I read your recent bit of sacrilegious heresy, er, I mean article on the Huffington Post blog. I can’t say that I came across this because I frequent your site all that often. Honestly, I’d rather stick my head into a blender or be engulfed by a swarm of yellow jackets than peruse the latest bits of sewage trickling from the pages of the Huffington Post. The truth is that it showed up somewhere in my Facebook feed and, being the argumentative jerk that I am, I decided to give it a read so that I could write a rebuttal — one based on theological truth and historical fact, not on nonsensical conjecture. It’s not all that surprising to see this sort of thing on the Internet these days. Sadly, liberal leftists like yourself have been unapologetically mutilating the Bible for years, hellbent on skimming through random phrases, divorcing them from the original context and then throwing the dismembered parts back together into some sort of ridiculous amalgamation designed to fit your ultra-progressive worldview. Maybe you’re just trying to avoid slipping out of the limelight by doing something controversial or edgy. You know, sort of like when Justin Bieber gets a new haircut or when Kim Kardashian snaps a nude selfie and plasters it all over the web just so she can hold everyone’s attention. And if you’re wondering if I’ve just declared your article to be the written equivalent of a nude selfie, yeah, that’s pretty much what I’m saying.
Anyway, I’ve lost track of the number of times progressive Social Justice Warriors or trans-activists have attempted to “rebrand” Jesus as a feminist, a gay man or a ‘transgendered’ wimp who just came to Earth to party with sinners, despite there being no historical evidence to support any of this. Last December, actress/comedian Sarah Silverman — who claims to be funny, although I’ve seen no proof of this — sent out a tweet declaring that Jesus was ‘gender fluid.’ A lot of Christians found it to be offensive, and rightly so, but Sarah’s actions really aren’t anything new. Allow me to egotistically quote myself from last Christmas:
For centuries people have made Jesus out to be whatever they want Him to be. In 19th Century Europe, He was cast as a Romantic and eventually as an Existentialist. In early 1900’s America, He was a social reformer, then a radical revolutionary and then a libertine homosexual. And if I’ve learned anything from the movies, it’s that He was obviously British, gorgeous and possibly the first Abercrombie model in recorded history…Some folks in Ireland even put on a play which depicted Jesus as a female transgender — labeling Him “The Queen of Heaven.” - Josh Givens 12/27/2015
See, Suzanne, you haven’t really done anything fresh or radical here. Controversial, maybe. But nothing new. Moreover, you're really just trying to stuff Jesus into a mold that will fit your cultural perspective in a desperate attempt to further your agenda. It’s pretty pathetic, really, that you feel the need to distort the centuries-old truths about Jesus in order to accomplish this. I mean, if your LGBT agenda is as great and wonderful as you think it is, why do you even need to bring Jesus into it? Shouldn’t your agenda be able to stand on its own?
I read your bio. It seems you’re currently in a lesbian relationship, married to another woman, so it’s no wonder that you would want to twist Scripture and biblical theology to coincide with your gay lifestyle and your warped views on human sexuality. Ironically, in your article you accuse Christians of “imposing their own filters on stories and phrases to fit their particular ideology” (which is untrue, but we’ll get to that in a minute) and then you proceed to do exactly what you accuse Christians of doing. The double standard is simply astounding.
Now, a couple of points regarding your theory that Jesus was “the first transgender male.” You seem to come to this nonsensical conclusion by alleging that Eve was the first transgender woman — a transgendered “clone” — because she was made from one of Adam’s ribs and, in your opinion, she must have been “created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.” since she was taken from Adam’s XY chromosome frame. Sorry to destroy your poorly-constructed, sci-fi-esque hypothesis, but this isn’t a Ridley Scott movie. Eve was created female:
He created them male and female and blessed them. And He named them ‘Mankind’ when they were created.” — Genesis 5:2
This is one of those times where reading the entire context comes in handy. God created mankind in His likeness, designed for His purposes, but created them to be male and female — separate sexes — for their mutual comfort and also for the preservation and continuation of the human race. Eve was fashioned and formed from Adam’s rib (rather than from the dust as Adam was) so that God might demonstrate how womankind would be a ‘suitable helper’ for man. Honestly, you’re trying to read more into this than what’s actually there. Knock it off. Sometimes God really does use simple terminology to explain things.
So, now that we’ve established the absurdity of your theory, let’s look at what you have to say about Jesus:
Then along came Jesus and the whole pattern is both repeated and reversed. The first couple’s refusal to cooperate is turned around by Mary’s yes, and the second act of cloning occurs. The Holy Spirit comes upon the second Eve, and the child takes flesh from her and is born. Born of her flesh. Born with XX chromosome pairing. Born genetically female, yet trans-formed into man.”
At this point I’m really starting to wonder if you’ve ever even read the story of the birth of Jesus in Luke chapter two — in which every personal pronoun used to refer to Jesus [translated from centuries of original Greek] is a definitive male pronoun. Mary gave birth to her “firstborn son; and she wrapped him in cloths and laid him in a manger…” Even the Old Testament references to Jesus utilize male pronouns (Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6) and every subsequent pronoun for Jesus throughout the rest of the Bible is strictly male. Notice that is does not say that "Mary gave birth to a beautiful blonde girl and laid her in a pink Hello Kitty crib. And behold, this little girl shall soon become a man.” If you’re going to claim that Jesus was “transgendered,” you’re first going to have to deny centuries of literal Greek and Hebrew translation. And then you’re going to have to argue that God — who breathed out and inspired all of Scripture through the writers of the Old and New Testaments — made a mistake in His Word. So, good luck with that.
Moreover, the rules of nature and biology — established by God since the creation of the human race — are absolute, true and unchangeable. In order for a woman like Mary to give birth, she still needed the “seed” of a male to impregnate her. (I’m assuming you paid attention in high school biology or that your parents at least gave you “the sex talk.”) In your desperate attempt to mangle Scripture to fit your flawed ideology, you’ve completely overlooked the fact that the Holy Spirit was the seed in this instance:
…God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Jospeh, a descendant of David…the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.” — Luke 1:26-35 (NIV)
This is how the birth of Jesus came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit…all this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us.”)” — Matthew 1:18, 22 (NIV)
Jesus is no more a clone of Mary than any child is a clone of their parent. Jesus is the offspring of Mary and of God and, although the impregnation here wasn’t sexual, the rules of nature and the laws of biology were still followed.
What really irks me about what you’ve done here, Suzanne, isn’t just your distortion of Scripture, it’s your entire leftwing progressive ideology. This why I despise liberalism. I don’t despise you as a person. I love you because you were created as a child of God. But, I despise liberalism because it concocts lies out of nothingness and convinces people to stray from the Truth. What Jesus really does hate is sin and, by lying about Him and who He was and who He is, you’ve tried to destroy His flock and create dissension among those who love and follow Him. You’ve driven a wedge between the person of Jesus Christ and His Word, and separated the two in an attempt to turn Jesus into something that He is not, while simultaneously disregarding what His Word says about Him in the first place. This is quite nonsensical and frankly impossible considering that Christ is the Word made flesh (John 1:14) and that everything contained within Scripture is infallible and true — which means everything it says about Jesus is infallible and true. Period.
True Christ-followers take God’s Word literally. They don’t impose their own filters on the text to fit their ideology. The Christian faith exists because we take Scripture literally. Not the other way around. Our beliefs about current social issues — including the “transgender” issue — are based on what the Bible says about human sexuality and sin. You don’t need a doctorate in biblical theology with a minor in Greek to understand any of this. You just need basic reading comprehension skills.
I’ll say a prayer for you, Suzanne.
P.S. - From one writer to another, you might be better served by sticking to articles like "8 Crusts to Cure Your Fear of Pie-ing."
NOTE: If you're reading this post in your e-mail inbox and would like to comment, please feel free to reply via e-mail or click on the post title above and leave a comment on my site.