Question....

....did God choosing to be incarnated as a male implicitly communicate a devaluation of females?

• The first thing that struck me odd about this issue was in the Incarnation. I have never personally assumed that Jesus came as a male due to the alleged fact that God liked males better(!!!!), and it not at all clear how one could defend that position.
  

  I personally have always assumed that the gender-choice was an 'incidental' of the incarnation, and not one of any specific revelatory import. When I began thinking of OTHER incidentals:
  

  1. Jesus was also born in a manger/cave; would that fact have 'devalued' being born in a hospital or home? Probably not?
     

  2. Jesus was also a carpenter; does that 'choosing' de-value ALL OTHER OCCUPATIONS?! Probably not.
     

  3. Jesus was born in the 1st Century; does that 'de-value' those born at other times in history? Probably not.
     

  4. Jesus was Jewish; does that 'de-value' Chinese or Anglo-Saxons? Probably not.
     

  5. Jesus was raised in Nazareth; does that 'de-value' Jerusalem? Probably not.
     

  
  

  The list could go on--with each detail being examined for its 'incidental' character. I DO think there is some significance to the fact that He came as a human (as opposed to animal), and that He came in a sinless character (as opposed to a sinful character.) There MAY BE some significance that he was born of a female-only (instead of miraculously created WITHOUT a mother--the lineage problem would have been solved by the 'legal' Joseph anyway), but I don't have enough confidence in this argument.
  

  Where this nets out is that "Choosing" in regards to the Incarnation does NOT seem to be related to "Valuation" at all. To argue that it WAS positively correlated would require a supporting argument--which I have not seen so far.
  

• There was another point on the Incarnation that struck me odd. IF 'choice' WERE always linked to VALUATION, then God was not really very FREE in His choices! I find it difficult to believe that God could not have chosen WITHOUT being 'required' to communicate valuation in that process. What this position would mean is that WHATEVER form wherein God chose to appear REQUIRED God to 'de-value' EVERYTHING ELSE! Not only is this a questionable ethical principle, it is certainly 'odd' to place such a constraint on God's sovereign action, theologically speaking.