If God is Not Exclusively Male, Then Why is Jesus Male?

How did we get to this place in the church where we speak about God as if God is male only? This unexamined cultural habit has led to many functional problems in the church, from women being excluded from community leadership positions in pastoral teaching teams and church boards, to male church members feeling entitled to batter and dominate their wives. The bottom line is that the assumption that God is male seems to lead to the misunderstanding among Christians that the inverse idea- “male is God”- is a Biblical truth¹. However, upon closer examination of the Bible it becomes clear that the Bible supports no such idea. In fact, the Bible uses names, grammar, and analogies to describe God which include femininity and female imagery in God’s identity.

One point of confusion that comes up for people, however, is the gender of Jesus. Between so many people in the church using the word “he” repeatedly to refer to God, and the fact that Jesus- the “chief cornerstone” of our spiritual structure of relationships with God and each other- is also male in gender, some misconstrue passages like John 14: 9 as evidence that God has a gender, and that it is male:

 “Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing the works of God.”

This is an example of how careful examination of scripture in context is necessary to prevent false assumptions from misinforming our doctrine. When examined in context, it is evident that when Jesus says “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” he is not referring to his physical appearance, or gender, but to his character- the nature of his work.  This is evident for two reasons. Firstly, because the apostles didn’t interpret Jesus’ words to mean that he physically represented God, as evidenced by 1 John 4:12:

“No man has ever seen God”

And secondly, because whenever Jesus discussed his relationship with God, or the Pharisees’ lack of relationship with God, Jesus always defined these relationships by the nature of one’s actions, not one’s appearance or physical traits:

Matt. 7:16-20  “Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.” 

John 5:19  “Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

John 8:28  "Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Chosen One, then you will know that I AM and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.”

John 8:38  “I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.”

John 14:31 “but She comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.”

In addition, the term “Father” which Jesus used to refer to God, was a cultural analogy that served the function of indicating that God played a paternal role in Jesus’ life as the source of his inheritance and professional trade ². However, Jesus’ reference to God by this analogy does not seem to mean that Jesus thought of God only as male or paternal. For example, Jesus consistently referred to the Spirit of God with feminine nouns in Aramaic ³. He also used female metaphors to portray God and God’s Spirit⁴.

So, Jesus’ gender was not a reflection of God’s gender any more than Jesus’ material poverty was a reflection of God’s poverty, or Jesus’ other physical features were an indication of God’s preferred physical features.

This is not to say that Jesus’ male gender didn’t have spiritual significance; actually, it did! It was necessary as a sign, among other outward signs, for the Jewish people to understand Jesus’ role in their already-existing system of worship.

The Role of Jesus’ Masculinity in Fulfillment of Prophecy

The roll of Messiah in the reestablishment of God's justice on earth had been predicted up to that point in time by the prophets, but it was still not clearly understood as can be seen by the disciples' initial confusion regarding Jesus’ crucifixion. They initially expected that Jesus would reign as a king of the Jewish nation immediately, not that this would take place over time through a spiritual transformation of believers. This initial misunderstanding of the Messiah’s role demonstrates why the Jewish people needed additional analogies besides that of “a king” to understand how Jesus fit into their already existing theology.

The physical details of Jesus’ life and identity provide those indications. His strategy for establishing God’s reign on earth was by fulfilling the role of the High Priest, as well as that of the Sacrificial Lamb, as the Apostle Paul recognizes in the book of Hebrews⁵. Both roles would require such an individual to be male- not as an indicator of God’s gender identity, but because of the original historical circumstances that led to the development of those roles and their multiple restrictions, as we shall see.

To understand Jesus’ identity, let alone the reason for his masculinity, we must familiarize ourselves with the history of leadership roles in Ancient Israel, the Passover sacrifice for sin, and prophecies about the Messiah.

Of the many prophecies about the Messiah in the books of the Old Covenant, some of these gave physical and circumstantial signs to distinguish the identity of this person, referred to by Moses as “a prophet” in Deut. 18:15, and by God as “My Servant” and "My Chosen One" in Isaiah 42. Physical and circumstantial signs included that the Messiah would be from the line of Abraham and the tribe of Judah⁶; would be born in Bethlehem⁷; would be a Nazarene⁸; would be crucified with criminals, their hands and feet pierced⁹; and that none of their bones would be broken¹⁰.

Other prophecies provided signs indicating the Messiah’s role and influence on humanity in the long term perspective: the Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles¹¹; a priest in the order of Melchizedek; a sacrifice for sin¹².

These signs, and many others, were given not just to narrow down the possibilities of who the Messiah might be but also to clarify this leader’s role for the Jewish people who could only conceive of a New Covenant through analogies pertaining to the Old Covenant.

So, outwardly, Jesus was Jewish in ancestry and grew up as a Nazarene. He would eventually be crucified and disfigured beyond recognition. These are circumstantial indicators, none of which function to indicate the preferences of God among humans, but to confirm Jesus’ identity in the context of human history.

The signs pertaining to Jesus’ role as a priest and a sacrifice for sin, however, provided analogies that would take time to see and might be hard for people to envision without a physical indicator of some sort.

The Physical Indicators Distinguishing Jesus as High Priest and Passover Sacrifice

There were several types of sin sacrifices in ancient Jewish tradition, but the one that specifically called for a male lamb was the Passover sacrifice. The lamb had to be male, and none of its bones could be broken. Coincidently, Jesus was male, crucified during the time of Passover, and none of his bones were broken despite the Roman soldiers breaking the bones of others who were crucified¹³. Therefore, his role as sacrificial lamb was indicated by his gender, the circumstances of his death, and his own words about the purpose of his sacrifice¹⁴.

In addition, there were several types of leaders in Ancient Israel. God originally set up the leadership structure for the society of Israel to consist of three types of leaders working together to guide and direct the community: prophets, who could be females or males, (Judges 4:4, 1 Samuel 3:20); judges, who could be females or males, (Deut. 16:18-20); and priests, who had to be male and between the ages of 25 and 50, (Numbers 8:23-26; Numbers 18:5-7).

Priests had a gender restriction for the same reason they had an age restriction- the physical demands of their job were too strenuous otherwise. They chopped and set up the wood for the sacrifice, butchered animals, and carried heavy supplies and slaps of meat, among other things. Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that the restriction of the role to males in their physical prime was not an indication of God’s bias towards men of this age group; rather, it was an acknowledgement of their extra physical muscle mass, useful for this type of service, and a means of preventing injury for others without the same degree of physical strength.

So Jesus’ role as eternal High Priest, which the Apostles perceived from their familiarity with Jewish law and tradition, is indicated by his male gender and his age category.

In this way, Jesus’ male gender was instrumental in fulfilling the Old Covenant Law according to Numbers for the role of High Priest and Sacrificial Lamb.

“He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44

Endnotes:

¹ In Whose Image: God and Gender, by Jann Aldredge-Clanton, Crossroad Publishing Company, New York, 2001, p.92-95.

² Women and the Word, by Sandra M. Schneiders, Paulist Press, New York, 1986, 42-43.

³ Sexism is Sin: The Biblical Basis of Female Equality, by J.R. Hyland, Viatoris Publications, Sarasota, FL, 1995, p.139; see also The Inclusive Bible, by Priests for Equality, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc., New York, 2007.

⁴ Women and the Word, by Sandra M. Schneiders, Paulist Press, New York, 1986 p. 37-40.

⁵ Hebrews 9 & 10

⁶ Genesis 22:18, Genesis 49:10

⁷ Micah 5:2

⁸ Isaiah 11:1

⁹ Isaiah 53:12, Psalm 22:16, Zechariah 12:10

¹⁰ Zechariah 12:10

¹¹ Isaiah 9, 42, and 49

¹² Isaiah 53:5-12

¹³ John 19:31-37

¹⁴ John 6:53-59; Exodus 12