Opinion WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GENDER?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Link (Archive)

WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GENDER?​

The Bible has a lot to say about gender.

Of course, there are innumerable instances when the Bible has historically been used to enforce the idea that gender is a divinely ordained binary, with male and female genders that are distinct, complementary, and assigned at birth.

But by going back to the original languages of the Bible and examining modern translations more closely a much more complex spectrum of biblical gender is revealed. At some rabbinical colleges, scholars have identified as many as eight genders represented in the original Hebrew.

Indeed, the Bible's general attitude toward gender is expansive, with verses exploring God's focus on the interior over the exterior, the distinction between sex and gender, the role of eunuchs in scripture, and more.

Here are 10 Bible verses that show a biblical approach to gender that is as varied as the colors in a rainbow.

Genesis 1:27
So God created humans in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Day and night. Water and dry land. Male and female. The creation poem might sound like it's dealing in binaries, but we know that all of these things have transitional elements. Day and night contain transitions at dawn and dusk; the spectrum of water and dry land includes tidal plains and coral reefs; and people who are intersex, genderqueer, nonbinary, and more can be found between “male and female”.

Genesis 25:27
When the boys grew up, Esau was a skillful hunter, a man of the field, while Jacob was a quiet man, living in tents.

Jacob is described as “smooth” (Genesis 27:11) and stays in the tent where he cooks – traditional female attributes in the ancient world. Yet he is chosen over his “hairy” brother Esau, a skilled hunter, to lead God’s people, showing that God does not place value on traditional gender norms.

Isaiah 56:4-5
For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Eunuchs were men who had been castrated, especially those employed to guard the women’s living areas. They represent clear historical examples outside of the gender binary in the Bible and are welcomed into the temple and to the community of worship.

Matthew 19:11-12
But [Jesus] said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

The disciples ask Jesus to clarify the explanation of gender in Genesis 1 as it relates to divorce. In answering them, Jesus offers this non-judgmental example of eunuchs that invokes a range of genders. This indicates the law should be flexible enough to allow for this range, instead of being too narrow to recognize its existence.

Galatians 3:27-28
As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is no longer Jew or Greek; there is no longer slave or free; there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

The apostle Paul explains that unity in Christ is what’s important, superseding the concept of gender and other identity markers.

Mark 11:17
[Jesus] was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.”

In this verse, Jesus is referencing Isaiah 56, when eunuchs are welcomed into the community at temple. He prioritizes welcoming all people, regardless of gender.

Acts 8:38-39
He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more and went on his way rejoicing.

The baptismal inclusion by Philip of the Ethiopian eunuch in the early church echoes the affirmation of eunuchs who are welcomed to the temple in Isaiah 56. “In neither case [both in Isaiah and Acts] is change required of them before they can join the community in worship,” writes Robyn J. Whitaker for The Conversation.

1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him, for the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.”

When the prophet Samuel was charged by God to look for a new king, David didn’t seem as king-like as the other options presented to Samuel — but he was still the right choice. Once again, we see that God does not share the human preoccupation with external biological features. Our physical bodies do not determine deeper matters of our identity.

Romans 2:29
Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not the written code. Such a person receives praise not from humans but from God.

As with the example of God choosing David because of what was in his heart, here the Bible says that physical alteration (like being circumcised) isn’t what matters to God — it’s what’s in the heart.

Genesis 16:13
So [Hagar] named the Lord who spoke to her, “You are El-roi,” for she said, “Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?”

Hagar changes the name she uses for God, reflecting a change in how she recognizes who God is — not a change in God’s own identity, but an uncovering that leads to a fuller understanding and affirmation of God’s identity. Similarly, someone may choose to change the gender (and the name that goes with it) that they identify with as a reflection of a greater understanding and affirmation of who they are, out of a desire that the world may better know and understand them, too.
 
Dfvkph6WsAA_s_z.webp
I don't even have to read the article to know this is going to be applicable.
 
It's always about faggots, Bible mentions eunuchs can be blessed? EVERYONE CUT UR NUTS OFF! God loves it when you disfigure his creation by mutilating not just the physical but the idea of what's in your heart is true AND GOOD.

I think of trannies like folks with tattoos, just more-so. I have scars I didn't intend to get, knowing a person's intention is the key to deciphering their heart. I think that many of us struggle to be honest even with ourselves where our heart lies; God alone can judge a man's heart, as men we can judge other men's actions. Part of the action is intent or lack thereof; the eunuchs in the Bible were made that way to protect the women from the potential of a man doing men things to women. I would judge that action as based AF, make sure even if Schlomo got some bright ideas, no way to carry them out. Current day trannies' intentions behind their actions are to do to women exactly what the eunuchs were sent to protect women against.

Judgement can't come soon enough.
 
and people who are intersex, genderqueer, nonbinary, and more can be found between “male and female”.
I hate these faggots so much. Intersex people are not "between male and female".

All DSDs are sex specific. Some only males get, some only females get. All intersex people are, like all mammals, still only male or female.
 
I guess its not at all a surprise that not even one of their examples is actually about gender. 4 of 10 are about Eunuchs who I guess are now a gender. And I guess they are saying that Jacob and David are both troons.

Total fail.
 
there are innumerable instances when the Bible has historically been used to enforce the idea that gender is a divinely ordained binary, with male and female genders that are distinct, complementary, and assigned at birth
The concept of "gender", as distinct from sex, was invented by paederast John Money in the 1960s. Before that it literally meant whether a word took male or female endings. And the "assigned at birth" clown show has only existed for the last few years.

At some rabbinical colleges
Ah yes, now I know I'm going to get accurate and well-intentioned advice...
 
Now what does the Bible say about the synagogue of Satan and millstones around this authoress's neck?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Super Hans v2
Oh these old quotes again. Let's put two in context:
Isaiah 56:4-5
For thus says the Lord: To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Eunuchs were men who had been castrated, especially those employed to guard the women’s living areas. They represent clear historical examples outside of the gender binary in the Bible and are welcomed into the temple and to the community of worship.
This relates to Deuteronomy 23, Gods instructions to Moses on Exclusion from the Assembly.
No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord. No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.
Deuteronomy is the sermons delivered by Moses to the Israelites. It's basically the code the Israelites had to live by when creating their nation (think along the lines of the Talmud today). The reason they banned eunuchs from the "assembly" (which here means the political and spiritual life of Israel) is because they likely ended up being eunuchs from participating in a pagan ritual, so you don't want them in any position of power of influence in the new Israel, in the same way they also don't want descendants from other tribes getting involved. It specifically mentions cutting or crushing to differentiate them from congenital eunuchs.
There's another separate instruction in Leviticus where the "sons of Aaron" (the temple priests, Cohens) are informed that any of their descendants who are wounded or malformed (including eunuchs) are banned from being temple priests.
The full bit of Isaiah that's relevant:
Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.” And let no eunuch complain, “I am only a dry tree.” For this is what the Lord says: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant— to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will endure forever. And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord, and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations. The Sovereign Lord declares— he who gathers the exiles of Israel: “I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered.”
Isaiah comes after the Babylonian exile. There's a bit of a different focus as the Israelites had been scattered. The specific allowance of eunuchs may also tie into the practice that the Babylonians had of castrating their slaves, on the basis that a castrated advisor will have fewer potential conflicting urges (e.g. his family). There's an argument that Daniel (as in The Book Of) may have been castrated, as he was a slave who worked directly under Ashpenaz, chief of the eunuchs, who had taken the boys of many Israelite royals and nobles to serve the Babylonian king. If a load of your most learned scholars and practiced leaders ended up being eunuchs, you're probably not wanting to exclude them all when rebuilding.
This also isn't being inclusive of a "third gender role" - because that loops back to the pagan practices the Israelites frowned upon. This is very much saying "just because you can't have a family, it doesn't mean you're useless to Israel".
Matthew 19:11-12
But [Jesus] said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”
Which leads onto this quote. Again, the full context here:
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
The Pharisees were grilling Jesus about Halachic law, as they were able to get divorced for a range of reasons. He countered that divorcing your wife for anything other than her fornicating, and then you remarrying, is adultery. The disciples go "gosh, better not get married then, in case you're trapped in an unhappy marriage!".
Jesus admonishes them by saying there are some men who never desire sex (or can't have sex, or whatever) and there are some men who've been castrated, and then there's a third category of men. Now technically the original Greek says something along the lines of "eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven". That might sound like Jesus is suggesting men should self-castrate, but while "εὐνοῦχοι" can literally mean a eunuch, it can also more generally mean a man who doesn't get married or procreate. So in other words, some men never desire to get married, some men have been castrated, and some men choose to live in celibacy... and that this is preferable, but not everyone can live like that. This gets echoed in Paul's letter to the Corinthians
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
There's at least enough ambiguity in the text that the First Council of Nicaea (held in 325 AD) made as their very first proclamation:
If anyone due to sickness has undergone a surgical operation, or if he has been castrated by barbarians, he is allowed to remain among the clergy. But if anyone enrolled among the clergy has castrated himself when in perfect health, it is good for him to leave the ministry. From now on, no such person should be promoted to the clergy. But since this applies only to those who willfully castrate themselves, if anyone has been made a eunuch by barbarians, or by his master, and is otherwise fit for office, church law admits him to the clergy.
so there was an issue with people in the early Church castrating themselves to be celibate, but long story short the Bible's certainly not embracing gender fluidity or suggesting getting gender affirming surgical care is 10/10.
As for
At some rabbinical colleges, scholars have identified as many as eight genders represented in the original Hebrew.
this relates to Halachic law. Which tends to get into the weeds with weird thought experiments, like "if you're walking around naked on the roof with a boner and then you fall off and land penis first onto a naked sunbathing virgin and your penis accidentally goes inside her, does that count as sex?". In the context of "eight genders", these are "man", "woman" and then various ways of classifying disorders of sexual development - because they were probably trying to work out what sort of ritual bath the ambiguously sexed person might need to have if they're experiencing some sort of genital discharge.
 
They represent clear historical examples outside of the gender binary in the Bible and are welcomed into the temple and to the community of worship.

They had their dicks chopped off (almost never by choice) which fucked up their desire and ability to fuck the women in the palace. Their gender didn't change, their ability to get the Princess pregnant did.
 
This is one of the most blatant AI slop articles I have read, lmao. I guess after several abortive attempts at writing an introductory paragraph, Heather, "audience engagement manager" extraordinaire, just gave up and published without any concluding remarks. Had she bothered to fact check her AI factoids, she might have realized that eunuchs weren't "welcomed into the temple and to the community of worship," they were excluded from it (Deut. 23:1).
 
It says God made man and woman.

Of course, even if you don't believe in God, DNA and chromosomes also say there are only 2 genders
The creation poem might sound like it's dealing in binaries, but we know that all of these things have transitional elements.
It's not a poem, it's history and humans do not have gender transitions. You're not an ocean or a sky or light.


Jacob is described as “smooth” (Genesis 27:11) and stays in the tent where he cooks – traditional female attributes in the ancient world. Yet he is chosen over his “hairy” brother Esau, a skilled hunter, to lead God’s people, showing that God does not place value on traditional gender norms.
I don't even get what this retard is getting at. Esau, though elder, shirked his responsibilities to the family, so jacob had to take over tending the flocks and such. It has nothing to do with gender lol


Eunuchs were men who had been castrated, especially those employed to guard the women’s living areas. They represent clear historical examples outside of the gender binary in the Bible and are welcomed into the temple and to the community of worship.
That's not outside the gender binary. A castrated man is still a man.

The apostle Paul explains that unity in Christ is what’s important, superseding the concept of gender and other identity markers.
You cannot be united in christ when you choose the lies of the serpent that genders are solidly defined

When the prophet Samuel was charged by God to look for a new king, David didn’t seem as king-like as the other options presented to Samuel — but he was still the right choice. Once again, we see that God does not share the human preoccupation with external biological features. Our physical bodies do not determine deeper matters of our identity.
But that has nothing to donwith gender though

I wonder if the author remembers the part where David killed people who didn't believe in male and female human biology
 
  • Agree
Reactions: marlimar
It says:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deut 22:5)
Seems pretty fucking clear. TTD, Deus Vult.
 
Back