At the end of the first chapter of Genesis we read this. "And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good." (Gen 1:31) Well, that's some statement. You see, throughout the chapter you will read "God saw that it was good" (Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21,25). There is only one place where it says "It was very good." That's here. So what made the difference between "good" and "very good"? Well, it was clearly the completion of the project. And what completed the project?
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:26-27)The creation of Man was His crowning achievement, the completion of the project, the pièce de résistance. He had created the world, the plants, the livestock, everything. And He finished it with Adam and Eve who would have dominion over it all -- in His own image.
Notice that, as part of His "very good" declaration, God declared very good "male and female". There you have it. God, as a binary gender Creator, declared His creation of "male and female" to be very good. Not gender confused. Not gender fluid. Male and female.
I think that's a clear indication of God's opinion on the question of transgender. Male? Very good. Female? Very good. Male-to-female or female-to-male? Not very good. Others will think otherwise. That, of course, is their privilege. Whether or not it's an opinion informed by the Word of God you can decide.
10 comments:
How does trisomy of the sex chromosome in Homo sapiens fit into your world view? For instance Klinefelter syndrome (XXY)? Also similar chromosomal peculiarities in nonhuman species?
I'm not concerned about chromosomal peculiarities in nonhuman species. I would consider an aberration to be an aberration. Since less than 0.05% of human babies are born with this condition, I would consider it an aberration. It is not what is called "transgender" today, a person who is physically male or female but feels female or male. Different issue.
Not really hard to argue, sin has tainted creation. Death was also not part of the original design, but sin made it happen.
No, not really hard. Children are born with disabilities and missing limbs and other such things. They are not less to be loved. Their disabilities are the product of Man's fallen nature. That falls under "not very good".
Just to clarify, I think David is talking about spiritual death, not physical death.
Just to clarify, I'm pretty sure he's not. He's saying that physical death was not part of the original design (Rom 8:20).
Is that passage in Romans specific to humans? What I am getting at is the question of whether organisms died prior to human sin. I am quite sure blogger Glenn Chatfield would say no tree, no moss, no starfish died prior to Adam and Eve. I know Glenn believes dinosaur fossils all date from the human era.
I know there are some who argue that nothing ever died prior to the Fall. I make no such argument. But the issue in Scripture is never the Fall or Salvation of plants and animals. There is no immorality with plants or animals. The question at hand is humans. (That particular passage I listed was about "creation" -- not specifically aimed at humans, but all creation. It says that all creation was "subjected to futility" by sin.)
Anonymous,
You are in error. Death of the nature which entered the world with sin has to do with animals and humans, not plants. It is about the breath of life, which animals possess. Animals didn't die before sin entered the world.
All of creation groans, because even plants will have defects due to the fall.
I did mean physical death. Certainly spiritual at the time of the first sin, but physical death was not part of the original design. Had they not failed, Adam and Eve would still be alive. As for animals, I'm on the fence. Were there predators before the Fall, don't know. There is nothing immoral about the death of animals. Were all animals originally herbavores? I find it difficult to come down on that side. God would have had to drastically change the animal kingdom. Not saying He can't, just doubt He would.
Post a Comment