Is There A Reason Why Jesus Was Male?

[Anomaly]

 To argue that God became man because of the culture is to accuse God of the sin of sexism.

 

 

 

I always considered that God was male because of the culture was because chose to relate on human terms. 

[Selah]

I would guess it is because Christ is the New Adam who brought us life, whereas the Old Adam brought us death. Through one man, sin and death entered the world, and through one Man, sin and death were conquered. 

[KnightofChrist]

I always considered that God was male because of the culture was because chose to relate on human terms.

God does reveal Himself in ways that we can understand that is true. But we could understand a feminine god, if God had chosen to reveal Himself this way. The history of humanity is full of examples of peoples having feminine gods or female gods. So such a god could have been grasped by human understanding. There is also a long history of evidence that God does not subject His revelations to human preferences. "God is not a respecter of persons." God does Himself in human terms and ways we can understand, but in ways that, while incomplete (because finite beings cannot fully understand a infinite being), best describe Him or His truth. Edited December 26, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Basilisa Marie]

Actually, I have to disagree with KoC.

 

There is plenty of feminine imagery in the Old Testament for God.  We can't imply that God is male.  Christ is male.   God has no gender. 

 

The reason why "God the Father" is the primary image for one of the persons of the Trinity is because of the connotations a "father" has, both in love and authority.  When someone wanted to highlight the loving and nurturing aspects of God, they use feminine, motherly imagery.  In some Eastern Churches, especially in languages that have more than one gender for nouns (not just "it" like we do), the Holy Spirit sometimes is given a feminine pronoun.  Jesus uses two parables to describe how God will always search for us when we stray because we are valuable - the parable of the shepherd with the lost sheep AND the parable of the woman with the lost coin.  Part of the reason why God as mother fell into disuse was because many pagan religions refer to God as mother, so many Christian leaders wanted to differentiate themselves from them.

 

The biggest reason why we call God "father" is because Christ did so, and we are imitating him.  

 

But why was Christ male?  Well, like others have said, maybe it's because men have very different roles than women in ancient Jewish culture, especially because men had a greater role in public than women.  Practically speaking, it'd be way easier for Christ to be male than to be female.  Even though he is God, people still have to choose to listen to him, and I don't think anyone would have if he was a woman. 

I personally think that maybe there's something about theology gender that the Church has not yet explored.   If only men can be priests, and there is nothing different about a man's baptism than a woman's, then the most reasonable answer is that there is something about being male that is unique, and lends itself to the priesthood.  Likewise, there would be something special and different about being female that is unique to women's vocations.  The Church hasn't done very much theology of gender, especially compared to other branches of theology, so our understanding of gender isn't as developed or as nuanced as other things right now.  I suspect that'll change in the next fifty years or so.  

And if theologians did some serious work on gender theology, we'd probably be able to come up with a better reason why Christ is male, and have a good theology to support it.  :)  

[Basilisa Marie]

I would guess it is because Christ is the New Adam who brought us life, whereas the Old Adam brought us death. Through one man, sin and death entered the world, and through one Man, sin and death were conquered. 

 

This is also good.  :)   Adam and Eve  vs  Christ and Mary

 

All sorts of good theology people could do with this. :)

[KnightofChrist]

It is true God the Father and God the Holy Ghost have no gender, if I stated that or seemed to imply that it was a typo or misunderstanding. And feminine qualities have been attributed to both, and even Christ was likened to a mother hen. However we do not refer to either in the feminine as "She" or "Her", but in the masculine as "He" or "Him". It would error to refer to any of the Person's of the Holy Trinity as "she" or "her", this also applies to the angels.

Masculine language for God was used long before Christ called Him "Father", since the beginning, since the time of Adam God has been referred to in the masculine as "He" and the Creator, and logic would tell us that would make Him our Father. Referring to God as Father, or the clearly stated revelation that God is our Father actually pre-dates Christ' birth. Evidence for this is Exodus 4:22, Isaiah 63:16, Isaiah 64:8, Hosea 11:1, Deuteronomy 8:5, Deuteronomy 32:6, and probably a lot more that I can't find or recall.

Edited December 26, 2012 by KnightofChrist

[Selah]

This is also good.   :)   Adam and Eve  vs  Christ and Mary

 

All sorts of good theology people could do with this. :)

 

I actually looked at this thread for a while, and thought, "that is a good question!" Then I remembered the New Adam and Old Adam and putting on the New Man and taking off the old one...well, duh, Selah! :p 

 

 

Also, while it is true that God transcends gender, He has chosen to reveal Himself to us as Father, in the masculine. So that is how we approach Him. 

 

Funnily enough, there was a woman in the early days of the Church, whose name escapes me. She claimed Christ came to her in the form of a woman. She was, of course, condemned a heretic for this.

[KnightofChrist]

But why was Christ male? Well, like others have said, maybe it's because men have very different roles than women in ancient Jewish culture, especially because men had a greater role in public than women. Practically speaking, it'd be way easier for Christ to be male than to be female. Even though he is God, people still have to choose to listen to him, and I don't think anyone would have if he was a woman.

I disagree those that listened to Christ and accepted Him as the Christ did so because God opened their eyes for them to see He was the Christ. Forgetting for a moment the contradictory nature of a God that would be referred to as a "He" the Father and a "She" the daughter, or the moral contradiction of the Christ having two mothers, so long as the Old Testament Prophets foretold the coming of Christ as a woman she would have likely had just as many believers and those that hated her. But yes if the Old Testament Prophets foretold of Christ coming as a man and was instead born a woman that would have caused many more to reject her, or to reject the Old Testament Prophets, because of the clear contradiction.

[Kia ora]

and this Jesus would have had two mothers rather than one making the relationship between the two mothers spiritual lesbianism.

 

Tell me if it's wrong, but I think of the Trinity in quite feminine terms. Just as Jesus was born virginally from Mary, the Second Person of the Trinity is born (begotten) virginally from the Father. And so, I've always thought Jesus had two 'mothers' anyhow. He was born from a human Mother, and a Father who gave birth to him in quite a non-Fatherly way.

 

 

Christ's marriage relationship with Mother Church would also be spiritual lesbianism.

 

Why is the Church called the Mother Church? Is it because Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride?

[KnightofChrist]

Tell me if it's wrong, but I think of the Trinity in quite feminine terms. Just as Jesus was born virginally from Mary, the Second Person of the Trinity is born (begotten) virginally from the Father. And so, I've always thought Jesus had two 'mothers' anyhow. He was born from a human Mother, and a Father who gave birth to him in quite a non-Fatherly way.

The Father did not give birth to the Son, nor did either give birth to the Holy Ghost. All three are One God in three Persons. Thus all Three had no beginning, no birth of their Divine natures. Christ's human nature was born of a woman, 'He took flesh from a woman, and became man.' But He has always existed with the Father and the Holy Ghost and will have no end. God 'overshadowed' Mary and Christ' human nature was conceived.

Why is the Church called the Mother Church? Is it because Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride?

That is one reason, she is also called Mother because we are her children, and she raises the faithful in Christ to ensure our proper spiritual development, like a earthly mother would for our earthly development.

[Selah]

Tell me if it's wrong, but I think of the Trinity in quite feminine terms. Just as Jesus was born virginally from Mary, the Second Person of the Trinity is born (begotten) virginally from the Father. And so, I've always thought Jesus had two 'mothers' anyhow. He was born from a human Mother, and a Father who gave birth to him in quite a non-Fatherly way

 

Jesus was not born, He is eternally begotten. His mother is Mary, the Theotokos, but the Word has always been. God the Father and God the Son are of the same essence. God the Son is not inferior to God the Father. There was never a time when any Person of the Trinity did not exist. 

[Kia ora]

Jesus was not born, He is eternally begotten. His mother is Mary, the Theotokos, but the Word has always been. God the Father and God the Son are of the same essence. God the Son is not inferior to God the Father. There was never a time when any Person of the Trinity did not exist. 

 

I understand that - thanks to helpful Catholics a few years ago who taught me what you teach me now.

 

But begotten and born are described with the same word in Greek. In the Chalcedonian creed, it says that Jesus was *begotten* from both God the Father and the Virgin Mary the Theotokos. So that's why I think about birth, an eternal birth.

[Winchester]

This thread gave me cancer.

[Basilisa Marie]

I think you're underestimating the power and "agency" of free will.  I'm not trying to belittle the power of God; sure, a woman "Might" have been convincing enough...but look at Mary Magdalene.  She was a woman out of whom Jesus cast out seven demons, who lived and prayed and worked with the apostles and all the other disciples, supporting them with her money and possessions.  She was likely independent, without a husband, because she's called "Magdalene" instead of "of insert-husband's-name."  The apostles knew her, John knew that she was also at the foot of the cross, that she was as devout as any of them.  And yet they still refused to believe her when she professed the Resurrection...even though they had every reason to do so.  Was it because of their grief? Was it because what she said was impossible?  Was it because she was a woman and in their society a woman's testimony had virtually no legal weight? Why did they believe Peter and John, and only James doubted them? 

I say all this because although God is all-powerful and would be able to become a person with the most amazing powers of rhetoric in the history of the world, we can't ignore any of the social or cultural context the people around Jesus lived in. We also can't just say, "Well God would have opened their eyes."  All of it teeters too much on double-predestination for me.  If God is all powerful that no one can refuse him, or God is the one who chooses whose eyes to open...well where's free will in any of this?  Why does God choose to not open they eyes of some people? It all just enters into a downward spiral that ends in double-predestination.  

I still think you're taking the issue of God's gender way too literally.  God is beyond gender.  He created gender.  He doesn't have to be male to be Christ's father. We use gendered metaphors for God because that's the best and most universal way for a person from any time period to understand real truths about God.  Because God is like a loving father.  And he is like a nurturing mother. In the same way Christ is our brother and also our lord and master.  The reasons why "he" is theologically appropriate are part of Tradition, but the reasons why we prefer to use "he" are tradition. 

Edited December 27, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Apotheoun]

Christ's maleness is important for many reasons:  (1) Christ is the new Adam, i.e., He is the new head of the human race, and as such all human beings find the source in Him, which corresponds to the physical descent of all mankind from the first Adam; (2) the Second Person of the Trinity is the Son, and so the linguistic terminology enshrined within the Church's Tradition in connection with the Incarnation corresponds to the language used in formulating the dogma of the Trinity; (3) Christ as male corresponds to the Church, i.e., His body, signified as a female; and (4) Christ as male stands at the head of creation, as Prophet, Priest, and King, and through His headship He empowers all of humanity in Him to offer the created order back to the God the Father through the Church's worship, that is, through both the liturgy and by the life of virtue that each individual person is required to live.

 

All men (and by the use of the generic masculine here, I mean both males and females) become sons of God in the only begotten Son of God.  

 

 

P.S. - This list is not meant to be exhaustive.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Apotheoun