Download PDF - The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

maleness for his incarnational mission, as it arisesfrom the narrative of Scripture. Ware offers twelveimportant reasons “for concluding that the malegender of Jesus was essential both to the reality ofhis incarnation identity and to the accomplishmentof his incarnation mission.” 115 His twelve reasonsare (with scriptural references):(1) Jesus Christ’s pre-incarnate existenceand identity is clearly revealed to be thatof the eternal Son of the Father.(2) Jesus came as the Second Adam, theMan who stands as Head over his newand redeemed race (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor15:21–22).(3) <strong>The</strong> Abrahamic covenant requiresthat the Savior who would come, as thepromised descendant of Abraham, wouldbe a man (Genesis 12; 15; 17; genealogiesof Matthew 1 and Luke 3; Galatians 3).(4) <strong>The</strong> Davidic covenant explicitlyrequires that the One who will reignforever on the throne of David be a Sonof David, and hence a man (2 Samuel7; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24–28; Luke1:31–33).(5) <strong>The</strong> new covenant of Jer 31:31–34requires that the Savior who comes willactually accomplish the forgiveness ofsins it promises, and to do this, the Saviormust be a man.(6) <strong>The</strong> Savior who would come mustcome as a prophet like unto Moses, aspredicted by Moses and fulfilled in JesusChrist, and so he must be a man (Deut18:15; Acts 3:22).(7) Our new and permanent High Priest,whose office is secured as sins are atonedfor and full pardon is pleaded on ourbehalf before the Father, must be a man.(8) Christ came also as the glorious Kingof Kings, reigning over the nations insplendor and righteousness, and to bethis King, he must be a man (Isa 9:6–7;Heb 1:8 [reflecting Ps 45:6–7]; Matt19:28; Rev 19:11–21).(9) <strong>The</strong> incarnate mission and ministryof Jesus required that he come as a man.(10) Because the risen Christ is now presentedto the Church, not only as herLord and King, but also as her Bridegroom,the Savior to come must havebeen a man (Ephesians 5; Rev 18:23;19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17).(11) Because our Savior came as the “Sonof God” it is necessary that he come asa man.(12) Because our Savior came as the“Son of Man” it is necessary that he comeas a man.<strong>The</strong>se reasons, reflecting the messianic trajectory ofthe narrative of Scripture, present a strong case forthe necessity of Jesus’ gender as a male.ConclusionFeminist arguments against the maleness ofJesus, as well as their Christological reconstructiveproposals, have been demonstrated and foundunacceptable. While feminists offer certain importantcritiques (albeit clouded by their worldview)related to traditional Christology, their reactions tocertain abuses of biblical doctrine are unwarrantedfor a complete revision of the nature and purposeof Jesus the Christ.McCready’s conclusion is fitting: “Rejectionor reformulation of the doctrine of [Christ] wouldeviscerate Christianity. <strong>The</strong> result would be nothinglike that which has grown and spread for nearly twothousand years.” He adds, “Every distinctive Christianbelief would have to be discarded, from thedoctrine of God and a realistic picture of humansinfulness to the ethical expectations and promiseof divine grace. <strong>The</strong> modern attempt to makeChristianity relevant by removing one of its morechallenging teachings would end by making Christianityirrelevant and even destroying it.” 116ENDNOTES1Rosemary Radford Ruether, “<strong>The</strong> Liberation of Christology fromPatriarchy,” in Feminist <strong>The</strong>ology: A Reader (ed. Ann Loades; Louisville:Westminster John Knox, 1990), 140.2Namely, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. SeeEdward R. Hardy, ed., Christology of the Later Fathers (Philadelphia:Westminster, 1954), 15–38. For the actual text drafted at the<strong>Council</strong>, see pages 371–74.3<strong>The</strong> term “feminist” is a convenient generalization for the perspectiveanalyzed in this paper. <strong>The</strong>re are, however, various streams ofthought within the feminist movement. H. M. Conn helpfully categorizesfeminist thinkers into three categories: (1) radical (post-JBMW | Spring 2008 39