Each stage of work done by God has its own practical significance. Back then, when Jesus came, He was male, but this time He is female. From this, you can see that God created both male and female for the sake of His work, and with Him there is no distinction of gender. When His Spirit comes, He can take on any kind of flesh at will and that flesh can represent Him. Whether male or female, it can represent God as long as it is His incarnate flesh. If Jesus had appeared as a female when He came, in other words, if an infant girl, and not a boy, had been conceived by the Holy Spirit, that stage of work would have been completed all the same. If such had been the case, then the present stage of work would have to be completed by a male instead, but the work would be completed all the same. The work done in either stage is equally significant; neither stage of work is repeated nor conflicts with the other. At the time, Jesus in doing His work was called the only Son, and “Son” implies the male gender. Then why is the only Son not mentioned in this stage? This is because the requirements of the work have necessitated a change in gender different from that of Jesus. With God there is no distinction of gender. He does His work as He wishes and in doing His work He is not subject to any restrictions, but is especially free. However, every stage of work has its own practical 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 in order personally to do work for man to witness, man would forever hold on to the notion that God is only male, not female. Before this, all humanity believed that God could only be male and that a female could not be called God, for all humanity regarded man as having authority over woman. They believed that no woman could take on authority, but only man. What is more, they even said that man was the head of woman and that woman must obey man and could not surpass him. In the past, when it was said that man was woman’s head, this was directed at Adam and Eve who had been beguiled by the serpent, and not at man and woman as they had been created by Jehovah in the beginning. Of course, a woman must obey and love her husband, just as a husband must learn to feed and support his family. These are the laws and decrees set forth by Jehovah that mankind must abide by in their lives on earth. Jehovah said to woman, “Your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” He spoke thus only so that mankind (that is, both man and woman) might live normal lives under the dominion of Jehovah, and only so that the lives of mankind might have a structure and not fall out of their proper order. Therefore, Jehovah made appropriate rules for how man and woman should act, but this was only with regard to all the created beings living on the earth and bore no relation 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; it was in order for mankind to live normal lives that He established rules for man and woman. In the beginning, when Jehovah created mankind, He made two kinds of human being, both male and female; and so His incarnate flesh was also differentiated into either male or female. He did not decide upon His work on the basis of the words He spoke to Adam and Eve. The two times He became flesh were determined entirely according to His thinking at the time He first created mankind, that is, He completed the work of His two incarnations based on the male and the female before they had been corrupted. If humanity took the words spoken by Jehovah to Adam and Eve who had been beguiled by the serpent and applied them to the work of God’s incarnation, would not Jesus also have to love His wife as He ought? This way, would God still be God? And this being so, would He still be able to complete His work? If it be wrong for God’s incarnate flesh to be female, then would it not also have been an error of the greatest magnitude for God to have created woman? If man still believes that it would be wrong for God to be incarnated as female, then would not Jesus, who did not get married and was therefore unable to love His wife, be as much in error as the present incarnation? Since you use the words spoken to Eve by Jehovah to measure the truth of God’s incarnation of the present day, then 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 take the measure of the Lord Jesus according to the male who had not been beguiled by the serpent, then you may not judge the truth of today’s incarnation according to the female who had been beguiled by the serpent. This would be unfair! If you made such a judgment, it would prove that you have taken leave of your senses. When Jehovah twice became flesh, the gender of His flesh was related to the male and the female who had not been beguiled by the serpent; it was in accordance with the male and the female who had not been beguiled by the serpent that He twice became flesh. Do not think that the maleness of Jesus was the same as that of Adam who was beguiled by the serpent. He and he are completely unrelated, and the two are males of different natures. Surely it cannot be that the maleness of Jesus proves He is only the head of all women but not 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? Would this not be blasphemy? Jesus is a male who has not been corrupted. He is God; He is Christ; He is the Lord. How could He be a male like Adam who was corrupted? Jesus is the flesh worn by the most holy Spirit of God. How could you say He is a God who possesses the maleness of Adam? In that case, would not all of God’s work have been wrong? Would Jehovah have been able to incorporate within Jesus the maleness of Adam who was beguiled? Is not the incarnation of the present time another instance of the work of God incarnate who is different in gender from Jesus but like Him in nature? Do you still dare say that God incarnate could not be female, because woman was the first to be beguiled by the serpent? Do you still dare say that, as woman is the most unclean and the source of the corruption of mankind, God could not possibly become flesh as a female? Do you dare to persist in saying that “woman shall always obey man and may never manifest or directly represent God”? You did not understand in the past, but can you now go on blaspheming the work of God, especially the incarnate flesh of God? If you are unable to see this with complete clarity, best mind your tongue, lest your foolishness and ignorance be revealed and your ugliness exposed. Do not think that you understand everything. I tell you that all you have seen and experienced is insufficient for you to understand even the thousandth part of My management plan. So why then do you act so haughty? The mere bit of talent and the minimal knowledge you have are insufficient for Jesus to use in even one second of His work! How much experience do you actually have? What you have seen and all that you have heard in your lifetime and what you have imagined are less than the work I do in a moment! You had best not nitpick and find fault. No matter how arrogant you may be, you are just a creature that’s less than an ant! All that you hold within your belly is less than what an ant carries within his! Do not think, just because you have gained some experience and seniority, that this entitles you to gesticulating wildly and talking big. Are not your experience and your seniority the product of the words I have uttered? Do you believe that you purchased them through your own labor and toil? Today, you see that I have become flesh, and on this account alone you are filled with such rich concepts, and have gleaned countless notions from them. If not for My incarnation, even if you were possessed of extraordinary talents, you would not have so many concepts; and isn’t it from these that your notions come? If Jesus had not become flesh that first time, would you even know of the incarnation? Is it not because the first incarnation gave you knowledge that you have the impudence to try to judge the second incarnation? Why, instead of being an obedient follower, are you subjecting it to study? When you have entered into this stream and come before the incarnate God, would He allow you to make a study of this? It is fine for you to study your own family history, but if you try to study the “family history” of God, would the God of today allow you to conduct such a study? Are you not blind? Do you not bring contempt upon yourself?

—The Word, Vol. 1. The Appearance and Work of God. The Two Incarnations Complete the Significance of the Incarnation