references to God as 'Father' are metaphorical and there can be
replaced. Masculine language may have been an acceptable way to
communicate within the patriachal cultures of the past, but it is
no longer appropriate in today's world. With respect to this issue,
evangelical theologians would probably agree on a number of
important points.
First, that God chose to reveal Himself as Father,Son and Holy
Spirit. This language is not simply the product of human thought
about God. Second, 'Father' is a designation that stresses the
personal nature of the relations between Father,Son and Holy
Spirit, and the personal nature of God's relations with His
redeemed people. As such, it cannot be replaced by a less personal
designation. It is not sufficient, for example, to name the persons
of the Godhead simply as Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter. Third,
the Bible's masculine imagery for God does NOT imply any kind of
biological sexuality in God. The categories 'male' and 'female' are
God's creation. God Himself transcends sexuality. That is why the
Bible can occasionally use feminine imagery to speak of God (Isaiah
49:15, 66:13). Fourth, t5he kind of harsh patriachal authority that
has often characterised human society should not be read into the
biblical picture of God as Father. Human fatherhood, with all its
imperfections and cultural variations, is not the measure of divine
fatherhood( Matthew 7:11). Fifth, in the mystery of the
incarnation, the eternal Word was forever linked with the human
race as the man, Jesus Christ. So in the case of Christ, we cannot
abandon masculine language without throwing the reality of the
incarnation into question.
(Doctrines of God - Naming and describing God by Tim Wiarda,
Singapore Bible College)
to be continue...
