Eastern Lightning | God's will | Why has God been incarnated as a female in the last days? What is the significance of this?
The Answer from God’s Word:
Each stage of work done by God has a real significance. When Jesus arrived, He was male, and this time He is female. From this, you can see that God created both male and female for His work and with Him there is no distinction of gender. When His Spirit arrives, He can take on any flesh at will and the flesh represents Him. Be it male or female, both represent God as long as it is His incarnate flesh. If Jesus arrived and appeared as a female, in other words, if an infant girl, not a boy, was to be conceived by the Holy Spirit, that stage of work would have been completed all the same. If so, this stage of work would have to be completed instead by a male and the work would then be completed all the same. The work done in both stages is significant; no work is repeated or conflicts with each other. At the time of His work, Jesus was called the only Son, which indicates the male gender. Then why is the only Son not mentioned in this stage? This is because the needs of the work have necessitated a change to the gender different from that of Jesus. With God there is no distinction of gender. His work is done as He wishes and is not subject to any restrictions, particularly free, but every stage has a real significance. God became flesh twice, and it goes without saying that His incarnation in the last days is the last time. He has come to reveal all His deeds. If in this stage He did not become flesh to personally do work for man to witness, man would forever hold on to the notion that God is only male, not female. Before this, all believed that God could only be male and that a female could not be called God, for all regarded man as having authority over woman. They believed that no woman could take on authority, but only man. They even said that man was the head of woman and that woman must obey man and could not surpass him. When it was spoken in the past that man was the head of woman, it was said in regard to Adam and Eve who had been beguiled by the serpent, and not to the man and woman created by Jehovah in the beginning. Of course, a woman must obey and love her husband, much as a man must learn to support his family. These are the laws and decrees set forth by Jehovah by which mankind must abide in their lives on earth. Jehovah said to woman, “your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” This was said only so that mankind (that is, both man and woman) could live normal lives under the dominion of Jehovah, so that the lives of mankind would have structure and not lose order. Therefore, Jehovah made appropriate rules for how man and woman should act, but these only referred to all the creation living on the earth and not to God’s incarnate flesh. How could God be the same as His creation? His words were directed only toward the mankind of His creation; they were rules set forth for man and woman so that such mankind could live normal lives. In the beginning, when Jehovah created mankind, He made both male and female; therefore, His incarnate flesh was also differentiated into either male or female. He did not decide His work based on the words He spoke to Adam and Eve. The two times He became flesh were determined entirely in line with His thinking when He first created mankind. That is, He completed the work of His two incarnations based on the male and female that had not been corrupted. If man applies the words spoken by Jehovah to Adam and Eve who had been beguiled by the serpent to the work of God’s incarnation, should not Jesus also have to love His wife as He ought? Is God still God then? If so, can He complete His work? If it is wrong for God’s incarnate flesh to be female, would it not also have been a great error when God created woman? If man still believes that for God to be incarnated as female is wrong, would not the incarnation of Jesus, who did not get married and therefore could not love His wife, be as much an error as the present incarnation? Since you use the words spoken to Eve by Jehovah to measure the truth of God’s incarnation this day, you must use Jehovah’s words to Adam to judge the Lord Jesus who became flesh in the Age of Grace. Are these two not the same? Since you judge the Lord Jesus by the male who had not been beguiled by the serpent, you cannot judge the truth of the incarnation this day by the female who had been beguiled by the serpent. That is unfair! If you make such a judgment, then this proves your lack of rationality. When Jehovah twice became flesh, the gender of His flesh was related to the male and female that had not been beguiled by the serpent. Twice did He become flesh in accordance with such male and female not beguiled by the serpent. Do not think that the maleness of Jesus was the same as that of Adam who was beguiled by the serpent. He is completely unrelated to him, and they are two males of different natures. Surely it cannot be that the maleness of Jesus proves He is only the head of all women but not that of all men? Is He not the King of all the Jews (including both men and women)? He is God Himself, not just the head of woman but the head of man as well. He is the Lord of all creatures and the head of all creatures. How could you determine the maleness of Jesus to be the symbol of the head of woman? Is this not blasphemy? Jesus is a male that has not been corrupted. He is God; He is Christ; He is the Lord. How could He be a male like Adam who had been corrupted? Jesus is the flesh worn by the most holy Spirit of God. How could you say He is a God possessing the maleness of Adam? Then would not all of God’s work have been wrong? Could Jehovah incorporate within Jesus the maleness of Adam who had been beguiled? Is not the incarnation at present another work of God incarnate different in gender from Jesus but alike in nature? Do you still dare say that God incarnate could not be female since it was woman who was first beguiled by the serpent? Do you still dare say that as woman is the most unclean and the origin of the corruption of mankind, God could not possibly become flesh as a female? Do you still dare say that “woman shall always obey man and may never manifest or directly represent God”? …


