Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Cheryl Schaltz gave me a reason why Christ had to be male. And also, why women came from man, and was not created separately.

Sin entered the world through Adam:

Rom 5:12-14  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

(How could it be that sin entered through Adam, as Eve ate first?

1 Tim 2:14: And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Eve was deceived and thus ate, Adam ate on purpose, is her answer.)

As sin entered through Adam, a second Adam had to negate what Adam brought:

Rom 5:19  For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

A female Jesus would not have been a second Adam, say Cheryl Schatz, thus the Messiah had to be male. If Eve was made separately and not from Adam, and Jesus came from only a human mother, Jesus would not have shared genes with Adam, and thus not be the second Adam either.

(Her reason why Jesus had a female human parent and not a male one – sin is allegedly carried to both men and women through the male genes – is one you can test against scripture for yourself. But that is a separate issue from “did Jesus have to be male to be the second Adam?”)

Comments on: "Is this why Jesus was not a woman?" (7)

  1. Yeah, it’s funny how the ‘male’ in Genesis is so honored or glorified in his ‘rule’ or authority in complementarian thought, yet, the first male is the one who sinned with a high hand against God whereas Eve did not, who was deceived. And because of the male’s sin there had to be a second Adam. And there’s much more to the story of the first male and how dishonorable he really was and the action God took against him because of his rebellion.

    Then it’s funny how the first woman is the one blamed for sin because she ate first. The blame is placed on the wrong shoulders in complementarian ‘theology’ (if it can even be called that). It’s not about ‘first this’ and ‘first that’, as if being ‘first’ in something means anything at all lol. Adam was created first therefore he was given rule over the woman. The woman ate first therefore she is blamed for sin. This kind of thinking/belief about ‘first’ has nothing to do with biblical scriptures, absolutely nothing. It’s purely made up.

    Comp thought is backwards on many accounts just regarding Genesis alone!


  2. Welcome to my blog, Pinklight.

    Speaking about “first”and “last”, I remember Jesus saying the first will be last, and the last first…


  3. I think that Jesus had to be male because his sacrifice fulfilled the Passover, and the Passover lambs were all and only male (Ex 12:5ff cf 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:18-19).

    In Romans 5:12-19, mentioned above, and in many other verses which speak about sin and salvation, the word “man” (used in many English translation) is translated from anthrōpos and could just as easily (and literally) be translated as “person”.

    Replace the word “man” with “person” and you get a slightly different perspective.


  4. Marg, I don’t think Jesus was male because the passover lambs were male.
    I think the lambs were male, because God already had a male Jesus in mind. The lambs were foreshadowing Jesus.

    And, sin entered through one (hu)man, but that human was Adam. (Romans 5:12and further) And Jesus was called the last Adam.

    1 Cor. 15:22, 45 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . . And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

    So, the question is if he had to be male – and from the blood line of Adam (as Eve was by being made from Adam) to be the last Adam.


  5. “I don’t think Jesus was male because the passover lambs were male. I think the lambs were male, because God already had a male Jesus in mind. The lambs were foreshadowing Jesus.”

    True! 🙂


  6. No one would have listened to a woman in the first century. Sometimes we don’t even take women seriously today.


    • findingfaith said:

      But if “with God, all things are possible” isn’t it possible that people would listen to a woman in the first century, especially if she’s the freakin’ Messiah?!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: