Posted on 08/15/2016 6:46:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
In an August 12th op-ed piece for the New York Times entitled “Is God Transgender?,” Rabbi Mark Sameth claims that “the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, offers ‘a highly elastic view of gender’” and that, “Counter to everything we grew up believing, the God of Israel — the God of the three monotheistic, Abrahamic religions to which fully half the people on the planet today belong — was understood by its earliest worshipers to be a dual-gendered deity.”
Are there any truths to these claims?
Certainly not.
For Rabbi Sameth, these are issues of social concern and not merely theological abstractions, as he states explicitly at the outset of his article: “I’m a rabbi, and so I’m particularly saddened whenever religious arguments are brought in to defend social prejudices — as they often are in the discussion about transgender rights.”
The real question, though, for Jews and Christians who look to the Hebrew Scriptures as God’s Word is very simple: What do the Scriptures teach? What is the explicit testimony of the Bible?
Had Rabbi Sameth simply stated that God transcends gender, I would have no argument.
Had he only said that when God created human beings He created them male and female, indicating that the fullness of the meaning of both male and female is to be found in God, I would have concurred.
And had Rabbi Sameth pointed out that there are aspects of motherly care attributed to God in the Scriptures (see, for example Isaiah 49:15), I would also have concurred. (Note that rabbinic teaching about the Shechinah emphasizes the motherly aspects of God).
But what the rabbi argues for is much more than this, and since he is making these arguments with social implications, it is important that we respond with clarity.
Rabbi Sameth claims that, “The four-Hebrew-letter name of God, which scholars refer to as the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, was probably not pronounced ‘Jehovah’ or ‘Yahweh,’ as some have guessed. The Israelite priests would have read the letters in reverse as Hu/Hi — in other words, the hidden name of God was Hebrew for ‘He/She.’”
There is not a stitch of evidence to support this – and I mean not a stitch. Nowhere do we read in any ancient biblical text that the divine name was read backwards by priests (you might as well argue that readers of this article read my name backwards). This is not suggested in any authoritative writing, and there is zero evidence that YHWH was ever taken to mean “He/She.”
The argument is utterly preposterous, and I write this with all respect to the many years of study that Rabbi Sameth has put into this subject. Perhaps he is reading his ideas into the biblical text?
The name YHWH is introduced in the context of God’s self-revelation that “I am that I am” (or, “I will be who I will be”; see Exodus 3:14) using the related root HYH, meaning that the name YHWH is derived from HYH/HWH. (To be precise, it is a third-person, masculine singular imperfect verbal form.)
More importantly, of the more than 6,000 times that the name YHWH occurs, it never occurs with a feminine adjective or verbal form. The name is exclusively masculine.
Even more importantly, this is the consistent revelation of God in the Scriptures: He is the heavenly Father, not the heavenly mother; He is a man of war, not a woman or war; He is the King, not the queen; He is the Shepherd, not the shepherdess; He is the Husband to the widow, not the wife of the widower; He is the Lord, not the lady, the Master, not the mistress; He is the Groom while Israel is the Bride – and on and on it goes, countless thousands of times.
So we can say emphatically that Rabbi Sameth is flat wrong in claiming that the God of the Bible “was understood by its earliest worshipers to be a dual-gendered deity.”
What about his claim that the Hebrew Bible, when read in its original language, has a “highly elastic” view of gender (he adds with emphasis, “And I do mean highly elastic”)?
Here too he is completely wrong, as even a cursory reading of the Hebrew Bible indicates, with its very specific outlining of gender roles and gender expectations (which many “progressives” find troubling), and with verses like, “A woman must not put on man's apparel, nor shall a man wear woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is abhorrent to the LORD your God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5, New Jewish Version).
What about specific arguments he brings to support his case, including: “In Genesis 3:12, Eve is referred to as ‘he.’ In Genesis 9:21, after the flood, Noah repairs to ‘her’ tent. Genesis 24:16 refers to Rebecca as a ‘young man.’ And Genesis 1:27 refers to Adam as ‘them.’ . . . In Esther 2:7, Mordecai is pictured as nursing his niece Esther. In a similar way, in Isaiah 49:23, the future kings of Israel are prophesied to be ‘nursing kings.’”
The first three examples (Gen. 3:12; 9:21; and 24:16) simply reflect spelling variations or unusual spelling conventions (for example, the verbal form in Gen 3:12, referring to Eve, is feminine, while the preposition in 9:21, referring to Noah’s tent and which is allegedly feminine, actually reflects an ancient masculine prepositional form).
As for referring to Adam as “they” in Genesis 1:27, there’s no mystery here (English readers see this as well as Hebrew readers), since “Adam” here simply means humankind, which God creates as male and female and commissions to “be fruitful and multiply,” which one individual, quite obviously, cannot do. (As to how this is accomplished, see Genesis 2:1-25).
As for the idea that Mordechai (or, the Lord Himself, as Rabbi Sameth argues) is presented as a “nursing mother,” this too is misstated. Rather, the verb ’-M-N (which is used in Esther 2:7) basically means “support, nourish,” as opposed to Y-N-Q, which refers to nursing a child. And the verb ’-M-N, when referred to a male, means a foster-father and when applied to a female, a foster-mother. This can be seen clearly in Isaiah 49:23 (a verse cited by Rabbi Sameth in support of his thesis), where it says, “Kings will be your foster-fathers [the root ’-M-N], their princesses your nurses [the root Y-N-Q]” (Complete Jewish Bible).
So, the rabbi is not simply making a mountain out of a molehill, he is making one out of a non-existent molehill.
Again, had he argued that both male and female derive their personhood from God’s image, or had he claimed that God transcends gender, I would have agreed. And had he simply stated, “God’s Word teaches us to be compassionate towards all, and that include those who identify as transgender,” I would have affirmed this as well.
But his attempt to use the Hebrew Scriptures to support transgender activism is utterly misguided, fatally flawed, and unworthy of serious consideration.
Bad rabbi.
Congregation needs to check into this guy’s friends and interests outside temple.
God would properly be called an “it” rather than “he” “she” “heshe” “they” or “zhe”.
No single sin, or any finite number of sins, will do this (although some self-centered Christian “callings” will claim that they do) — but the unique sin of refusing God as Savior. Make any other mistake about Him, but do not make this mistake. Because if accepted as Savior, God will gladly correct the other mistakes — but that mistake is an everlasting mistake.
Since God is never d scribed as having a physical body that is a silly question. Physicality is not about attributes
In the Old Testiment God has many attributes including being compared to a mother hen sheltering her chicks from a storm.
People who think of God in a physical form diminishHim
Jesus had to become physical.....
;-)
He’s jumping thru hoops.
We ALL have male/female "attributes". BUT. It's "GOD THE FATHER".
Very broadly put, the masculine gender is associated with creation, whereas the feminine gender is associated with nurturing.
God gained the pronoun “He” for a good reason, although also concerned with matters that we would think of in the province of a “she.” Before something can be nurtured, it has to be created. The “He” role runs deeper here.
I guess arguments will now follow.
The LGBT crowd obviously don’t want to have to answer to a powerful masculine deity who would hold them accountable for their sordid actions. The rabbi decided to push an agenda and made up his supporting “facts” (lies) to support it. Obviously that rabbi doesn’t read his Bible or he would know all the information mentioned in the article Is very common knowledge . That or just blatantly lied as isreally just another agent of Satan posing as clergy. Seems to happen a lot throughout history but it’s really ramped up considerably the last few years.
Some Clerics can be idiots
" The Lord God, through Moses, forbade the worship of Asherah. The Law specified that a grove of trees was not to be near the altar of the Lord (Deuteronomy 16:21). Despite God’s clear instructions, Asherah-worship was a perennial problem in Israel. As Solomon slipped into idolatry, one of the pagan deities he brought into the kingdom was Asherah, called “the goddess of the Sidonians” (1 Kings 11:5, 33). Later, Jezebel made Asherah-worship even more prevalent, with 400 prophets of Asherah on the royal payroll (1 Kings 18:19). At times, Israel experienced revival, and notable crusades against Asherah-worship were led by Gideon (Judges 6:25-30), King Asa (1 Kings 15:13), and King Josiah (2 Kings 23:1-7)."
26 God said, 'Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground.'
27 God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, saying to them, 'Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that move on earth.'
29 God also said, 'Look, to you I give all the seed-bearing plants everywhere on the surface of the earth, and all the trees with seed-bearing fruit; this will be your food.
30 And to all the wild animals, all the birds of heaven and all the living creatures that creep along the ground, I give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' And so it was.
31 God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.
The story of God is the story of a mixture of actions that God has taught humanity about through the classic roles of both fathers and mothers.
The bible promises “If my mother and father forsake me, the Lord will take me up.” No “oops” here finding God to be like the classic fumbling single dad.
We should acknowledge ALL of these things and also acknowledge that it is impossible for our own finite reason to coordinate them correctly. Only the infinite wisdom of God can do that.
This can be very valuable in teaching that things that the “gay” crowd are concerned with are things that were created to be good but used in a wrong way, things that humanity attempted to master but failed. They have forgotten that God can, in fact, nurture their souls back to health, but in such a way as to “make straight paths for their limbs, so that what is unhealthy may be healed, rather than put out of joint.” An overly masculine obsessed, chauvinistic religion that knows nothing of nurturing is frankly of no more use here than one that is so feminized that it knows nothing of creation.
There’s a lot of interesting reads when doing a search on that phrase in Genesis.
Yep.
Eve was a typo?
The Garden folly of the pseudo-understanding of good and evil must be acknowledged before God too. We’ve all got a bent to do that, in lesser or greater extents, in various areas of life. No matter HOW good we think we have our understanding this side of the Pearly Gates, we have to guard against designing our own edifice, but be careful to throw it back on God for further correction and improvement and building.
Matthew chapter 22,29-32: At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.