View source

{{info}}Introduction 
<blockquote>1) Jesus Christ of Nazareth was fully God.&nbsp; 2) Jesus Christ of Nazareth was fully human. 3) Jesus Christ of Nazareth was a male human being. </blockquote> 
All three of these statements are judged to be true in the orthodox tradition, and each is borne out by abundant biblical testimony. The first two of these are often stated together as necessarily true for the incarnation and substitutionary atonement to occur. Anselm's classic treatment,''Cur Deus Homo'', spells out why an atoning sacrifice would have required Jesus to be both divine and human - divine, to be of sufficient value to pay fully and finally for the sin of the world and satisfy the offence against the honor of God; human, to die as a fit substitute in our place. But, the question of whether Jesus had to be a''male ''human being has seldom been discussed, until recently. Was his male gender a merely arbitrary feature of the incarnational design? Did the Father throw dice or draw straws in choosing to send the Messiah as a male human being? Or, was the male gender of Jesus essential to the reality of his incarnational identity and to the accomplishment of his incarnational mission? That is, did Jesus have to be male, or could our Savior have been a woman? 

A couple of recent developments raise this question to a level of higher poignancy. I have in mind, first, the publication in 1995 of ''The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version'',1 in which the male gender of Jesus was decided not to have any "christological significance, or significance for salvation."2 As the editors explain, 
<blockquote>When in the Gospels the historical person, Jesus, is referred to as "son," the word is retained. But when Jesus is called "Son of God" or "Son of the Blessed One," and the maleness of the historical person Jesus is not relevant, but the "Son's" intimate relation to the "Father" is being spoken about (see Mt 11.25-27), the formal equivalent "Child" is used for "Son," and gender-specific pronouns referring to the "Child" are avoided. Thus readers are enabled to identify themselves with Jesus' ''humanity''. </blockquote><blockquote>
If the fact that Jesus was a man, and not a woman, has no christological significance in the New Testament, then neither does the fact that Jesus was a''son ''and not a ''daughter''. If Jesus is identified as "Son," believers of both sexes become "sons" of God, but if Jesus is called "Child," believers of both sexes can understand themselves as "children of God."3 
</blockquote> 
And a few pages later, they assert: 
<blockquote>A "son" is a male offspring, and the historical person Jesus was, of course, a man. But that Jesus was a male person was not thought in the early church to have christological significance, or significance for salvation. It was not Jesus' maleness that was believed to save males, but Jesus' humanness that was believed to save human beings. As was said by many theologians in the early church, what was not assumed (by Jesus) was not saved... . If the fact that Jesus was a "son" and not a "daughter" has no theological significance, then we are justified in rendering the Greek ''huios'' (usually "son") as "Child" or "Child of God" instead of "Son" when it occurs in a christological sense. In this version genderspecific pronouns are not used when referring to the "Child," thus enabling all readers to identify themselves with Jesus' ''humanity''. When Jesus is identified as "Son," believers, as heirs, become "sons"; but when Jesus is identified as "Child," believers become "children of God"-both women and men.4 </blockquote> 
A second reason for raising the question of whether our Savior could have been a woman is the rendering of Jesus' gender in certain passages in the ''Today's New International Version'' (hereafter TNIV) released last year from the International Bible Society and Zondervan. 

For example, consider Hebrews 2:17 in the NIV and TNIV, respectively: 
<blockquote>NIV: For this reason he had to be made like his '''brothers''' in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. TNIV: For this reason he had to be made like his '''brothers and sisters '''in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. </blockquote> 
One might have expected the TNIV to translate it rather, "For this reason he had to be made like human beings in every way ... ." At least this would focus on the generic "flesh and blood" from 2:14. But, to turn "brothers" into "brothers and sisters" leads inevitably to confusion and possible misunderstanding.5 What was Jesus' gender, anyway? one wonders. Just how was he somehow like his "sisters in every way"? To speak specifically of the gender of "sisters" and say that Christ was "like" them "in every way" at least leads one to wonder whether the male gender of Jesus was at all significant in the incarnation and atonement. Although Jesus was a man (we know from other texts), from this passage we might be prompted to ask, Might our Savior just as well have been a woman? 

Or consider 1 Cor 15:21-22: 
<blockquote>NIV: 21) For since death came through a '''man''', the resurrection of the dead comes also through a '''man'''. 22) For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. TNIV: 21) For since death came through a '''human being''', the resurrection of the dead comes also through a '''human '''being. 22) For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. </blockquote> 
Clearly what the TNIV has said here is true. But, the change from "man" to "human being" does lead one to wonder whether there is any significance to the male gender of either Adam or of Christ. Could Adam, ''qua ''head of the race, been a woman? This seems like an odd question, does it not, since Adam had a wife, who clearly might instead have been seen as the head of the human race - after all, she sinned first! But, since it was Adam, not the woman, who Paul points to here, and since Adam was male, is it best to eliminate the male term in reference to him? And so of Christ. Is it best to drop out of view the male gender of Christ, the second Adam? Again, a reader of the TNIV might wonder, from this verse, whether it matters that Jesus came as a male Messiah. Could our Savior have been, instead, a woman? 

Consider one more reference, this being 1 Timothy 2:5: 
<blockquote>NIV: For there is one God and one mediator between God and '''men''', the '''man '''Christ Jesus. TNIV: For there is one God and one mediator between God and '''human beings''', Christ Jesus, '''himself human.''' </blockquote> 
It should be acknowledged at the outset here, that the dynamic equivalent translation insertion of the pronoun "himself" of Christ Jesus helps in retaining a sense of the male identity of Jesus, the Christ. Still, instead of indicating of Christ, the mediator, that he is a man, who would obviously also be understood as human (as in the NIV), here Christ is generically and explicitly human, whose human nature comes in the form of a male human, as implied by the insertion of "himself" (TNIV). Again, though, we wonder whether it is merely accidental (in the Aristotelian meaning, as nonessential) and not necessary that Christ was in fact a male human being. If it is the "human" identity of Jesus alone that matters in his being our mediator, then might the question arise, Could our Savior, then, have been a woman? 

What significance is attached to the historical fact that the incarnate Son of God, the eternal Word who took on human flesh, came into this world as a man (i.e., as a male human being)? Does Scripture give us reason to think that his male gender does or does not have theological and soteriological importance? Is it necessary that the Savior who would come be born, live, and die as a man, or could our Savior have been a woman? 

<br> 

'''Theological Necessity of the Male Gender of our Savior''' 

Consider with me a number of reasons (twelve, to be exact) for concluding that the male gender of Jesus was essential both to the reality of his incarnational identity and to the accomplishment of his incarnational mission. 

First and most basic, Jesus Christ's pre-incarnate existence and identity is clearly revealed to be that of the ''eternal Son ''of the Father. As Jesus says in John 6:37-38, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. I have ''come down from heaven'', not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me,"6 i.e., the will of his Father in heaven. And in John 6:44 Jesus continues, "No one can come to me unless the ''Father who sent me'' draws him ... ." Clearly, Jesus understands that he has come down from heaven, that he has been sent to earth to fulfill the mission for which he was sent, and that it is the Father (in heaven) who sent the Son (from heaven to earth) to do this work. As Augustine has put this point, 
<blockquote>For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son. In the light of this we can now perceive that the Son is not just said to have been sent because the Word became flesh, but that ''he was sent in order for the Word to become flesh'', and by this bodily presence to do all that was written. That is, we should understand that it was not just the man who the Word became that was sent, but that ''the Word was sent to become man''. For he was not sent in virtue of some disparity of power or substance or anything in him that was not equal to the Father, but in virtue of the Son being from the Father, not the Father being from the Son.7 </blockquote> 
The Son, then, is the eternal Son of the Father; and the Father is the eternal Father of the Son. This relationship stands apart from the created order and the incarnation itself, while it is also true that this relationship accounts, in part, for the created order (i.e., the Father creates through the Son, e.g., Col 1:12-16) and the incarnation (i.e., the Word of John's prologue displays the "glory of the Father," e.g., John 1:14). Now, as it is true that God is not in essence male, so also is it true that neither the eternal Father nor the eternal Son is male; neither the divine essence, nor the eternal Persons of the God-head are gendered, literally and really. So, why is the First Person of the Trinity the eternal "Father," and the Second Person, the eternal "Son"? Must this not be the language God has chosen to indicate the type of eternal relationship that exists between the first and second Persons? If the "Son" is sent by the "Father," and if the "Son" comes to do the will of the "Father," does it not stand to reason that God wishes by this language to indicate something of the authority and submission that exists within the relationships of the members of the immanent trinity? Furthermore, while that point alone (i.e., of authority and submission) might have been communicated with "Mother" and "Daughter," the choice for "Father" and "Son" also indicates something of the "Father's" role over all of creation, and the "Son's" role in creation and, more particularly, in the incarnational mission. The First Person of the Godhead chooses to name himself "Father" (and not "Mother") to indicate the respect and honor that is due him, as he anticipates in the created order the role that he will give to earthly fathers as the leaders or the heads of their homes (e.g., Mal 1:6; cf. Jer 49:13, 18; Ezek 35:9; and Obad 10). Likewise, he gives to the Second Person who stands under his authority the name of "Son," both as the appropriate name in relation to him as eternal "Father," but also as most appropriate in depicting the "Son" who will come to save, and then be the Groom-Head over his bride, the Church (e.g., Eph 5:22-33; Rev 19:7; 21:2, 9). That Christ, then, in his pre-incarnate state is the eternal Son of the eternal Father stands as strong theological basis for believing that the incarnate One, viz., the human nature that is conjoined but not confused with the divine nature of the Second Person of the Trinity, must, then, himself be a male human being. The eternal "Son" must be joined with a human son (and not daughter), so that the incarnate Christ may express to the world both his relation to the Father, i.e., as the Son of the Father, and his relation to the Church, i.e., as the Savior, Lord, Head, and Groom of the Church. 

It seems altogether misguided, then, to suggest, as does Mimi Haddad, President of Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE) that had God sent the second Person of the Trinity to a matriarchial culture, Christ might have come as a woman. At a conference recently, Haddad commented: 
<blockquote>[W]hat if God decided to send Messiah to a matriarchal culture? Would then our Messiah come as a female? Would that be possible? Would that do violence to Messiah and the role of Messiah? ... Because of the fall, the way gender seemed to go after sin entered the world where power went more or less to the masculine branch of image bearers, because there was that power brokering on the behalf of male gender, I think then you ended up with patriarchal cultures and Christ came as male... .8 </blockquote> 
Three brief comments are in order. 1) Is it reasonable to look at the way God made man and woman respectively, and conclude from this that women might just as well have been the power brokers throughout the cultures of the world? Clearly, God made men stronger and bigger, as a gender, and he made women able to give birth to, feed, and nurture children. By these fundamental God-designed differences, shall we think that God considered that the dominant "power" of the sexes might have gone the other way? 2) Apart from her interpretation of what happened in the fall, this does not change the fact that the Second Person of the Trinity was eternally under the authority of the First Person, and this is true regardless of what you call them. Authority and submission inhere in the Trinity itself, and this same authority and submission relationship is reflected in the created order. So, if God chooses to invest in males a kind of headship (i.e., authority) in the community of faith and in the home, then God will declare his own identity to us in ways fitting that design. He will choose masculine terminology as his self-descriptors, because a fundamental patriarchialism (i.e., male headship) was by his own design. What we see, then, from Haddad's comment is the connection between rejecting male-headship as part of the created design of God for the human race, and the natural extension of then questioning the legitimacy of masculine God-language generally, and along with this questioning the necessity of the male identity of the Messiah, in particular. 3) How troubling, I would think, for Haddad's egalitarianism for God to choose to accommodate himself to ''sinful patriarchialism'' (as she sees it), or, if women had taken power after the fall, to ''sinful matriarchialism'', by sending the Savior in the gender of the ''illicit power grabbing gender''. Might we not expect an egalitarian God, rather, to send the Savior in the gender of weakness to overcome this illicit power and to demonstrate the hierarchy to be sinful and wrong? So to repeat the main point again, Jesus Christ's pre-incarnate existence and identity is clearly revealed to be that of the ''eternal Son ''of the Father, and so his becoming incarnate was only appropriate in the form of a man. 

Second, our Savior must have been a man, since he came as the Second Adam, the Man who stands as Head over his new and redeemed race. It is remarkable, as noted above, that although the woman sinned first in the garden (Gen 3:6), God went first to the man (Gen 3:9), and clearly he holds the man primarily responsible for the sin of the human race (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:21-22). Notice particularly in Rom 5:12-21 the emphasis on "''one'' man's trespass" (5:15), "''one'' man's sin" and "''one'' trespass" (5:16), ''"one'' man's trespass" and ''"one ''man" (5:17), "''one'' trespass" (5:18), and "''one'' man's disobedience" (5:19). The woman is conspicuously absent from the discussion. Although she sinned first, God created man as the responsible leader in this relationship (cf. 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:13-15), and God holds him morally culpable for the sin, by his "one" act of disobedience, that spreads to the whole human race (Rom 5:12). 

And so, the logic of 1 Cor 15:21-22 is clear. As Adam was head over his race, bringing it bondage and death, so now Christ is head over his race, bringing it liberation and resurrection life. In light of the background of the sin in the garden, where God holds the first Adam (''qua'' male) in particular responsible for sin, it is clear now that Christ the second Adam (yes, ''male'' human being, as Adam was the male human of the pair in the garden) brings reclamation and restoration to what the first Adam had destroyed. So it is that by a ''man'' came death, and by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. Yes, both first and second Adams are''human''. But also essential to a proper biblical understanding is that both are ''male'' human beings, not female. 

Third, the Abrahamic covenant requires that the Savior who would come, as the promised descendant of Abraham, would be a man. Admittedly, it is not clear from the original covenant, given to Abraham in Genesis 12, that the fulfillment would come through Abraham's male, and not female, offspring. No gender specificity is indicated; rather, all we read is that God would make of Abraham a great nation, and that through him all the families of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:2-3). Likewise, the repetition of the covenant in Genesis 15 lacks gender specificity,9 continuing the same language of Genesis 12 of "offspring" who will come from Abraham numbering as many as the stars (Gen 15:3-5). Granted, one might conjecture that the promise to Abraham would be fulfilled through a son, not a daughter, since God has already established a pattern of highlighting the male line (e.g., Adam, Noah, now Abraham), and since Abraham himself proposed Eliezer of Damascus (a male) as the promised heir. Nonetheless, no specific gender reference is yet given. 

The repetition of the covenant in Genesis 17, however, makes clear that it is a son, and a son born to Abraham and Sarah in their old age, who will be the promised heir, the one through whom God's covenant pledge will begin to be fulfilled. That Sarah (not Hagar) would be the mother of the son of promise, God specifies in Gen 17:16, "I will bless her [Sarah], and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her." Sarah was the chosen instrument through whom the son of promise would come, and through her son, kings (male leaders of nations) would then arise. When Abraham protests God's stated plan, owing to Sarah's advanced age, and so pleads with God to accept Ishmael, God again repeats the promise and plan, "God said, ‘No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him'" (Gen 17:19). 

As the genealogies of Jesus Christ in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 indicate, the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled through the succession of sons born from Abraham down to Jesus himself. And surely Paul echoes this same understanding in Galatians 3 when he speaks of the "offspring," not "offsprings" of Abraham, who is none other than Christ (Gal 3:16). As Paul summarizes this point, "in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith" (Gal 3:14). And so it is clear that both in the giving of the Abrahamic covenant and in its fulfillment in Christ, it is essential that the one who come as the ultimate promised heir (the singular "offspring," as Paul indicates) would be born in the line of Abraham, and this one must be a "son" of Abraham, i.e., a male offspring. 

Fourth, the Davidic covenant explicitly requires that the One who will reign forever on the throne of David be a Son of David. God's promise to David recorded in 2 Samuel 7:12-13 reads: "When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." Here there is no ambiguity; the promised heir of the throne of David, who will one day reign forever, will be a son of David, i.e., a male descendent who will be king on David's throne. 

Both Ezekiel 34:23-24 and 37:24-28 indicate the ongoing longing and expectation that "David" (i.e., a Son of David fulfilling the Davidic covenant) will come as Israel's king and reign over a land of peace and righteousness. And again here, as with the Abrahamic covenant, the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 indicate a line of sons leading from David down to the birth of Jesus Christ. The angel Gabriel made clear to Mary, that her son, Jesus, would be this long awaited "David," establishing his throne forever, for he tells Mary, "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:31-33). Clearly here also, then, we see that the Savior to come, the long-awaited Son of David, must be a male offspring from David himself. 

Fifth, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 requires that the Savior who comes will actually accomplish the forgiveness of sins it promises, and to do this, the Savior must be male. Jeremiah 31:34 gives, as the basis of its promise of a new covenant with the house of Israel and house of Judah, this pledge, "For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." But one must inquire how Israel's sin will be removed forever and for all of God's people. Anticipating the argument from Hebrews, that the sacrifice of bulls and goats cannot actually and efficaciously take away sin, how then would God lead his people to think that this forgiveness, in such a full and final way, can occur? Surely, the answer is found in the Suffering Servant that Isaiah presents, who would bear our griefs and sorrows and have laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:4-6). But clearly, this One who will "make an offering for sin" (53:10) and bear "the sin of many" (53:12) is none other than "man of sorrows" who is despised and rejected by others (53:3). The One who will provide the basis for the realization of new covenant forgiveness is this man. 

Luke's account of the last supper of Jesus with his disciples confirms this understanding. Here, Jesus, the man of sorrows (the anguish of Gethsemane was just hours away), took the cup and handed it to his disciples, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:21; cf. 1 Cor 11:25). And so we see, this man Jesus, by his broken body and shed blood, is the One through whom the new covenant is inaugurated and its promised forgiveness realized. Our Savior, then, must be this man of sorrows. 

Sixth, the Savior who would come must come as prophet like unto Moses, as predicted by Moses and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. In Deuteronomy 18:15, Moses declares, "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers-it is to him you shall listen." Clearly, then, this One who comes as a prophet like Moses must be male. Even though some of Israel's prophetic voices were female, most were male, yet this prophet, the One like unto Moses, must be a man. 

The apostle Peter understands this promise from the Lord through Moses to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Speaking in Solomon's portico shortly after the healing of a lame beggar, Peter accounts for this miracle by appeal to the power of Christ, experienced by faith in him. And Christ, says Peter, is the One spoken of by the mouth of the holy prophets, for "Moses said," explains Peter, "‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you'" (Acts 3:22). The prophet like unto Moses, then, promised by Moses himself and fulfilled in Christ, must have been a man. 

Seventh, our new and permanent High Priest, whose office is secured as sins are atoned for and full pardon is pleaded on our behalf before the Father, must be a man. While there were some prophetesses (i.e., female prophets) in Israel, there simply were no female priests. Aaron and his sons, not daughters, were the priests of Israel. And so, one would expect that the final and permanent High Priest, who makes atonement once for all, would be a man. And so it is. 

The High Priest, Jesus, however, comes not in the Aaronic or Levitical line of priests but in the order of Melchizedek, explains Hebrews. And, as chapter 7 of Hebrews ends its argument, it is made explicit that this Priest is the Son spoken of in chapter one. Concerning Christ, we read: "He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever" (Heb 7:27-28). The Son, then, is our eternal High Priest, who pleads his own offering for sin done once for all. Our Savior, then, as High and Eternal Priest, must have been a man. 

Eighth, not only did our Savior come as the last and greatest prophet, like unto Moses, and as the High and Eternal Priest, but he came also as the glorious King of Kings, reigning over the nations in splendor and righteousness. But, if our Savior is to be King, he must come as a man. 

Isaiah 9:6-7 records familiar words about the prophesied coming of this King, "For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonder Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." From this text alone it is clear that this King will be male. He is the "son" given, and he is called "Everlasting Father" and "Prince of Peace." He sits on the "throne of David" where he reigns forevermore. 

Consider also Hebrews' use of Psalm 45:6-7 in announcing Christ's reign as king, "But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom'" (Heb 1:8). Clearly, this King, as God's Son, is male. And Jesus himself surely did not try to disabuse his disciples of thinking of him in kingly ways; just the opposite, he announced "the kingdom of heaven" as attached to his coming (Matt 4:17) and proclaimed himself as ruler of a future kingly realm: "Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel'" (Matt 19:28). And, in response to the question at his trial, "are you the Christ, the Son of God?" Jesus replied, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matt 26:64). Finally, the "King of kings and Lord of lords" who comes on the white horse, with eyes like a flame of fire and a sword coming from his mouth, conquers and reigns as King over all that stands against God (Rev 19:11-21). Clearly, the Savior who comes as King comes only and necessarily as a man. 

Ninth, the incarnate mission and ministry of Jesus required that he come as a man. Yes, Jesus was the great and final Prophet (cf. Heb 1:1), Priest (Heb 7-10), and King (Luke 1:32-33; Col 1:13), and for all these reasons he must have come as a man. But furthermore, the very ministry Jesus conducted, calling out twelve male disciples, traveling with them over years of itinerate ministry, presenting himself broadly as a teacher of Israel, and challenging the religious leaders of the day, required that he be a man. It simply is inconceivable that, given the type of ministry the Father led his Son to perform, that this could have been accomplished were the incarnate Savior, instead, a woman. 

While this point is true, it could be used wrongly, in my judgment. Upon considering this point (viz., that the ministry and mission of Jesus could not have been conducted in Israel as it was were the incarnate one a woman), some might wish to conclude that this, ultimately, is ''the reason ''Jesus came as a man. After all, the social conditions were such that a woman as rabbi of Israel, rebuking the Pharisees, leading the disciples, etc., would have been fully unacceptable. Therefore, some might say, for these social and pragmatic reasons ''only'', Jesus had to be a man. 

Allow me three brief replies. 1) We have already considered eight previous reasons that the Savior who would come must be male and three reasons yet follow. Clearly, this is not the only (nor by any means the most important) reason our Savior had to be a man. 2) Is it reasonable to think that God would shrink back from challenging the socially unacceptable if he judged this would be best to do? Are we to think that the social conditions of Israel dictated to God the design and plan of the very incarnation itself? And 3) while it is true that those in Israel would expect, for example, the teacher of Israel to be a man, just why did they think this way? Was not the patriarchal system of Israel commanded by God himself? Was not the lineage of leadership in Israel established by God as being through sons in the line of David? Therefore, it seems entirely false to conclude that God's hand was somehow forced or even twisted by a culture's patriarchal mindset of which he fundamentally disapproved. Rather, God designed male leadership and sent his Son as a man, functioning and ministering within the very overall patriarchal structure God himself established. Therefore, for social and cultural reasons, many of which were themselves established by God, our Savior had to be a man. 

Tenth, the Savior to come must have been a man, because the risen Christ is now presented to the Church, not only as her Lord and King, but also as her Bridegroom. And, of course, in so doing, this echoes Yahweh's relationship to Israel. As the prophecy of Hosea illustrates beautifully, God intends his people to understand their relationship to him as that of a wife to her husband. Idolatry is depicted as adultery. And so God, as husband, requires fidelity and loyalty to him alone. 

Similarly, the Church is portrayed as the bride of Christ. The Revelation of Jesus Christ to John ends with several depictions of the Church as the "bride" or "wife" of the Lamb (Rev 18:23; 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17), and it is clear that by these, we are to understand Christ as the protector and purifier, while the Church gives herself fully to him in obedience and love. All this depicts what marriage itself has meant from the beginning, according to Paul in Ephesians 5 (cf. 2 Cor 11:2). When a wife submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ, and when a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the Church, both reflect the two sides of the relationship of the Church and Christ. Oh, what harm the false teaching of mutual submission in marriage produces. The parallel between a husband and his wife, with Christ and the Church, simply will not allow the symmetrical kind of authority advocated by the voices favoring mutual submission. As Lord, King, Head, and Husband, Christ is fully and solely in charge over the Church. As he made clear to us, we show our love for him when we do his commandments (John 14:15; 15:21, 23). There simply can be no mutual submission in terms of lines of authority between Christ and the Church, lest we dishonor Christ's Headship and rightful Lordship over us. So too, the marriage relationship sees the husband in the role of Christ, and the wife in the role of the Church; authority is exercised from the former, submission by the latter. From this analogy, then, it is clear, that the Savior who would come to become the Bridegroom of the Church must have been a man. 

Eleventh, it is necessary that our Savior be a man if he is to come as the "Son of God." As we noted in our first point above, Jesus' role as "Son" indicates both his eternal relationship as pre-incarnate and eternal Son of the eternal Father, and as the incarnate One whose very life is brought about miraculously as he is born of a virgin. In answer to Mary's question, how she could bear this son, being a virgin, the angel tells Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). The eternal Son of the Father takes on human flesh by the power of the Most High, so the eternal Son now is born as the Son of God. It simply is inconceivable that this Savior could be born a woman. His Sonship in eternity is matched by Sonship in the incarnation, meaning that Jesus, our Savior, must be born as a son (i.e., male). 

Twelfth and last, it is necessary that our Savior be a man if he is to come as the "Son of Man." Jesus' preferred self-designation, clearly, was "Son of Man." This term occurs 84 times in the Gospels, every one of which is from the lips of Jesus himself, and nowhere do we find another naming him "Son of Man." His identity was wrapped up, in many ways, with the meaning of this term. And, without question, Jesus understood the background of this term in Daniel 7:13-14, for he refers to this OT text as true of himself in Matthew 24:30; 25:31; and 26:64. The Son of Man who is presented before the Ancient of Days and is given "dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him" (Dan 7:14); and this is none other than Jesus himself. And Jesus, knowing this incredible truth, amazes us even further when he uses "Son of Man" in other situations, as when he said, "For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45). Here, the royal and glorious Son of Man comes in humility and servitude, but he does so also knowing the day will come when his dominion will be exercised over all the earth (Matt 26:64). So, both as the Son of Man who serves and suffers and as the Son of Man who rules and reigns, Jesus, the Son of Man, must have come to be our Savior as a man. 

<br> 

'''Conclusion''' 

So, here they are, twelve reasons why our Savior could not have been a woman and must have been a man: 
<blockquote>1. Jesus Christ's pre-incarnate existence and identity is clearly revealed to be that of the eternal Son of the Father. 2. Jesus came as the Second Adam, the Man who stands as Head over his new and redeemed race. 3. The Abrahamic covenant requires that the Savior who would come, as the promised descendant of Abraham, would be a man. 4. The Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7) explicitly requires that the One who will reign forever on the throne of David be a Son of David, and hence a man. 5. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 requires that the Savior who comes will actually accomplish the forgiveness of sins it promises, and to do this, the Savior must be a man. 6. The Savior who would come must come as prophet like unto Moses, as predicted by Moses and fulfilled in Jesus Christ, and so he must be a man. 7. Our new and permanent High Priest, whose office is secured as sins are atoned for and full pardon is pleaded on our behalf before the Father, must be a man. 8. Christ came also as the glorious King of Kings, reigning over the nations in splendor and righteousness, and to be this King, he must be a man. 9. The incarnate mission and ministry of Jesus required that he come as a man. 10. Because the risen Christ is now presented to the Church, not only as her Lord and King, but also as her Bridegroom, the Savior to come must have been a man. 11. Because our Savior came as the "Son of God" it is necessary that he come as a man. 12. Because our Savior came as the "Son of Man" it is necessary that he come as a man. </blockquote> 
What implications follow from this evidence of the necessity of our Savior being, not a woman, but a man? Consider these three points in closing. 

First, it is good for both men and women that our Savior came, not as a woman, but as a man. Redeemed women, as well as men, must acknowledge that their Savior was deliberately and intentionally, by God's wise plan and design, a man not a woman. In our day, with its love affair with egalitarianism of many kinds, it may be more appealing for some to consider their Savior in generic human terms and remove from their consciousness, or at least from categories of theological significance, the fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was male. Perhaps his being male had as much significance as the fact that in all likelihood he also had dark eyes. In other words, while this may be true, of what importance is the observation? Now it should be clear that Jesus' being male was in fact theologically, Christologically, and soteriologically significant, despite what others have asserted. For reasons ranging from the nature of the Trinity itself, to his role as the second Adam, the seed of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of Man, and the Son of God, Jesus simply had to be a man. And since his being male was by theological necessity, we should assent to it being good for all of us, men and women alike, that he was in fact a man. 

If some Christian women (or men) find this difficult to accept, I recommend two considerations. 1) Consider that this is God's eternal plan, devised in infinite wisdom for the wellbeing of those whom Christ has come to redeem. Knowing God's character as we do, or at least as we should, can we be at peace in our hearts and accept as good what God says is good? 2) Consider that redeemed men are hereby placed in a somewhat awkward position by this same truth, in that they must understand their own identities as comprising part of the ''Bride'' of Christ. How difficult it is for men to think of themselves as a Bride! But, again, as we understand what this means (e.g., 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-27), we see how good it is that Christ, the Bridegroom, has called us - men and women alike - to be his Bride, to care and provide for, to purify and perfect, this one who is the object of his tender and everlasting love. In short, it is good for men and women that our Savior came, not as a woman, but as a man. 

Second, Jesus' male identity underscores the male-headship that God built into human relationships. How can we miss something so obvious as this: Jesus' role as King over Israel, Lord of the Church, Bridegroom and Husband for his Bride, the Church - these all indicate the roles of male-headship attaching to his being a man, not a woman. To put the point differently, how are we to maintain an egalitarian view of male-female relationships and maintain the theological necessity of Christ's coming, not as a woman but as a man? On the one hand, to''deny'' the theological necessity of Christ's male identity would be unimaginably destructive to biblical theology and undermining of the very atoning work by which we are saved. But, on the other hand, to ''affirm'' the theological necessity of Christ's male identity entails an undergirding of male headship. So, how shall egalitarians give an accounting of their understanding of Christ's male identity and their own egalitarian commitments? 

Third, women need not fear that since Christ did not come as a woman he cannot understand them, because in coming as a man, he came as a human being and so understands the human natures common to men and women alike. Much - perhaps too much - is made today of differences between men and women, and I don't deny that much of this discussion is true. However, we must never forget the common human identity we all share, and with that, the common kinds of fears, hopes, longings, aspirations, anxieties, weaknesses, limitations, etc. that we share as human beings. Christ the man shared our (common) human nature, so that men and women alike can have full confidence that he understands our plight (e.g., Heb 2:18; 4:15-16). So, while Scripture clearly indicates Christ came as a man, and while our translations must continue to render accurately the masculine references to Christ everywhere these are found, we also realize that his coming as a man was therefore also as a human. As a man, he partook of our nature to live a human life and bear our sins. Christ the man, yes. But, Christ in the human nature of every man and woman, also, yes. 

<br> 

<br>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Endnotes<br>1 Victor R. Gold, Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr., Sharon H. Ringe, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, Burton H. Throckmorton, Jr., and Barbara A. Withers, eds., The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 

2 Ibid, xvii. 

3 Ibid, xiii (emphasis in original). 

4 Ibid, xvii-xviii (emphasis in original). 

5 I agree with Wayne Grudem's comment on this text: "Did Jesus have to become like his sisters ‘in every way' in order to become a ‘high priest in service to God'? All the Old Testament priests were men, and surely the high priest was a man. This text does not quite proclaim an androgynous Jesus (who was both male and female), but it surely leaves open a wide door for misunderstanding, and almost invites misunderstanding" ("A Brief Summary of Concerns About the TNIV," Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 7.2 [Fall 2002] 7). 

6 Unless otherwise noted, all citations are from the English Standard Version. Emphases are added. 

7 St. Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 5 of The Works of St. Augustine (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1991) IV. 27 (italics added). 

8 Mimi Haddad, as transcribed from the tape of a talk she gave, October 16, 2002 at a Soularize Conference in Minneapolis, MN. 

9 The ESV translation of Gen 15:4, "...your very own son shall be your heir," anticipates the promise to Abraham from Genesis 17, for Gen 15:4 literally is, "one from your own loins."<br>