"Given that God is referred to as 'a Father' and Jesus is a man, in what ways exactly can woman be made in God's image and likeness"?

"Can John 14:9 be understood to imply literally God is of exclusively mail gender"?

"Would this mean that either the Holy Spirit must also be male or, if female or any other gender or none, not therefore God"?

What Biblical basedTheological perspectives, (textual evidence), can you bring to bear in answering these questions?

Any takers?

Let's throw something else the mix-----------El Shaddai-defined means the many breasted one-(Female-)--the nurturing nature of the Lord
m7th--circle of revival

REMEMBER WHERE EVE CAME FROM AND HOW-------------IN OTHER WORDS ADAM WAS BOTH MALE AND FEMALE UNTILL GOD EXTRACTED THE RIB.
m7th--circle of revival

Good topic, Chris!
I just want to comment that all of us have both male and female DNA from both parents. We also have male and female characteristics. It is an interesting subject. God bless.
Blessings ~ Sarah

The image of God is an inner atitude. The flesh was given us as a covering and a vehicle for our soul. It is the soul that is in the image of God.
In heaven, we will all be physically genderless.

Mar 12:25



For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.



Gal 3:28



There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

The flip-side is how is it that both male and female believers are the 'bride' of Christ?
I pondered this in my macho manhood of seeing myself at the marriage supper of the Lamb of God sitting at the banquet table as a 'king' & priest. While feasting on the goodness of God & rejoicing with the saints, Jesus came up to me and asked me to dance the 'Bride and Groom' dance - and He 'led' me around the ballroom floor and I 'followed' His lead. We became one with another - wherever He went I went. I was not He and He was not me, we were 'we'. John 14:20

M7th: - Let's throw something else the mix-----------El Shaddai-defined means the many breasted one-(Female-)--the nurturing nature of the Lord.

I didn’t know that. A good point and one that should make us think about ‘God’ in a rather less ‘exclusively male-gender anthropomorphic fashion’. God the Father is ‘Spirit’ and as such can be neither male or female in the merely physical sense but perfectly capable, spiritually, of being both male and female. Which probably where both male and female derive their distinctive characteristics emotionally, intellectually and even physically. Human beings are created to be complimentary not competitive. THAT ‘competetive urge’ which destroys communion, limits communication and promotes division and discord is what ‘The Fall’ is all about. Christ came to heal divisions between male / female, Greek / Barbarian, slave / free etc, etc.

REMEMBER WHERE EVE CAME FROM AND HOW-------------IN OTHER WORDS ADAM WAS BOTH MALE AND FEMALE UNTIL GOD EXTRACTED THE RIB.

A very good point. It may seem to some Biblical literalists that Adam was more like God before his rib was removed in a physical sense, since presumably God ‘The Father’ did not need a ‘God The Mother’ in order to beget ‘God The Son’. God did not need a rib removed in order to beget Jesus, (before all worlds began).

Clearly then a male only Adam could not be fully in the image and likeness of God because a male only Adam could not be 'a FATHER', and God is a FATHER. Adam certainly could never have begat Cain, Able or any other sons unless Eve had been available to conceive them. So for Adam to ever become 'a FATHER' he needed an EVE. No wonder then that God said it was not good that Adam had no partner. Gen 2:18

I take this to mean that BOTH male and female are made in the image of God, just as scripture clearly states in Genesis but that we are only in the likeness and image of God when taken as a complimentary pair. Without BOTH male AND female the human race could not continue. We are mutually co / inter-dependant and self perpetuating, (having a continued existence), only while we remain so, like Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Praiseop2 : I just want to comment that all of us have both male and female DNA from both parents. We also have male and female characteristics. It is an interesting subject. God bless.

Absolutely! Those important characteristics have been warped and repressed though by ‘mail supremacists’ ever since the Patriarchal era. Thankfully some of those ancient injustices are being addressed in our church age by a church which has for too long ignored and even sought to perpetuate them, (in spite of Apostolic teaching on the equality of male and female believers).

Stephen0porter : The image of God is an inner attitude. The flesh was given us as a covering and a vehicle for our soul. It is the soul that is in the image of God.
In heaven, we will all be physically genderless.

Good points! It just goes to show we should be looking forward to the time when we become as Jesus is now, (as an angel) . According to Him, we will become something OTHER than the gender specific creatures we now are. Scripture says elsewhere that we shall ‘become like HIM’. Presumably that means ‘genderless’. We had better start getting used to it and beginning to appreciate the other gender’s ‘point of view’ in this life, because we sure will appreciate it more in the next.

Praiseop : The flip-side is how is it that both male and female believers are the 'bride' of Christ?

I look upon this as entirely allegorical and metaphorical in that it is an attempt to describe in poetic language the intimate communion we will enjoy with the Triune God when we have passed through the many trials and temptations of this life and emerged in the next safely and triumphantly through the wonderful Love and Work of Jesus Christ our Saviour. We already have Christ’s opinion that there is no marriage in heaven, (only in the metaphorical sense that is). I go with the prayer book definition of marriage which “Is a MYSICAL union betwixt Christ and His Church”. Mystical because we cannot begin to imagine what it might actually entail.

Dovegiven:

That was the beginning of a very strong affirmation of Jesus' relationship with "Father God", ending at verse 47. I see plainly that Jesus wasn't confused over who His Father was and of course still is. He never went on record calling Him "Mother", or "It", or anything other than the holy God who told Jesus to declare His gender,

I agree! No confusion over the issue of Fatherhood, (which may be more about nurturing, providence and creative capacity in a spiritual sense, than about mere sex or gender).


There I see God's natural order of procreation among humans as with the animal kingdom that preceded Adam. Cows begat cows, dogs still beget dogs, people people. Sons often resemble their fathers, sometimes outwardly, sometimes inwardly, often both.


You can’t take that analogy too far though. God does not have a wife, (at least I don’t think scripture supports that notion), so God can’t be a Father in any conventionally physical gender sense and presumably God has ALWAYS been ‘The Father’ and Jesus has ALWAYS been ‘The Son’. For everything else it is impossible to BECOME a FATHER, UNTIL you have a SON. Therefore Jesus’ reference to God as Father is most likely to be in a metaphorical sense rather than a literal one. A literal interpretation would necessarily imply intercourse of some kind and a MOTHER to be involved. It would also imply that there must have been some time before which God was not The Father but merely The Husband of a Wife who had yet to bring forth a SON for God to be the Father of.

The "man" was a single human, the first representative of humanity, bearing the proper name Man, but also properly identified individually as Adam, from the Hebrew 'adam, in that verse and following verses through chapter three.


I understand your perspective here but there is no absolute necessity to believe that the first member of the human race was someone called ‘Adam’ as if that was his First name, Christian name or Surname. ‘Adam’ means ‘Man’ and ‘Man’ can also mean Mankind as a whole. Scripturally speaking Mankind as a whole seems to be what is in mind in Gen. 1:27-28 and 5:1-3 This is the book of the generations of ‘Adam’. When God created ‘man’, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.

Notice that God named both Adam AND Eve ‘man’. It was 'fallen' Adam that named his wife Eve, not God. Gen 3:20 And ‘Adam’ (i.e. misogynistic fallen patriarchal man) continues still to treat the female of the race as if she is his personal property; to name, own and control however his passions dictate. How far we have fallen from Paradise and how desperately we need Christ to restore us to equality of relationship! Hence all the 'headship' nonsense preached as a cover and excuse for a male desire to control. (We are not Moslims or Jews, we are supposed to be Christians and therefore equally Christ's in all respects)

Nowhere in scripture is God indicated as being both male and female, or genderless,

That is a pretty bold statement. How comprehensive is your knowledge of scripture?

I know that Jesus referred to God metaphorically as ‘A mother hen gathering her chicks’. I’m pretty sure I, and others can point you to many scripture references to God which imply possibilities other than a merely ‘male’ gender. Try reading Isaiah through once or twice.

Regards Chris.

Last point here
remember that eve came from Adam SO EVE MEN IS OF OR FROM ADAM OR THE MAN.
ADAM WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD BEFORE EVE WAS REMOVED-SO ADAM PLUS EVE = THE IMAGE GOD CREATED IN THE GARDEN. ADAM ALONE IS NOT THE IMAGE ONLY A PART.
IT TAKES AMAN PLUS A WOMAN TO PRODUCE ANOTHER INCOMPLETE IMAGE.
A BEAUTHIFUL TEACHING DEBATE.
M7TH
m7th--circle of revival

iN USING THE TERM BREAST :IT IS REALLY REFFERING TO THE CENTER OF EMOTIONS THE PLACE BETWEEN THE THEM ( the center of physical arousal and love in a female) THE BREAST A NUTURING CENTER,THE MOTHER FEEDS THE YOUNG FROM THEM OR THE BABY IS HELD CLOSELY THERE FOR SECURITY OR A SENSE OF PROVISIUON IS THERE,
m7th--circle of revival

I consider God to be outside of the restraints of time. Being "Father" was an appropriate title knowing He would claim fatherhood over baby Jesus by overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

I agree God is unrestrained by ‘time’. In fact scripture would seem to indicate that God has been The Father Eternally. Therefore Jesus must also be Eternal in that he pre-existed the baby born of Mary, (the baby being the incarnated person of the eternal Christ). There is no scriptural evidence I know of though that points to the notion that God first became the Father of Jesus only 9 months before Mary went into labour. If God has only one Son and the Father is Eternally The Father then the Son must also be eternal because you cannot be a Father in any literal sense of the word without having previously begotten at least one son or daughter.

God was already referred to as a Father in the Old Testament I believe, long before the birth of Jesus. Here we have the mystery of the Incarnation. A pre-existing Eternal putting on mortal flesh and becoming obedient unto death, even the death on a cross. God The Father is therefore no ordinary ‘Father’. God The Son therefore is no ordinary ‘Son’. These terms are physical analogies of metaphysical concepts impossible to comprehend or explain except by analogy and metaphor. Jesus often struggled to describe The Kingdom of Heaven and usually resorted to metaphors, similes and figures of speech like ‘The kingdom of God is likened unto . . . . . . .” Jesus usually referred to God as a ‘Heavenly’ Father. Rather than actually suggesting God was his ‘natural’ Father Jesus encouraged all his followers to refer to God as OUR Father. The one from whom all things proceeed.

The idea then that God necessarily needs to be male in order to be the Father of all created things is patently absurd and quite Theologically Pagan. In ancient times, the Egyptian God Creator was thought to have produced the world and all the other gods from semen he ejaculated while masturbating, I think. I find that no less repulsive a thought in connection with The God of Abraham, than you find the idea of God with breasts difficult to come to terms with. Personally I prefer to think of God as being a Spirit and therefore well beyond the need for human sexual equipment for the purpose of ‘creating’ and ‘sustaining’ the universe.

My wife would not appreciate being called "woman".

I appreciate that but neither would she presumably like to have you decide the name to replace her name given her by her Father and Mother at her birth.

Eve was originally called 'Man' by God. Gen. 5:2. Eve was then called ‘Woman’ (Ishshah) by Adam, just as he had named all the other animals deemed unfit for him as a mate. God’s original word for woman was ‘Man’ ie. They were BOTH called ADAM by God when God made them. Gen. 5:2 Adam changed it, twice. Eve was not consulted, neither was God. Thus the world goes on!

The notion that Adam (man) has the authority to hold dominion over (woman) because he has named her just as he did everything else as it paraded before him, is nonsense. I doubt this power crazed patriarchal notion was ever the intention of the authors of Gen. ch. 1 - 4.

If you choose such a metaphor as supporting some feminine characteristic of the Lord, then you are open to interpretation that Jesus compared Himself to a chicken with chicks. The intent, I believe, was the impressive intensity observed of a hen protecting her chicks.

I have no problem with your interpretation. Clearly you are able, on some occasions at least, to notice when Jesus is speaking metaphorically about the character of God. God clearly must have ‘female’ characteristics as well as ‘male’, otherwise woman could not truly be claimed to be the image and likeness of God, but scripture clearly says she is.

Your pottery analogy seems to suggest that woman is some kind of defective copy of a perfect original ‘man’, rather than a likeness and image of God. - (I nearly wrote ‘image of God himself’ but realised my mistaken, inadvertent anthropomorphism).

Referring to the Godhead as Him rather than it is a convention caused because the English language contains no other suitable word. IT is utterly unsuitable because it is exclusively impersonal and conventionally impolite, (even blasphemous) to use in reference to a person. We don’t have a suitable common word for persons of indeterminate or dual gender but it cannot be denied that even in the physical world of human anatomy such conditions actually do exist and have recognised medical terms.

I find it not at all unreasonable to ponder on the possibility of God being of indeterminate or dual gender. It would not surprise me in the least to discover God embodied spiritually all aspects of human psychology, physique and behaviour, after all, ‘It is He that has made us and not we ourselves’, and us doesn’t refer just to men.

Regards Chris.

Dovegiven :

It is easy to maintain a state of confidence in our own suppositions if we don’t ever examine any other evidence or opinion other than our own understanding.

Let’s try to get this debate off to a good start by agreeing beforehand to read and try to understand the other thread posters point of view and the validity of his / her interpretation of scripture.

The scriptures in fact do make reference to God by use of feminine imagery and metaphors. In fact all references to God in scripture are metaphors since finite words are quite incapable of describing the infinite and indescribable nature of the invisible God. No one has seen God but Jesus so we are discussing what we don’t fully understand anyway. Let’s not get too certain we are right and the others wrong.

First off let’s agree on the fact that God (The Triune Entity of the Godhead), cannot be represented or portrayed by any man made artefact, no matter how artistic it may be. Idolatry has been forbidden by God so to render God down to a facsimile of the male human body is gross idolatry and entertaining such an image of The Godhead in the mind is idolatrous, since it is inaccurate by virtue of the fact that the Triune Godhead cannot and has not ever been seen by man.

Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

‘No manner of similitude’ means God can’t be seen so an image of God can’t be produced because there is literally nothing exactly like God.

Now . . . . . . – passages which attribute feminine attributes to God.

3Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: 4And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you. Isa. 46:4-4 KJV


'Belly' might seem sufficiently masculine to satisfy those who could not cope with God having a distinctly ‘female’ item of anatomy but the text goes on to make it clear that the 'womb' is what we are considering here. the original original Hebrew called a spade a spade and not some kind of shovel. The entire context of the stanza makes it absolutely clear that God is promising to carry the house of Israel as a mother carries a foetus in the womb. Only a God with an intimate understanding of female attributes can declare such an intention. Of course the reference is entirely metaphorical, but then so are all other such references including ‘The Father’, ‘Hands’, ‘Feet’, ‘Rock’, ‘Lilly of the valley’, 'Bright and Morning star', 'Everlasting arms' etc. etc. etc. None of these are actual descriptions of God. God (i.e. The Triune Godhead), is ‘Spirit’ and transcends all human categories and physical descriptions. All physical descriptions of the Triune Godhead are mere metaphors; visual aids pointing to the inexpressible reality beyond themselves.

Quote (1): “The Hebrew word for "womb" is from the same root as the spirit/breath word: "ruah" becomes "rechem" (womb). In the plural form, the word means "compassion," "love," and "mercy," while the adjective "rachum" means "merciful." [Smith] Yes, we've heard these attributes of God before, but have we recognized them as feminine? Does God become any less powerful in our eyes when we recognize these feminine characteristics?”

Quote (2): “ The image of God having breasts has been all but obliterated in our present scriptures, but a hint of it is there in the often repeated Old Testament name for God, “El-Shaddai.” Though most modern English translations give this name as "God Almighty," several scholars point out that the Hebrew root was probably "Shadu", meaning breast. "Images" imply "imagination," perhaps one of the most basic of our creative powers. It doesn't take too much imagination to see how the "breast" image was changed to mean "mountain," which eventually evolved into "God Almighty." [Biale]

Quote (3): “Hosea 11, "When Israel was a child, I loved him... I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks, I bent down to them and fed them... How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? .... my compassion grows warm and tender..." The Psalmist, in Ps. 131:2, says, "But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother.....” The image of God as Mother enlarges the parent/creator image so often restricted by our cultural understandings implicit in the Father God terminology.

In Lk. 13:34, Jesus speaks of himself in the feminine role of a mother hen: "How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings!" (Lk 13:34) Indeed, God in the person of Jesus Christ gives us many glimpses of the feminine image of God. Jesus welcomes children, speaks to women shunned by the men, washes feet with a towel and basin, serves breakfast after his resurrection, and even weeps. If there was any doubt before that God affirms all these parts of the divine image in us, certainly the Person of Jesus shows us graphically that the feminine is "very good"!

Indeed God's proclamation of "very good" comes only at the end of the creation story, when Woman had at last been created "in the image of God" (Gen 1:27, Gen 5:1-2). Until then, God had pronounced all that had been created as "good," but finally the creation of the female warranted "very good."

These quotes are from an article, the full text you can find here :
http://www.womenutc.com/feminineimagesforgodinthebible1.htm

Regards Chris.

Dovegiven : And anyone else interested :

You failed to mention birds, fish, etc were included in the list, so you are making too much of the male/female human connection.

I think the thrust of what I wrote makes clear perfectly that any facsimile was forbidden, birds, fish, ‘anything in the heavens or on the earth’, including man or woman.

I think we may take it as read that the Triune Godhead, (assuming one believes God to be Triune), cannot be thought of in simple terms as if (they, he, she, it) were embodied entirely in ‘a man’. That is idolatrous thinking, making God in our own ‘male’ image.

One Member of the Godhead, namely Jesus was male, certainly, and may still be, though we don’t exactly know what glorified state the Son has assumed after his ascension into heaven and what that may entail as far as fleshly gender is concerned. Scripture seems noticably silent on the subject of his genitalia. Scripture also seems to be silent on the details of whether ‘The Father’ or ‘The Holy Spirit’ or the ‘Godhead as a whole’ is exclusively male, (unless one is inclined to take all Biblical metaphores quite literally). Therefore since ‘God’ is all three, to represent God as a man, suggesting that God has only male and no female characteristics (possessing even male genitalia) is a form of idolatry.

Metaphorically God is a ‘Father’ to all his creatures, but that need not entail God being some kind of ‘super man’ or suggest that God must be ‘male’. Metaphorically, according to scripture, God is ‘a rock’, ‘a mother eagle’, a ‘she bear protecting her cubs’, ‘a consuming fire’ and many other material entities, but God is not actually any of these material things. They are metaphores. God is just God. Being ‘Holy’ means being utterly, completely unique. A being only describable by using metaphores.

The feminist source you quote from using that verse out of context is grossly missing the point.

I was quoting from the good old KJV actually and as far as I am aware it is not ‘feminist’.

3Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: 4And even to your old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you. Isa. 46:4-4 KJV

You wrote : Quote : “It is extremely poor exegesis to make that verse say God has a womb for bearing humans or breast-feeding like a woman does. Normal men don't do such things”.


Because you are an avowed ‘literalist’ I will excuse you for implying that I actually suggested what you claim. I did not! Further more I don’t believe the woman who cited that verse of scripture ever had that in mind either. It seems to be your contention though that God has male genitalia. If so, then that errant notion would arise as a result of your extreme ‘literalist’ interpretation of scripture on this subject, not from what scripture actually says.

The passage clearly demonstrates through the scripture, that ‘God’ (in total) or God (The Father), claims to have metaphorically, conceived, carried and delivered, Israel, (The Nation), (all incidentally exclusively female imagery), since it’s metaphorical ‘birth’.

The passage merely suggests that in addition to behaving ‘like a Father’, God also behaves ‘like a mother’.

Your comments regarding context are misplaced and irrelevant as to the salient fact that scripture here clearly attributes characteristic female ‘behaviour’ to God. God (according to scripture), does not ‘have a problem’ with behaving that way.

What scripture does not do, (but you seek to do, it seems by insisting on God’s ‘masculinity’), is attribute actual anatomical features to God. All such attributes are necessarily metaphorical, not literal. The idea of the Godhead actually having breasts is as ludicrous as the Godhead actually having a penis and scrotum.

The image received upon hearing those words is obviously of a chicken and chicks, not meant to conjure up the image of a woman gathering her children.

Try as I may I just cannot understand how you ever got the impression that I, or anyone else in this conversation had any notion whatever of the passage referring to a ‘woman and her children’. You seem to have an inexhaustible ability to misunderstand what I thought was clearly written.

Let me make it clear again then that the Hen and chicken metaphor is exactly that, a metaphor. Let me also put it on record for all ‘literalists’ that a scriptural metaphor is not a device for hiding the truth. It is a means of revealing the truth for those who have ‘eyes to see and ears to hear’. The Pharisees could not understand metaphorical meanings in the stories Jesus told, neither do the scripturally ‘dull witted’ in today’s society either.

If Jesus had a feminine side then that was the moment to make it clear. But He used a chicken.


What are you suggesting? That Jesus was 'making it clear' that he had a 'chicken' side? You know I really wonder if you understand how a metaphor is actually supposed to work. Perhaps that is why you hold such a low opinion of them when it comes to the conveying of 'truth'.


Yes! A chicken with chicks was the metaphor Jesus chose to use, just as he chose many others to illustrate the truths of the Kingdom, including a dragnet, a dishonest steward, an ungrateful debtor, trees, fields of corn, God as ‘Our Father’, coins, pearls of great price, treasure in fields, wayward sons, bereft Fathers etc. etc. etc. All metaphores of the spiritual realities they represent.

In fact if all the metaphors were taken out of the Bible, there would be very little of any value left behind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “The truth about God is plainly written for anyone willing to accept God on God's terms”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . And for all that the plain truth is there to be found by anyone who can read or hear and understand parables, metaphors, similes, proverbs, poetry, stories and figures of speech.

Kind Regards - Chris.

Gentlemen
Let me suggest something here before we ring the bell and say go to your opposite cornersand come out talking according to 1Corinthians 13.
Don't use the marquess of Queensbury here.
Getting aside from the word think of how many creaures have male and female Charcteristics I.E. the male carriesthe young or bares-them.

There really in creation is only one sex until the moment before birth when gene in the chromosonal strucure changes and the birth is female if that is the divine program. Going back to the rib-woman is of man---Eve
Check me out
m7th
m7th--circle of revival

Dovegiven: Hi m7th: Hi also

So it is today some can assume maybe Jesus, who was a male on earth, might have transgendered by now, or worse that His Father God can't identify as male, choosing genderless existence so as not to offend militant female humans.

I don’t see gender as being the problem per se. There is no question that Jesus was on earth as a ‘man’. The fact was though that although he was a good ‘Jewish’ ‘man’, scripture, (the gospels), present Jesus as being a distinctly less gender conscious ‘man’ than any of his contemporary Jews. Even than many men in the church today. There is no hint of misogynism in his attitude to women, a trait sufficiently uncharacteristic for that time to cause consternation among his enemies and even among his own disciples. Jesus (as depicted in the four Gospels), still presents for men a ‘model’ of male attitudes and behaviours which many ‘macho types’ today find disturbingly challenging.

Although physically ‘a man’ Jesus was more importantly Jesus, ‘Messiah’, ‘Saviour’, ‘metaphorical Sacrificial Lamb’, etc. etc. all far more important defining characteristics than mere human gender. It is quite possible that God choosing to have ‘A Son’ rather than a ‘daughter’ as our saviour was a further concession to our fallen nature. If Jesus had been a woman the whole salvation plan would probably have failed completely because NO ONE in the Jewish society of her day would have listened to her, left their livelihoods to follow her, or have given any credence to her teaching or miracle working powers. SHE along with nearly all other women would simply have been ignored and we would all be still unsaved.

The plan would have failed not because there would be anything whatever inferior in a FEMALE Saviour, but because the human race were so enmeshed in sin and so far from the quality of relationship enjoyed by the first human couple before ‘the fall’, that even God (as a female), could not rescue nor re-educate them out of their blind ignorance. They would not have allowed it.

So it is my contention that the gender of the Saviour is irrelevant. A girl would have presented as perfect an image of God the Father as a Son did, were it not for the prejudices of fallen mankind. The fact that Jesus seemed just as comfortable in the company of women as he was in the company of men indicates to me that he recognised the image of God in both sexes equally, and treated them accordingly.

'might have transgendered by now'

The issue would not be whether Jesus has trans-gendered after his ascension, it would be (since Jesus himself said we will be 'neither marrying, nor being given in marriage, but as the angels of God in heaven'.

I find it interesting that Jesus emphasised the fact that in heaven ‘men’ have no property rights over the females of their family so as to ‘give them in marriage’, implying a state very different from the situation that existed upon earth in Jewish, Roman, Greek, etc. society during his time here. It seems in heaven there is true equality.


If Jesus is still a man in heaven then he must be, 'according to his own teaching', the only one there. The rest are angels, just as we shall be, and scripture says that our resurrection bodies shall be like His. So I don’t think ‘transgendered’ would be the word to describe what may have happened to the gender of Jesus in heaven. ‘transfigured’ might more accurately describe the situation.

‘so as not to offend militant female humans’

The way I see it, most of these types are merely over-reacting against 2000+ years of gross inequality. The Christian Church has gone some way towards equality, (compared to Islam, Hinduism, and many other religions), but it has certainly not achieved the state that God originally intended for the sexes. The teaching and example of Jesus Christ has not yet permeated sufficiently into church or society for true equality to have broken out.

think of how many creatures have male and female characteristics I.E. the male carries the young or bares-them.

Male Emperor penguins are almost solely responsible for brooding the egg, through the long winter months of polar darkness, (a nurturing, caring, role usually thought of as characteristically female), the female returns only in the spring after feeding at sea in warmer climes, with sufficient food for herself and the chick when it hatches. (Behaviour usually thought of as being a male role of provider.)

Male sea horses carry their eggs until the young are delivered. There are quite a few species in which the male is smaller and weaker than the female. There are even some whole species which regenerate entirely by virgin birth. Others where males and females are interchangeable as the need arises, (ie. A female elects to become a male if no male is available). This world contains many mysteries worth searching out.

Regards Chris.

Brothers
Greetings in the Lord
I wish i had further to contribute but I don't, I in my own person can see no further avenues to go with this. I think unless some great revelation comes think this has been exhausted. So for me only I opt out here. The word contains to many pictures and shadows of the father and his physical structure. Jesus said the father is a spirit and they that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. I can in no way say the father is male nor female but that the father is who he is.

Jesus was a physical man and retained that structure to come and be sacrificed for our sins and be a king for upon our redemption. John in 1st John said it doesn't appear what we be but this we know we will BE LIKE HIM AS HE IS!!
THE FATHER AND THE SON are not like us but we are in his hands to be like him and in his image.
I have been part of this old earth at it's worse and now am so thankful for the regeneration I have in Jesus. That is why I find it of no benefit to go further in my participation here. I wish you both God's best in this.
m7th
m7th--circle of revival

m7th :

Thank you brother for your contributions : I guess we can safely assume then that both man and woman are fully made in the image of God, (that image being The Spirit, not the body, because it is the spirit that counts, as scripture says, 'flesh and blood being unable to inherit the kingdom of God'). Since sexual reproduction is no longer necessary in the world of the spirit, gender will presumably become irrelevant.

Regards Chris.

In heaven, as with God, there is neither male nor female, and we are told that they that worship "Him" must worship "Him" in spirit and in truth. God has both male and female attributes, and both man AND woman were made in God's image. A woman is NOT a "subset" of a man and I fully believe that if men were never created, God would have saved the woman entirely independent of the man. Augustine said that a woman was not taken from man's side to rule over him, nor from his feet to be beneath him, but from his SIDE to rule alongside him. Women were judges, prophets, and even apostles, and God says in the NT that He does not play favorites, that in Christ there is neither male nor female, just people.

 
REMEMBER WHERE EVE CAME FROM AND HOW-------------IN OTHER WORDS ADAM WAS BOTH MALE AND FEMALE UNTIL GOD EXTRACTED THE RIB.

I read this somewhere too, but simply cannot believe it. Adam was made from the dust of the earth, so why must we believe something other than what God simply and literally says in His Word, that Eve was quite simply taken from his side. Even if men and women both possess male and female DNA, it simply means that God meant the two sexes to be complimentary, like two of those halves of a heart that girls used to wear around their neck when dating boys (anybody remember those??).

The balance between the two genders is that each has the opposite DNA balance of the other. And it was meant to be so... God intention was that we understand that the two together as a whole comprise the complete view of the image of God, neither one truly the complete image without the other, yet each truly independent.

Kind of like the Trinity, Jesus is not the Father, the Father not the Son, and neither one the Holy Spirit, yet they are all One. I think there is great depth here, and it is worth pondering this mystery of God's image in us.