LCMS Clergy Do Not Agree Christ Had To Be A Human Male

By: Rev. Jack Cascione
Dear Rev. Mark Eddy:

When I asked why "you consistently reject my position that it was necessary
for Jesus to take on the form of a human male because Adam was a human male"
you responded as follows:

"Show me a Bible verse that states this, and I'll believe it. Obviously Adam
was a human male and Jesus was a human male. But does the Bible explicitly
teach that Jesus' maleness was 'necessary' because Adam was male. In other
words, does the Bible ever stress their maleness, or does it simply refer to
their humanity when it compares them?"

My response: Gen. 3:15 says that, "He will crush your head." In Isaiah 7:14
it says, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."  Why do
you want to see a Bible passage that teaches the necessity of Christ's
maleness?  How many times does the Bible have to call Jesus, "He," "Him," or
"Son," before you are convinced that Jesus had to be a human male in order
to save the human race?

How many choices are there?  Could Christ have been a human female or
hermaphrodite? You are trying to separate Christ's work from his gender, as
if His gender was only incidental to His humanity.

If Christ didn't have to be a human male, I see no reason why LCMS pastors
have to be human males.  Is the gender of an LCMS pastor more important than
Christ's gender?  You have made all the verses used to prove that LCMS
pastors must be men a matter of custom, rather than necessity.

The phrase "who for us men" in the Nicene Creed shows that Adam is our
earthly father.  We are all decedents of Adam, including Eve.  If the Creed
said, "who for us lions" we would assume that Christ was a Lion.  But it
says "men" because Christ was a man.

At least the readers know from this discussion that there are significant
differences between LCMS pastors as to whether it was necessary for Christ
to be a human male.  It is little wonder then, that many LCMS clergy see no
problem in changing the Nicene Creed from, "who for us men" to "who for us."

There is no question that people are damned for their own sin.  There is
also no question that all people are damned because of Adam's sin.  However
you write, "Sorry. But I believe we should leave Adam out of the sentence
when we speak about the 'cause' of 'damnation.'"

How do you explain when Pieper writes in Vol. I: 427, "But Scripture
mightily teaches what these terms designate when it says that we are
conceived in sin (Ps. 51:5), are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) and
are all sinners by one man's transgression (Rom. 5:12)."

Again Pieper writes in Vol. 5:39, "But that does not in the least change the
fact which is set before us in God's Word, in Rom 5:18-19, namely, that by
the offense of one man judgment came upon all men to condemnation and that
by one man's disobedience the whole multitude of mankind was placed before
God in the category of sinners."

How do you separate condemnation and judgment from damnation?  If Adam isn't
the cause of my sin, then Christ must not be the cause of my righteousness
and we can't be sure what it is about Adam that Paul is comparing to Christ
in Roman's 5:12ff.

I'm saying that Adam is the final cause, that is, the original cause of my
sin. Therefore, Christ in Roman's 5:12ff is the opposite of Adam, and Christ
is the final cause of my salvation.  I was born rotten because of Adam and I
was born righteous because of Christ.

December 10, 2002