A fair few of my fellow conservative Reformed brethren have a strange viscerally reactive way of coping with Jesus’ sexuality.
On the one hand, Christ is the ultimate Stoic. Sexually dispassionate. So lacking in fallen sexuality (which is true) that he lacks creaturely sexuality altogether (which is false). I’m tempted to think my brethren have a functional Christology in this area that is less than Chalcedon-compliant. That’s just part of full humanity Christ awkwardly lacks in their queasy imaginations, but they won’t admit that’s what they cling to deep down inside.
Don’t get me wrong; I support a rigorous and robust Reformed Christology. But when it becomes a systematic theological abstraction that loses contact with the flesh and blood historical reality, it’s a problem.
On the other hand, if you point to Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19 about the eunuch for the sake of the kingdom, my brethren avert their eyes and mutter passing explanations. And if you then point out how Christ is the ultimate illustration of the Kingdom Eunuch, my brethren have a knee-jerk need to swerve around that and shout out: “Yeah, but he’s the Husband of the Bride, the Church!”
Um, yeah. But that’s because he’s the Kingdom Eunuch, and the way in which he “sees his offspring” (Isaiah 53:10) and is not “a dried up tree” (Isaiah 56:3) is because he has another way of being fruitful according to the order of the Eschaton.
In his Father’s house, Christ has received a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; he has been given an everlasting name that shall not be cut off (Isaiah 56:5).