The Maleness of Jesus

Is It Good News for Women?

Neil H. Williams

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2011
• Print ISBN:
  9781608998937
  9781498213189
• eBook ISBN:
  9781621898887
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: World History

At the center of Christianity is Jesus of Nazareth--whose maleness is used by many to justify the subordination of women and to emphasize that men, rather than women, better represent Jesus. This raises a number of questions that are the subject of this book. What is the significance of Jesus' maleness? Does it reveal the character of God? Is it foundational for the gospel? Is Jesus' maleness associated with an ongoing created order of male priority? Our answers will affect Christianity's task of love, justice, and reconciliation in a world that is characterized by the global marginalization, oppression, and abuse of women.

CHAPTER 1

Summary of Various Views

To provide a context for our topic, we will first outline four positions on the maleness of Jesus. This is not an extensive description of each position but a summary of the different ways people view the meaning and implications of Jesus’ maleness. This outline will provide us with a basis for our discussion through the rest of the book.

But is it wise to divide people into different positions? It is notoriously difficult, and sometimes unwise, to categorize people. People are wonderfully diverse, and even within a so-called position there is variety; and no one person speaks for an entire group. There is always the risk of conflating an individual’s view into one category or the danger of choosing the wrong name for a group—such as labeling people “traditionalist,” when the church has had such a checkered history regarding women, and no one wants to identify with this history completely. Nevertheless, it is helpful to have some delineation between different views, and outlining various positions provides a good framework for understanding the conflict over Jesus’ maleness.

I have divided the various positions and arguments into the categories of complementarian, biblical egalitarian, Christian feminist, and post-Christian feminist, though each position lacks homogeneity. I have also expanded the common meaning of complementarian to include views that stress that men represent Jesus better—particularly as priests or pastors. Furthermore, the categories are fluid, as some scholars are technically found in between categories and a number of people have substantially moved positions. There is even debate over whether some scholars are in the area they claim to be.1

So here are four views on Jesus’ maleness with the recognition that I have trimmed here and clipped there and sometimes nudged or squeezed a person into a particular category. In such a controversial topic, it is easy to minimize or ignore the arguments of others, miss various qualifications, and generally fail to listen and understand. So effort is made to describe the positions in a manner acceptable to the representative people and to emphasize the strengths of each position.

Complementarian Position

For complementarians the maleness of Jesus has theological significance and reveals God. In arguing against the ordination of women, J. I. Packer summarizes much of this position:

Since the Son of God was incarnated as a male, it will always be easier, other things being equal, to realize and remember that Christ is ministering in person if his human agent and representative is also male.

. . . That one male is best represented by another male is a matter of common sense; that Jesus’ maleness is basic to his role as our incarnate Savior is a matter of biblical revelation. . . . The New Testament presents him as the second man, the last Adam, our prophet, priest, and king (not prophetess, priestess, and queen), and he is all this precisely in his maleness. To minimize the maleness shows a degree of failure to grasp the space-time reality and redemptive significance of the Incarnation; to argue that gender is irrelevant to ministry shows that one is forgetting the representative role of presbyteral leadership.2

The Roman Catholic position on male priesthood and its representation of Christ, which is well known and documented, runs along similar lines.3 Because Jesus was male, so a priest can only be male. To change to women priests would undermine and destroy this representational priesthood.

Complementarians have usually focused on the roles of men and women in church and family, where male and female relate in a complementary way, where the man is leader and the woman submits. It is more often assumed rather than argued that the maleness of Jesus is revelational of God.4 Some complementarians, however, have specifically addressed the significance of Jesus’ maleness and given reasons why Jesus had to be male.5 We may summarize these reasons and other complementarian arguments below.

A Revelation Beyond Culture

Complementarians argue Jesus became male not only because of the patriarchal society but because his maleness was integrally related to God’s revelational purpose. The maleness of Jesus is connected to “profound religious truths,”6 and “God had a theological reason for sending Christ as a man.”7 They argue that there is revelational significance to Jesus coming as male, and the culture of that time, though relevant, does not ultimately determine this mode of revelation. Culture is thus viewed as secondary to revelation, in the sense that in the beginning God established a created order of Adam first and Eve second. At creation God determined certain features of this culture.

Jesus’ maleness is not an accommodation to patriarchal culture but a reflection of God’s character.8 The maleness of God that we find in the Scriptures is “a revelation of the way things are.”9 Thus, any claim that Jesus’ maleness was only cultural accommodation is to denigrate God’s revelation.10 This does not mean that the complementarian position ignores culture or is an ahistorical approach. Complementarians use the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman culture to demonstrate that precisely because of the culture of the day the maleness of Jesus and male portrayal of God is revelational. They observe that in Israel’s world there were a multitude of other religions—Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian—and all had male and female deities.11 Yet, Israel was different.

The male imagery in Scripture, although given in a patriarchal culture, is not only cultural, for it is given in an environment that accepted both male and female deities. In a similar manner, the Old Testament, unlike neighboring religions, did not allow women to become priests.12 While acknowledging that God cannot be reduced to sexual differentiation, the position holds that God still revealed himself in this way.13 So in logical progression, complementarians argue that to deny this revelational character of maleness is to deny the authority of Scripture.14 Many complementarians say that any form of feminist theology has departed in some way from the truth of Scripture by adopting “not simply the secular movement’s rhetoric and proposals, but some aspects of its basically non-biblical world view as well.”15 Jesus’ maleness is part of this revelation. Essentially, the male imagery is beyond culture.

The Permanence of the Language of Canaan

The second argument relates to the first and in particular to patriarchal language and discussions over analogy, metaphor, and simile. Complementarians argue that the scriptural language is permanent; so for Christianity to remain Christianity it must continue to use “the language of Canaan,”16 which includes Father and Son. Complementarians insist that we cannot modify this language without fundamentally altering Christianity,17 for God has chosen to reveal himself in this manner.18 So to postulate a female incarnation or call the second person of the Trinity a Daughter would, in essence, be establishing another religion.19

The names Father and Son have abiding validity. They are names “from above” and not from culture. These names are the “opposite of a Feuerbachian projection.”20 “The Trinitarian names are ontological symbols based on divine revelation rather than personal metaphors having their origin in cultural experience.”21 This being the case, it is argued that the Son could only become incarnate as a male. A male incarnation is a necessity, and changing Son to Daughter would undermine the person of Jesus.22

Complementarians differ on how to argue for the permanence of the divine names. For some the debate rests on a distinction between metaphor and simile, where, for example, Mother is a simile but Father is a metaphor.23 Therefore, God is like a mother but he is the Father. Others, however, go further to say that the names Father and Son are not metaphors, and not even analogies in a strict sense, but rather “catalogies.” A distinction is made, at least by Donald Bloesch and Mary Kassian, between analogy and catalogy. Bloesch argues that names like Father and Son are more accurately described as catalogies—names not derived from our world but come from above.24 There are particular metaphors or analogies taken from culture (from below), and then there are catalogies (from above) that describe who God is. These names are to be taken seriously and cannot be changed without recreating God.25

Apart from these differences, there is agreement that the words Father and Son are not cultural nametags, but a true expression of God’s character. To alter these analogies would remove certain univocal (essential) elements of Father and Son, elements that cannot be changed without destroying what is essential to the analogy.26

Do these revealed divine names degrade and exclude women, or masculinize God? Complementarians argue that their position does not sexualize God. They repeatedly stress that “the biblical witness is clear that the living God transcends sexuality”27 and that “this ‘masculine’ image of God does not have to be thrown out in order for Christianity to exist, for Christians to be truly emancipated.”28 They argue that their views do not make God male or encourage male superiority and that the use of male imagery is not anti-women.

Biblical Passages

The cornerstone of complementarianism is the creation account in Genesis 1–2. The creation narrative is used to establish a particular theological significance to the two sexes and to undergird the necessity of Jesus’ maleness. Complementarian thinking invariably leads back to a “creation ordinance,” which includes at least the following four elements:

1. In Genesis 1:27–28, Adam and Eve are created ontologically equal. There is sexual differentiation, but equality of being.

2. In Genesis 2:7, 18–22, Adam is created first and subsequently Eve. Eve, as a helper for Adam, is functionally subordinate.

3. In Genesis 2:23 and 3:20, Adam twice names Eve, indicating his authority over her.

4. Adam, as man, represents the entire human race.

It is argued that points 2 and 4 are specifically addressed and taught by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 and Romans 5:12–21 respectively. This creation ordinance, frequently referred to by complementarians,29 establishes irreversible roles between male and female before the fall and establishes male rule. This divinely established order means that any matriarchal society is contrary to the creation structure, and any tampering with this order has serious consequences, including opening the door to homosexuality.30 These unchangeable roles, which remain in effect today, have a direct bearing on the maleness of Jesus because of the theological significance given to the sexes at creation—a structure that has biological as well as theological differences.31 A female incarnation would subvert this significance given to the sexes and undermine the divinely created order.32

After posing the question, “Must Christians apologize for the maleness of Jesus Christ?”33 Susan Foh gives three reasons why Jesus had to be male: (1) 1 Timothy 2:12–14, (2) Romans 5:12–21, and (3) the Old Testament types.34 These Old Testament types include men such as Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David who prefigure Jesus. The types also include the sacrificial system that required the sacrifice of male animals.35 Romans 5:12–21 picks up one of these types and teaches that Jesus follows the pattern or type of Adam as the second representative of humanity. Adam was created first and is the head and foundation of the human race. Everyone is derived from him. Therefore, Adam, being male, necessitates the maleness of Jesus since Jesus follows the pattern of Adam as head and founder of a new humanity. But does this necessity of Jesus’ maleness impinge on his ability to represent females? “No,” reply complementarians, “representation and substitution need not imply identification.”36 As Adam represented all of humanity, so too can Jesus.

Complementarians use other passages, such as 1 Corinthians 11:3–16, Ephesians 5:21–33, Colossians 3:18–19, and 1 Peter 3:1–7, to teach irreversible complementary roles in which the husband is called to lead and the wife submit.37 These passages all form part of the background to their view on Jesus’ maleness.

A passage that is central to their position is 1 Timothy 2:11–15, where they argue that Paul prohibits women from eldership and having authority over men. This passage, unlike passages regarding slavery, is grounded in creation and has relevance for the maleness of Jesus. Jesus had to be male since women are prohibited, by virtue of creation, from the type of ministry in which Jesus engaged. Complementarians are unified in agreeing that the command in 1 Timothy 2:11–15 is permanent, since it is grounded in creation and the activity that is prohibited (women teaching and hav...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Summary of Various Views
• Chapter 2: The Slavery Debate—Implications for Our Topic
• Chapter 3: The Sabbath Debate—Further Implications for Our Topic
• Chapter 4: Origins, Sex, and Evolution
• Chapter 5: Jesus’ Maleness and Creation
• Chapter 6: Jesus’ Maleness and His Sonship
• Chapter 7: What Have We Done with the Eternal Son?
• Chapter 8: The Eternal Son as God, and Jesus as God Embodied
• Chapter 9: Jesus, Wisdom, and an “Eternal Daughter”?
• Epilogue
• Bibliography
• Endnotes