is Jesus a male or a female?

Answer 1

Scripture references Jesus as a man... He is called the "Son of God".....

That's how I know him......


your sister,
Ginger

Answer 2

In a way, both, as every man is, since we carry both genetic attributes. Jesus carried all the same genetic code of the first man to bring sin into the world, Adam, so in a way, he was a little of all of us. All the possible versions of humans was contained in him.

Answer 3

Everytime Jesus or God is referred to in the Bible, they are referred in the masculine gender, thereby rendering Him MALE!

Answer 4

I'm a female and soon everyone will know

Answer 5

He is a MALE.

Answer 6

Once i see this question, i know you are Muslim..right?

Answer 7

Damn, you're stupid.

Answer 8

If Jesus was the prototypical feminist, as Christian feminist interpreters claim, why did he become
incarnate in male form? Feminists explain this as cultural accommodation or say the NT actually
describes Jesus only as a[nqrwpo~ (anthropos, “genetically human”) not specifically as male. A careful
study of the biblical text shows their arguments are without foundation.
While it may be true that no one's attempts at biblical hermeneutics are 100% objective, it is also true that some exegesis is more subjective than the rest. My overall thesis is that Bible-believing feminist
interpreters are consistently guilty of mishandling biblical data in their zealous desire to provide a biblical
basis for egalitarianism. This faulty hermeneutics is especially evident in their treatment of the data of the
Gospels concerning Jesus Christ. When studying the Bible feminists encounter basically two types of biblical passages and subjects. First are those texts and teachings which appear to contradict feminist beliefs or which have
traditionally been taken to do so. These must somehow be explained, explained away, or otherwise
reconciled with egalitarianism. Second are those texts and subjects which appear to support feminist
beliefs or at least are compatible with them. These receive special attention and are energetically
emphasized as to their importance. When studying Jesus feminists are confronted with both categories. Some things about Jesus just do not seem consistent with their agenda, and thus must somehow be explained away. Included here are
the facts that Jesus was incarnated as a male and that he chose no female apostles. Other aspects of
christology seem to fortify the egalitarian gospel and thus are greatly emphasized. These include Christ's
canceling the curse through his work of redemption, his teaching and example concerning power, his
teaching as it relates to women in general, and the nature of his personal relationships with women. This article focuses on only one of these topics, namely, Jesus’ gender and the incarnation. How does the fact that Jesus was incarnated as a male affect the feminist agenda? How do feminists
themselves try to reconcile this fact with their egalitarian philosophy? How may we evaluate their
attempts to explain it? What we shall see here is the way feminists handle the Bible on this issue is open
to serious criticism, and that Jesus' incarnation as a male cannot be adequately reconciled with the
feminist gospel. For many feminists the fact that the Logos "became flesh [i.e., was incarnated]" (John 1:14) in the form of a human male is a real stumbling block. They wonder why the world's prototypical feminist would
have made his appearance as a man and not as a woman. This has led some non-biblical feminists to
speculate whether we can expect a counterbalancing female incarnation sometime in the future. As Letty
Russell says, "One possibility in approaching this question is to get rid of the scandal by looking for a further
incarnation in the form of a woman."1Several nineteenth-century sectarians have already asserted that at the Second Coming the Messiah will be female.2Another possibility is to abandon Christianity altogether and reconstruct a feminism-friendly goddess religion, which Carol Christ and others have done.
HOW FEMINISTS EXPLAIN THE MALE INCARNATION Bible-believing feminists are not really open to such radical solutions, however. The Messiah came as a male, and that fact has to be accepted and then explained in a way that satisfies the feminist mentality.
Most things about the incarnation are a mystery, but "part of the mystery is that Mary brought forth a son.
Why did God choose to become flesh in male form?"3Several answers are offered.
Concession to the Culture of Patriarchal Judaism One answer is that it was a necessary concession to the culture into which the Messiah was born. In that particular culture, namely, patriarchal Judaism, the only way he would be able to function properly as the
Messiah was as a male. Thus it was a purely practical matter. This is how Scanzoni and Hardesty answer the
question: On the practical level, Jewish women were kept in subjection and sometimes even in seclusion. A female Messiah might have had little scriptural knowledge . . . . A female Messiah
would not have been allowed to teach publicly in the synagogue, nor would she have been believed if
she had, since the testimony of women was not accepted as veracious.4
Mollenkott says, "In patriarchical cultures, no incarnation of God in the flesh of a woman would have
received a moment's serious notice!"5"Since nobody listened seriously to either women or slaves in first-century society, and since Jesus was coming to teach a whole new lifestyle, it is obvious that God would
choose to be incarnated as a free male rather than a female or a slave."6To be more specific, one of the purposes for which Jesus came was to show us the proper nature of and use of power. Since in that culture only a male would have had power in the first place, he had to come
as a male in order to accomplish this purpose. That is, he had to have power in order to teach its proper use.
Mollenkott says, "Had Christ been incarnated as a female or a slave, servitude would have been only the
expected thing. It was essential that Christ be a free member of the dominant sex in order to demonstrate His
own principle of self-giving, self-emptying love." As such he was in a position to retain his power and use it
for his own ends, but he "voluntarily chose servanthood as an example to us all, male and female alike."7Jesus Was a[nqrwpo~ Not Male Another feminist explanation of the male incarnation is that Jesus was mostly described with the word a[nqrwpo~ (anthropos), the Greek word for "man" which is actually generic or gender-neutral. Thus, God does not intend for us to think of him as a male, but simply as a human being. If his gender had been
important, he would have been described with those Greek words for "man,” ajnhvr (aner) and a[rsen (arsen)
which specifically mean "male.” Feminists often state or imply that Jesus was never called anything but . Mollenkott has said, "The New Testament authors refer to Jesus as anthropos, human, rather than as aner, male."8Also, "When New Testament writers refer to the incarnation of Jesus, they do not speak of his becoming aner, 'male,' but rather
of his being anthropos, 'human.'"9English versions usually obscure the difference, she says. Fortunately, even English translations of John 1:14 capture the fact that Jesus is God incarnate as a human being rather than as a male: "So the Word became flesh; [it] came to dwell
among us, and we saw its glory, such glory as befits the Father's [or Mother's] only [Child], full of
grace and truth" (NEB). The use of the Greek word for "flesh," sarx, made it absolutely impossible
for the translators to say that "the Word became man," which promptly would have become confused
with "the Word became male." The glorious truth is that "the Word became a human being," an
embodying or tabernacling of the glory of God within the limitations of human nature, with its "male"
and "female" components.10
Spencer repeats this idea: "Even the New Testament writers are always careful to describe Jesus with the
generic Greek term 'human' or anthropos rather than the term 'male' or aner. Although God became a male,
God primarily became a human; otherwise, in some way males would be more saved than females."11In their first edition Scanzoni and Hardesty say, "Jesus was a man, but he was also Man. English obscures the distinction, but New Testament writers are careful to distinguish between aner (male) and
anthropos (human). When speaking of the incarnation, they invariably choose anthropos." Thus "Jesus came
to earth not primarily as a male but as a person."12(In the second edition they change the word "invariably" to "almost without exception,"13which is certainly more accurate, as we shall see shortly.)
Jesus Was Both Male and Female Still another feminist response to the apparent fact that Jesus was incarnated as a male is to assert that he was actually both male and female in some significant way. One bizarre suggestion is that this may have
been true physically. Since Jesus was born of a virgin and had only one human parent, a female, therefore he
"was undoubtedly genetically female even though phenotypically male." I.e., "his genes must have been XX
rather than XY . . . . Thus Jesus may well have been biologically both male and female." A more common suggestion is that Jesus was both masculine and feminine psychologically. To show that he is creating a "new gender-inclusive humanity," say the Torjesens, "in his work and ministry Christ
demonstrates so many traditionally female characteristics--nurture, compassion, suffering, tenderness."15Atkins says, "Both feminine and masculine characteristics have their origin in Him, so we would expect Jesus
to exemplify both." On the feminine side Jesus was meek and mild; he was "the epitome of patience and
humility"; he "delighted in little children"; he cooked breakfast; he wept.16A frequently-cited example of this female imagery is Matt 23:37, where Jesus said to wayward Jerusalem, "How often I wanted to gather your
children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings." This shows that "Jesus did not hesitate
to speak of himself in female terms," says Mollenkott.17Another indication that Jesus includes both genders, says Mollenkott, is "the emphasis of the whole New Testament of Christ as the new Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). This conclusion follows from the fact that Adam
is "a Hebrew word including both male and female."18Another attempt to find female elements in the incarnation is the equation of the crucifixion with childbirth. Through the pain and the blood of the cross Christ gave birth to his new creation, and even nurses
us at his bleeding side. Rebecca Pentz says, . . . Childbirth is gory. And so is the cross. Our birth into a new relationship with God
was gory just as was our birth into this world. I some-times think we women have an
advantage over men when we come to the cross: we can experience, albeit on the
creature's level, what it is like to give birth. So what kind of savior is Jesus? He is a
mother who gives us birth and who nurtures us in love. Certainly this is a savior for
women as well as for men.19
Other attempts to identify Jesus as female focus on his divine nature. Since (it is assumed) the divine nature as such is gender-inclusive, i.e., just as much feminine as masculine, then Jesus' divine nature
necessarily includes both. For example, the Torjesens assert that "what Christ assumed in the incarnation was
not a particular individual male but our common human nature in all its aspects. Christian orthodoxy has
always affirmed that the person of Christ is the individuality of the Logos and not that of a man." Though
physically male, "the identity of Christ is not that of a male individual. It is that of the Logos, the second
person of the Trinity. Christ is not male, for there is no male identity in Christ only the gender-inclusive
individuality of the Logos." I.e., "the human existence of Christ is that of the divine Logos." Thus, "the
humanity of Christ transcends the humanity of a male person." This is important "since what is not assumed
cannot be redeemed." The Torjesens call this "high Christology" and declare that it was endorsed by the
Council of Chalcedon.20Another version of the idea that Christ's divine nature was feminine is the so-called Sophia Christology, popular among liberal feminists21but also being adopted in conservative feminist circles as well.22This view starts with the idea that Sophia is the female personification of God's wisdom. (Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom and is feminine in gender.) "In the Old Testament," says Mollenkott, "Wisdom is
always pictured as a woman"; she is "invariably personified as female."23The next step is to recognize that the New Testament identifies Jesus as "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24, 30). Thus Jesus is identified with
"Sophia herself," in the view endorsed by Pentz. "Jesus is Sophia herself incarnate," she says.24Thus even though she became incarnate as a male, her femaleness shows through very clearly in the feminine
characteristics exhibited by Jesus, e.g., his weeping, his love for children, and his special way with women.
"A Sophia Christology makes sense of these facts. Jesus incarnated the feminine characteristics of the
divine." A common idea is that "if Jesus had lived in the 20th century he would have been a feminist." Now,
says Pentz, with this understanding of Sophia, "Jesus' feminism has an explicit theological explanation--Jesus
is Sophia incarnate."25These are the various ways in which feminists try to deal with the fact that the Messiah was incarnated as a male. First, it was a cultural necessity; second, he is described as a[nqrwpo~, which means
"human being" and not "male"; third, he embodies both male and female, either in his human nature or in his
divine nature or in both.