righteousness, and to be this King, he must be a man.
also as her Bridegroom, the Savior to come must have been a man
What implications follow from this evidence of the necessity of our Savior being, not a
First, it is good for men and women that our Savior came, not as a woman, but as a man.
intentionally, by God`s wise plan and design, a man not a woman. In our day, with its love affair
with egalitarianism of many kinds, it may be more appealing for some to consider their Savior in
generic human terms and remove from their consciousness, or at least from categories of
theological significance, the fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was male. Perhaps his being male
had as much significance as the fact that in all likelihood he also had dark eyes. In other words,
while this may be true, of what importance is the observation? Now it should be clear that Jesus`
being male was in fact theologically, Christologically, and soteriologically significant, despite
what others have asserted. For reasons ranging from the nature of the Trinity itself, to his role as
the second Adam, the seed of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of Man, and the Son of God,
Jesus simply had to be a man. And since his being male was by theological necessity, we should
assent to it being good for all of us, men and women alike, that he was in fact a man.
If some Christian women (or men) find this difficult to accept, I recommend two
well-being of those whom Christ has come to redeem. Knowing God`s character as we do, or at
least as we should, can we be at peace in our hearts and accept as good what God says is good?
2) Consider that redeemed men are hereby placed in a somewhat awkward position by this same
truth, in that they must understand their own identities as comprising part of the Bride of Christ.
How difficult it is for men to think of themselves as a Bride. But, again, as we understand what
this means (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph 5:25-27), we see how good it is that Christ, the Bridegroom,
has called us men and women, alike to be his Bride, to care and provide for, to purify and
perfect, this one who is the object of his tender and everlasting love. In short, it is good for men
and women that our Savior came, not as a woman, but as a man.
Second, Jesus` male identity underscores the male-headship that God built into human
Lord of the Church, Bridegroom and Husband for his Bride, the Church these all indicate the
roles of male-headship attaching to his being a man, not a woman. To put the point differently,
how are we to maintain an egalitarian view of male-female relationships and maintain the
theological necessity of Christ`s coming, not as a woman but as a man? On the one hand, to
deny the theological necessity of Christ`s male identity would be unimaginably destructive to
biblical theology and undermining of the very atoning work by which we are saved. But, on the
other hand, to affirm the theological necessity of Christ`s male identity entails an undergirding of