Thinking Out Loud with Alan Shlemon - Does the Bible Limit Gender to Just Male and Female?

Episode Date: September 5, 2021

Alan responds to a trendy new argument that claims that a non-binary interpretation can be imposed on the Genesis account of creation.

There's a new argument out there that attempts to prove that God did not create only two genders when he made male and female. That's what I want to talk to you about on this September 2021 episode of my podcast, Thinking Out Loud with Alan Schliemann. There's a trendy new idea that denies that God created only two genders, male and female. Now, what's the proof for this new idea? Frogs. That's right, frogs.

Believe it or not, proponents of this view claim that frogs are evidence that the gender binary that's talked about in Genesis 1 is a myth. Now, if you're puzzled by this, like how that might work, it's totally understandable. I was as well. Let me try to unpack for you how the argument works and sort of my response to it. So defenders of this view try to point out, they say, well, look, Genesis 1, you have scriptures saying that God made creatures that, say, live on the land and creatures that swim in the water. Okay, so you have these two categories.

Frogs, they say, however, are amphibians and are not exclusively land or water creatures. So notice they don't fit neatly in either of those creature classifications. And so although Genesis describes the creation of land and water creatures, notice it doesn't account for every kind of animal that God ultimately made. And so in the same way, so the argument goes, even though scripture says that God made humans male and female, those two categories can't also account for every kind of human. Right? God also created non-binary people,

those who aren't either male or female. Now, to be fair, there is some truth to what is being said here, okay? Many of the binary categories that are mentioned in the Genesis narrative, it's true, they don't fully account for everything that's created. So, for example, and this is actually another example that sometimes proponents of this view point out, they say, well, look, the Bible says that God made day and night, right? Which are allegedly, you know, somebody might think these are the only two categories during a 24-hour period. But they point out there's also sunrise and sunset and dusk and dawn that are neither day nor night, all right? Now, what I want you to notice though, is that in these cases, like land and sea creatures or night and day, in these kinds of situations,

scripture later references some of the natural variations between these binary extremes. So for example, the Bible mentions frogs over a dozen times later on in the rest of scripture, which is basically an acknowledgement that, yeah, these animals do exist that are neither land nor sea creatures. You know, scripture also references, for example, dawn and twilight, right? Or sunrise and sunset, even though these don't fit the binary category of day and night. However, this is not, I repeat, this is not the case when it comes to the binary

categories of male and female that is described in the Genesis account of creation. In other words, there is never a later scriptural reference to another kind of human that falls outside of the binary male-female gender category. And you think, well, if humans were made that were neither male nor female, why doesn't scripture say something about them, right? Surely, if God created non-binary people, he would consider them more important than frogs and mention them somewhere in his word. But not a single sentence is spent referring to a person that is in between or outside of the male-female binary.

Now, I know some people might say, oh, but Alan, what about eunuchs? Eunuchs should qualify as non-binary or potentially they could. Now, remember when it comes to eunuchs, actually Jesus speaks about these people in Matthew 19. He says, eunuchs were either born that way, made that way by men, or they chose celibacy. So, let me just consider the first two categories, right? So, if there was a eunuch who was born that way, it's important to realize here

that merely being born with a physical anomaly of your sex organ doesn't disqualify you from being male since your sex is determined by things like your DNA or whether your body produces sperm or eggs or other kinds of things. Now, I understand this is actually more complex than this, but if I keep going on this particular topic, it'll go beyond the scope of this article. Okay. And then with regards to the second category of eunuchs that's mentioned by Jesus, those who are made this way by men, I just would want to point out that getting

castrated doesn't make a man any less male than a mastectomy would make a woman less female. So though sex-specific organs are removed in both cases, the changes here we're talking about are relatively cosmetic and don't alter the core of a person. And so, even so, the Bible does reference such people, but notice that it never uses their existence to challenge the gender binary that's taught in Genesis. Genesis. So what my assessment is here is that this whole attempt to force a non-binary interpretation into the Genesis creation account is anachronistic. In other words, advocates of this view are starting with a modern theory of gender, and then they're straining to try to impose that thinking on an ancient text. And of course, this is a very common mistake, it's a very common interpretive error known as eisegesis, which basically occurs when you start with your own idea, and then you try to impose

that idea onto the meaning, or impose that meaning onto the text, all right? Now, the exact opposite of this approach, which, by the way, is the proper approach, is known as exegesis, which is where you try to draw out the meaning that is intended by the author that is found in the text. In other words, what you're trying to do here is let the text speak for itself, right? Don't try to force it to do here is let the text speak for itself, right? Don't try to force it to say something. Just let it speak for itself. And so notice that no person, no Jew, no Christian, no atheist, no any other kind of category

of person for the last 3,500 years who has been, you know, reading Genesis 1 has ever concluded that when God made mankind male and female, notice they never thought that he meant that he also created people who were neither male nor female. Why? Because it's utterly foreign to the text, right? This idea does not come from God or scripture. It comes from people who rebel against God and scripture. And so it's a destructive anachronism that attempts to impose an alien meaning on the word of God on the Bible. And finally, I guess I would just point out that when God destroyed the earth by flood, and he sort of quote-unquote rebooted humanity, right? Notice he commanded Noah to preserve his wife, his sons, and his son's wives. And then in addition, he commanded Noah to bring two of every kind into

the ark to keep them alive with you, he said, and they shall be male and female. This is the Genesis 6 passage here where he's got the story of Noah and the flood. And so notice that when God chose to remake the world, he only preserved males and females because those two exhausted the gender categories of both humans and animals. Now, the reason behind this decision, of course, seems consistent with the reason that's found in the initial creation account of Genesis. And that is that the gender binary, you know, male and female, is directly tied to procreation. Because only a male and a female, no more and no less, are needed to be fruitful and to multiply.

Now, of course, it's important to remember that nothing I've said here or nothing I've said so far negates our duty as Christians to love people who identify as non-binary. Non-binary people are those people who claim to be non-binary, that is, or who are transgender, who identify as gay or lesbian or lesbian doesn't matter what every single one of these people are made in the image of god they are intrinsically valuable and they are deserving of dignity and respect like just like any other person on the planet okay so just because we would argue that they are confused about their gender identity or who they are doesn't negate or remove that inherent worth. So they too, just like anybody else that we would see, would desperately need our compassion. We should always treat them with kindness. So that's absolutely true. But you still, apart from that, you have people who

are trying to take this modern notion of non-binary and try to impose it on the biblical text. And that is just not legitimate. Well, that's all I have for you today. If you enjoy my thoughts or my thinking on these subjects of apologetics and worldview and theology, I encourage you to, number one, rate and review my podcast on iTunes or wherever else you listen to this podcast. And then, of course, be sure to come back next time

when I bring up another subject and talk about that as well. All right. So I will talk to you next time.