This post is a follow up on previous post. In the post last week, we studied how the Old Testament and the New Testament presents a gracious loving God. This post, however, pursues a side note that most would not see in this post.
One of the interesting parts of those passages is that Jesus is compared to a female metaphor. This would raise questions about the value of Jesus’ biological maleness. Jesus came as a biological male, but His divinity is sexless. Though his humanity must have a sex, it carries no weight in relation to His divine non-gender. This is a profound concept. In this thought, Jesus transcends the cultural values and God’s attributes are what define the “male.” One of the major problems in the Church today is the assumption of the maleness of Christ and his Church. The problem these verses create is the reality that Jesus was put into a feminine reality. This also contends with the idea that men represent the god head in authority.
Here is the major question: If male was to be the channel of primary authority in creation, why did Christ in his male biology take a position of a feminine metaphor?
If Christ and the Early Church was so concerned about this issue, they would have attempted to cover up this issue and keep with only masculine forms of wisdom. One way would be to only have King references in connection with wisdom. But the New Testament does not take the approach of hiding feminine influence. In many ways, including this one, the New Testament is very feminine. We must consider the ramifications of a single savior whose existence puts no real weight on His human gender in relation to the practices of His day.
What is your view of Jesus? Is he all male? Or does He transcend gender? What does your assumption mean for your life?