Is God literally a male? Jesus took on a human malebody, but outside of that, God has no physical body. God revealed Himself to be male to the ancient Jews, Jesus was bornmale, and Jesus referred to the Father in male terms. It makes sense to me becausethe Church is considered female--the bride of Christ.
Where do we see this "bride of Christ" thing inthe Bible? Ephesians 5: 25-32 is an example of that theme. And Christ refers tohimself as the bridegroom in Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19, Luke 5:24.
All of this is enough for me to obey sacred tradition andwhat I believe to be God's plan, and continue referring to him as male.
However, in reading Handbookof Catholic Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, I came acrossan additional argument. It had to do with the fact that nature--meaning thewhole physical universe--was createdby God, not birthed by Him. "As a man comes into a woman from without tomake her pregnant, so God creates the universe from without rather than frombirthing it from within and impregnates our souls with grace or supernaturallife from without." (Kreeft & Tacelli p.104)
I find that beautiful.
Risking getting into a whole other territory, I'll justmention that this makes it clear why Jesus chose men to be his Apostles and whywe still today hold that He intended a male priesthood. A priest stands forChrist at the altar--he performs "In Persona Christi,"(in the personof Christ). A priest is meant to be Jesus' representative--His regent. A regent, as you know, is aperson or persons who rule while the real ruler is away. Jesus is the one truepriest, but he appointed regents (the Apostles).
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder