A Better Story: The Goodness of a Gender Binary as Male and Female
Stand Alone • Sermon • Submitted • Presented
0 ratings
· 3 viewsNotes
Transcript
Introduction
Introduction
Stories are powerful, and they can change our minds. Stories can shape how we view reality and what we deem true, good, and beautiful. Stories are the basis of our worldview and help formulate our belief systems and the ethical systems we seek to implement.
The question I want to ask today is, what story about gender will we tell others who are struggling with gender dysphoria to give them relief and hope in their distress?
There seem to be two options on the table. . .
The Transgender Story
The Transgender Story
One is the story of Transgenderism, which, as Sean McDowell says, is “an ideology that aims to transform cultural understandings of sex and gender.” The story of transgenderism appears to have won over the culture, and it is beginning to win over some evangelical denominations, with the United Methodist Church becoming LGBTQ+ affirming this past May.[1]
Essentially, the Transgender story denies the validity of the Biblical story of gender, not necessarily because they don’t believe it is true, but instead, they reject it because they don’t believe it is good. It doesn’t lead to human flourishing. The Transgender story teaches that gender is no longer seen as something intrinsically tied to our biological sexed bodies as male and female and discovered at birth.[2]Instead, gender now refers to the internal expression of who we feel that we are.
Transgender ideology teaches that a male and female biological binary is a socially constructed belief system rather than a “naturally occurring phenomenon.”[3] It also argues that the belief in a gender binary of male and female is bad for society and human flourishing. For Transgender activists like Ann Travers, classifying a person as either male or female is viewed as harmful and oppressive and will most likely lead to self-harm and even suicide.[4]
According to the transgender story, the only way to end this oppression is by embracing a non-binary understanding of gender that is severed from our biological sex. Human flourishing can only occur through pursuing a unity between our perceived gender and our bodies through cross-dressing and various forms of “gender-affirming care.”
The Biblical Story
The Biblical Story
However, there is another story. . . a better story that comes from the pages of Scripture. Today, I will argue that the Bible communicates a better story about sexuality and gender in contrast to the Transgender story. This story describes human flourishing through the goodness of a gender binary as male and female.
By walking through Scriptural plot points of creation, incarnation and redemption, and resurrection and restoration, I will demonstrate the goodness of a gendered binary and why it is necessary for human flourishing. The Biblical story offers better solutions than Transgenderism to the problems those suffering from gender dysphoria experience, giving them purpose, identity, and hope, and this is the story we must tell them in our churches, homes, and communities to bring them relief, restoration, and healing.
Clarifying Terms
Clarifying Terms
Due to the common confusion surrounding the terms “sex,” and “gender,” I will briefly clarify these terms to prevent any confusion in my argument.
Sex can refer to an action, but it can also refer to our biological make-up as male and female at the gamete and chromosomal level. The latter definition will be used in this paper. Sex is objective, not chosen, because our biology determines it. Sex is also binary in that there are only two sexes (male and female).
Robert Smith defines gender as “the culturally mediated set of conceptions, expectations, and roles associated with being either male or female.” This definition distinguishes sex from gender without disconnecting gender from sex. It is vital that gender is anchored and flows from one’s biological sex as male and female.
Smith says, “The purpose of gender expression is to reveal sex.” Since gender reveals our sex, it is impossible for one’s gender and one’s sex to be incongruent. If one’s sex is female, their gender is also female. Dysphoria can occur in a persons’ perceived feelings (gender identity), but this is not based in objective reality. Hence, gender cannot be separated from one’s sexed body but is derived and directed from it. There may be a spectrum of masculinity and femininity between cultures. Still, gender, revealing sex, is binary (sex differentiation is maintained Deut. 22:5) and anchored in the body. See Robert S. Smith, The Body God Gives: A Biblical Response to Transgender Theory (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2025), 128-169.
Creation: Male and Female In God’s Image
Creation: Male and Female In God’s Image
So, with that in mind, to see the first reason for the goodness of a gender binary, we must start at Creation, and Creation demonstrates that the Biblical story is better in two ways.
1. The Biblical Story Provides Identity and Allows Us to Fulfill Our Purpose.
1. The Biblical Story Provides Identity and Allows Us to Fulfill Our Purpose.
First, the Biblical story provides identity and allows us to fulfill our purpose. Genesis 1-2 teaches God is the creator of all things, and everything he makes is good.
The Hebrew word tob describes something as happy, beneficial, aesthetically beautiful, morally righteous, preferable, of superior quality, or ultimate value.[5]
In Genesis 1, the word “good,” does not refer to aesthetics or morality but, rather, about purpose.[6]God’s physical creation was good because it fulfilled the exact purpose and design of why God made it. He is the exquisite designer who purposely shapes and crafts each part of creation to glorify and enjoy him.
If God is our maker, he is the one who gives us our identity and purpose, for he specifically made us for a reason: to worship him in a loving relationship. This means that our binary gender as male and female is not arbitrary but divinely orchestrated and blessed by God. Our gender as male and female is called “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and is given to us to fulfill God’s purposes for our lives perfectly.
If God has designed us as male and female for a specific purpose, our highest good will be living out his blueprint for our lives. Flourishing can only occur when we function as male and female in the specific way God made us.
One of the reasons God made us male and female was to fill the earth with more people made in God’s image through procreation. God designed our reproductive organs differently so that they would only fulfill their purpose when they were joined with the opposite sex in a one-flesh union in marriage. However, to clarify, this does not mean individuals who are unmarried or have physical abnormalities that prevent them from bearing children are not male and female and cannot flourish. Instead, as Andrew Walker says, “All males and females, regardless of marital status or impairment, are oriented to acts of reproduction at the level of their genetic make-up regardless of whether procreation is fulfilled.”[7]
We were also commanded to have dominion over the earth as male and female, ruling and reigning as God’s representatives. In Genesis 2, God called Adam to work and keep the garden and gave him a suitable helper in Eve to complete this task. Once more, Adam could not fulfill this role alone. He needed Eve, who was like him but different from him—one who could complement and strengthen his weaknesses. True freedom occurs when we can do what we were designed to do. Therefore, true freedom and flourishing can only happen when we embrace the goodness of a gender binary and live out our gender in the way God made us.
2. The Biblical Story is Better Because It allows us to be in God’s Image and Relate with one another.
2. The Biblical Story is Better Because It allows us to be in God’s Image and Relate with one another.
Second, the Biblical story of a gender binary is better because it allows us to be God’s image by being created male and female, allowing us to reflect and represent God and relate with one another.[8]
In Genesis 1:27, the verb “create” (Hebrew: bara) is repeated three times in the parallelism. Michael Dellaperute argues that the repetition of “create” in these three lines signifies God’s intent to create humans in his image and likeness.[9]
The usage of “create” in these three lines communicates three inextricable truths regarding the ontological nature of humans: (1) God created humans, (2) God created humans in his image, (3) God created humans male and female. Because the Hebrew verb, bara, ties together each of these truths, to accept one is to take all, and to deny one is to deny all.
Hence, we can only be created by God as humans in his image if we are male or female. We can only reflect and represent God if we are male or female. To argue humans can be another gender outside the binary would both deny that they are made in God’s image and that God created them.
This is precisely the reason why intersex persons and those who identify as transgender are still made in God’s image because they are not a third gender outside the binary, but they are still either male or female, even if they identify as otherwise. In essence, we cannot be God’s image and reflect his glory and character without the goodness of being made either male or female.
Being made male and female is a blessing because it also allows us to relate with one another. Our sex differentiation provides what J. Budziszewski calls a “polaric complentarity” that helps us understand ourselves through understanding the differences we have as male and female.[10]
Hence, we cannot know what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman without there being a sexual differentiation to observe. In his Theology of the Body, John Paul II argues that biology is theology, and the differences we have as male and female point to the gospel in the marital relationship between a husband and wife, imaging Christ’s relationship with his church.[11]
Gerald Hiestand explains this connection by saying, “Just as we give ourselves to Christ in the free surrender of ourselves to One who is sovereign over us, that we might joyfully receive him, so too the wife [being made with a greater capacity for vulnerability] joyfully receives the husband. And just as Christ in turn exercises his lordship over us in a way that does not seek his own ends but rather seeks our highest good, so too the husband [being made with a greater capacity for strength] gives himself to the wife.”[12]
Gregg Johnson also presents numerous biological factors, such as ethological, non-nervous system physiology, peripheral nervous system, hindbrain and limbic system, and the cerebrum, that demonstrate males and females were created and have a natural tendency to function differently.
This divine design of a gender binary allows us to help, strengthen, and complement one another’s weaknesses and ultimately display the glorious gospel of Christ’s relationship with his church. Without these sexual differences, marriage could not be a picture of the gospel, nor could we understand who we are as male and female and, more generally, as human persons.[13]
In contrast, the transgender story denies a male/female binary. Yet, without a male/female binary, the commands and purposes God gave humans would be impossible to fulfill, which means a denial of a binary gender cannot lead to a flourishing life of happiness.
Ironically, the only way the Transgender story can continue the human race is through pregnancy methods that are dependent on a male/female binary (surrogate pregnancy, adoption, and IVF).
The Transgender story provides no stable source of identity and purpose. Since no creator made us, our biological sex has no design or purpose and is simply a socially constructed category that we can change if desired. We must discover our own identity based on how we feel. This means we are our own gods; we are the ones who define meaning and morality. However, a reality based on subjective ideas is a fantasy and unlivable.
Also, a denial of God-given gender is a denial of the goodness of the natural world.[14]To say there are other categories outside the binary fights against the natural ways of our reproductive organs in which our creator ordered our bodies.
Any rebellion against this order by undergoing gender-reassignment surgery will lead to more trauma and risk of suicide, not less.[15]The struggle of gender dysphoria does not lie externally in the body but internally in the mind.
Hence, the Biblical story teaches that wholeness comes from internal transformation by the Spirit, not external transition by the flesh. This wholeness from gender dysphoria may not happen until the resurrection, but it can only come through embracing God’s good design of our bodies as male and female and that our gender is tied to them.[16]
Addressing Common Objections
Addressing Common Objections
At this juncture, I want to address two objections from Megan DeFranza that question the validity, goodness, and necessity of a gender binary. DeFranza, who comes from an evangelical background, has conducted extensive research to challenge the belief that the gender binary was the original design for human beings in God’s good creation.[17]
DeFranza concludes that Genesis 1-2 presents a spectrum of human gender rather than a strict binary that categorizes individuals as either male or female.[18]
She also argues that eunuchs do not fit into the male and female pattern described in Genesis 1-2, thereby establishing another category of persons outside the male/female binary.[19]Although they are not exhaustive, I will provide two adequate replies to address her objections.
Objection One: Gender is on a Spectrum
Objection One: Gender is on a Spectrum
First, contrary to DeFranza, Genesis 1-2 does not present a “spectrum” of human gender. DeFranza argues that “night” and “day” represent opposite extremes, creating a spectrum with other categories in between. For example, “dusk” and “dawn” fall between “night” and "day," and therefore do not fit into a binary category. Another example is amphibious creatures that do not fit the land or sea animal categories.[20]
If categories exist in the heavens and among animals that do not follow the binary pattern of “night” and “day” or “land animals” and “sea animals,” then we should allow for the existence of other genders that do not conform to the extreme opposites of male and female.
In response, Genesis 1 does not present two opposite extremes that create a spectrum; instead, God clearly distinguishes between “night” and “day” and “darkness” and “light” by separating the two.[21]Greg Allison states, “Difference or distinction, not a spectrum of intermediate realities, is emphasized textually.”[22]
Also, John Walton observed that the Ancient Near East viewed creation in functional rather than physical, realities. Therefore, if we consider the creation of night and day in this context, we should think of them not in terms of time but in their specific functions and purposes for God and His creatures. Thus, DeFranza’s interpretation, which introduces the concept of time (dusk and dawn) and describes day and night as polarities on a spectrum, is a different category than Genesis 1 represents.[23]
DeFranza makes a considerable leap in her interpretation of Genesis 1, arguing that the existence of amphibians allows for a “third gender” beyond male and female.[24]God created different types of animals: some that swim, some that fly, some that crawl, and some that can do a mixture of both.
However, when God created humans, He made only two types: male and female. There is no biblical evidence from Genesis to Revelation of a human being that is not either male or female (I will address the eunuch/intersex argument below).[25]
Moreover, although God created various kinds of animals, each animal was created as either male or female. Since God commanded animals to “be fruitful and multiply” and produce offspring “after their kind,” this act can only occur through a male and female binary.[26]Therefore, a straightforward reading of the text communicates the normative nature of the male and female binary.
Objection Two: Intersex Persons = Third Sex Outside of Male and Female.
Objection Two: Intersex Persons = Third Sex Outside of Male and Female.
Second, eunuchs and intersex people, while not fitting the usual biological makeup of male and female, are not “new” or in another sex category beyond the male and female binary. From Jesus’ teaching on divorce in Matthew 19:3-12, DeFranza argues that Jesus “names eunuchs as those who do not fit the pattern of male and female found in the passages of Genesis 1-2.”[27]
She then likens eunuchs to intersex people, proving that there is a non-binary category of human beings and places transgender people in this category as well. According to her, we should not see intersex people and even transgender people as a result of the fall but as part of God’s good design and proof that gender is non-binary.[28]
In response, DeFranza is speculating at best to claim that Jesus defines eunuchs in another category of persons other than male and female in Matthew 19.
First, it seems contradictory for Jesus to affirm that God made humans in the male and female binary in verse 4 and then create a new category outside of that binary in verse 12.
Second, Jesus never classified eunuchs as a different sex. Instead, he said they could not get married because they could not procreate. All three categories of eunuchs in Matthew 19 may not have fully functioning sexual organs, but this does not make them sexless. Eunuchs are still male or female even if they lack the normal development of sexual organs for procreation.[29]
Biological sex is not only defined by secondary sex characteristics (such as genital appearance or breast development). Instead, the most recent scientific evidence indicates that biological sex is primarily determined through chromosomal markers and the type of gametes produced.
According to Abigail Favale, “Even in the rarest CCSD [congenital conditions of sexual development], an individual can develop both ovarian and testicular tissue, but even in this case, he or she will produce one gamete or the other, not both. . . there is no direct evidence in the literature of a person able to produce both large and small gametes.”[30] The intersex condition does not communicate a third sex in between the male and female binary but instead refers to a “biologically based variation within maleness and femaleness.”[31]
This is also confirmed through the Intersex Society of North America reports that the majority of intersex people desire to adopt a male or female binary and are not seeking a genderless society or to create a third gender.[32]
Burk concludes that Jesus’s words in Matthew 19 “still rely on a binary conception of sex even when talking about eunuchs [and intersex people]. Those who suggest that eunuchs are sexless are not paying close attention to the text.”[33]Therefore, DeFranza’s argument fails because, based on both theological and scientific evidence, eunuchs and intersex people are still biological males or females and thus maintain the sex binary.
In summary, Creation reveals that the Biblical story of the goodness of a gender binary is better because it provides identity, purpose, our ability to be God’s image and relate with others. Yet, because of the Fall and humanity’s rebellion against God, our understanding of the goodness of being made male and female has been corrupted. We were once able to be naked and unashamed (Gen. 2:24), but now we are ashamed of our bodies due to sin (Gen. 3:8). Both the Transgender and Biblical stories provide answers to our bodily shame. Still, only the Biblical story can give the proper solution to the problem of our broken bodies through the incarnation and redemption of Jesus Christ, which points to the second reason for the goodness of a gender binary.
Incarnation and Redemption
Incarnation and Redemption
The incarnation and redemption of Jesus demonstrate the biblical story is better because we have a savior who can sympathize, help, and heal us. Even though the understanding of our bodies, sex, and gender has been twisted by the Fall, the incarnation of Jesus Christ proves that God has not abandoned the goodness of his original creation. If sin had destroyed the goodness of our sexuality and gendered bodies, then there would be no reason for God to make a way for that part of our nature to be redeemed.
Yet, because the eternal Son of God took on flesh, becoming an embodied sexed male, God declares that our sexed bodies are good and worthy of being redeemed and restored. Jesus becoming a full-sexed male to redeem humanity from sin shows that gender, both male and female, is not just an adjective description of humanity but is intricately connected to our identity as human beings made in God’s image.[34]
The New Testament affirms that Jesus became fully human, embodying the gender binary of creation (Rom. 1:3; 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Col. 1:22; Phil. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 2:14; 1 Jn. 1:1-4; 4:2; 2 Jn. 7). Jesus took on flesh to become our perfect representative.
Hebrews 2:14-18 states that Jesus had to assume “flesh and blood” and become like us in every way to free us from the power of Satan, sin, and death.[35]This includes becoming an embodied male.
Gregory of Nazianzus argues that to destroy the condemnation brought about by the flesh, Jesus had to take on that same flesh to sanctify and redeem it. Essentially, what is not assumed in the incarnation is not saved. Because the redemption of our sexed bodies as male and female matters to God, Jesus assumed a sexed body to redeem our broken bodies.
Jesus’s incarnation has significant implications for how we think about the goodness of sex and gender and the hope we can have in our broken bodies and minds being redeemed. The letter to the Hebrews teaches that Jesus not only took on flesh and became like us in every way to save us but also became like us in every way so that he could sympathize with our weakness and help us when we are tempted (Heb. 2:14-18; 4:14-16).
This means that Jesus is not immune to the shame and brokenness that people struggling with gender dysphoria feel. Jesus did not suffer from gender dysphoria, but as Sam Allberry and Andrew Walker say, Jesus suffered the ultimate dysphoria by being the perfect Son of God and was treated as a sinner on the cross. The one who knew no sin became sin, and he did that for us.[36]
Jesus can not only sit with us in the depths and brokenness of our sin, understanding the true human experience, but he also has the power to redeem our broken bodies because he is truly God. Through faith in Christ, our minds are also renewed, redeemed, and transformed, setting the stage for the restoration and transformation of our physical bodies in the eschaton. This illustrates the goodness and beauty of the incarnation and redemption of Jesus Christ for our embodied selves and further highlights the goodness and beauty of our binary gender as male and female.
In contrast, the Transgender story cannot offer true solutions to the brokenness of our bodies and minds. Transgender activists cannot heal the brokenness and distress in the minds of those with gender dysphoria. Their solution is to mutilate and damage the good body God has created, not heal it.
Their strategy is replacement, not redemption, and a recent study by Straub et al., has shown that sex reassignment surgery leads to more significant amounts of self-harm, PTSD, and suicide, not less.[37]Therefore, the Transgender story cannot offer solutions to the brokenness and shame we feel about our bodies from the effects of sin, but through the incarnation and redemption of Jesus, the Biblical story can.
Resurrection and Restoration
Resurrection and Restoration
The final reason the Biblical story of a gender binary is better is because it provides restoration and transformation of our broken bodies at the resurrection.
All four gospels and the New Testament letters describe Jesus’s resurrection as bodily. While some skeptics deny this and equate Jesus’s “appearances” with hallucinations,[38]the consensus of most historical scholars, particularly within the church, agree that Jesus rose bodily from the grave.[39]
Jesus’s post-resurrection body may have had new abilities, such as walking through walls, but it still retained the same form he had before his death. The continuity of Jesus’s body after his resurrection is crucial for two reasons.
1. God’s Creation is Not Destroyed, But Transformed and Perfected.
1. God’s Creation is Not Destroyed, But Transformed and Perfected.
First, it shows that God’s original creation of a gender binary is not destroyed or replaced in the resurrection but rather transformed and perfected.[40]In the Son’s incarnation, he took on the exact human nature Adam and Eve were given at creation. At his resurrection, Jesus does not discard the goodness of his biological sex but retains a male body. He has the same body and remains a biological male at his resurrection, and he will forever be as he sits at the Father's right hand. This further exemplifies the importance of our biological sex and gender being binary, intricately tied to who we are as humans. Jesus’ sexed body being retained and transformed in his resurrection shows that we were made male and female in creation, and we will remain male and female in the eschaton.[41]
2. Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection is the Firstfruits of Our Bodily Resurrection.
2. Jesus’ Bodily Resurrection is the Firstfruits of Our Bodily Resurrection.
Second, 1 Corinthians 15 teaches that Jesus’s bodily resurrection serves as the firstfruits that our bodily resurrection will resemble in the new creation. Just as Jesus was raised with his sexed body, we will also be raised with the sexed body we had before death.[42]This is true for two reasons.
First, Paul says the believer’s resurrected body is directly tied to the creation account in Genesis 1 by using a seed analogy of continuity and transformation (v. 35), listing the creation of plants and animals (v. 39) and heavenly bodies (v. 40-41).
Thus, Paul bases his argument for the resurrection on the order of creation, suggesting that we must understand our future resurrection by reflecting on the goodness of creation and recognizing how our resurrection will fulfill and complete God’s original design.[43]
Second, our resurrected bodies will be the same numerical ones God gave us at creation and be transformed and glorified. In v. 42-49, Paul clarifies that there is a discontinuity between the body that will die and the body that will be raised from the grave.
He illustrates this by analogy between a seed and a plant, showing they are not identical.[44]However, this difference does not imply that a different body is raised; rather, the same body will possess two different types of physical existence.
These are described as “earthly bodies” and “heavenly bodies.” However, “heavenly bodies” do not refer to immaterial bodies for two reasons. (1) The word soma always indicates a physical body in the New Testament. Therefore, both earthly and heavenly bodies are physical. (2) The verb pairings in this section relate to death and resurrected life, all connecting to the same subject: the perishable body. Thus, the body remains the same (and still physical), but its quality changes (earthly/heavenly, perishable/imperishable, mortal/immortal, dishonor/glory, weakness/power, natural/spiritual).[45]
Therefore, in the resurrection, our bodies will be transformed and fully glorified by the Spirit’s guidance while still retaining the sexed body and gender God gave us at Creation. We will rise again with the same body we now carry because our corrupted body is not replaced; instead, it is transformed and invested with glory (v. 53).[46] Thus, because Jesus bodily rose from the dead, our resurrection will align with His, and our identity as male and female will persist in the eschaton. The resurrection proves that our gender binary as male and female is not a curse but a gift and blessing from our benevolent Creator.
Conclusion
Conclusion
The transgender story promises freedom and salvation from the incongruent feelings one has concerning his or her body through gender reassignment surgery. Yet, it cannot deliver because it does not provide a stable identity, a teleological purpose, holistic healing, or an eternal hope. The transgender story cannot lead to human flourishing because it goes against the very purposes and design of our Creator.
In contrast, God’s story is better; it is the story that offers true salvation and true freedom from the struggles of gender dysphoria. It’s the story that provides a path to live out one’s divine design and find lasting identity, belonging, purpose, healing, and hope.
This salvation and freedom can only be experienced by embracing that God has made us male and female, and our sex binary is a beautiful and good blessing from God. As Andrew Walker says, this is the better story: a story that actually works.[47]
[1]I am using “transgenderism” to refer to “an ideology that aims to transform cultural understandings of sex and gender.” See Sean McDowell, Chasing Love: Sex, Love, and Relationships in a Confused Culture, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2020), 180.
[3]Ann Travers, The Trans Generation: How Trans Kids (and their Parents) Are Creating a Gender Revolution, (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2018), 16.
[4]Ibid, 171.
[5]K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 146.
[6]Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story, (New York, NY: Crown Publishing Group, 2018), 18.
[7]Andrew Walker, God and the Transgender Debate (United Kingdom: The Good Book Co., 2022), 56.
[8]Hollinger, Creation and Christian Ethics, 70.
[9]Michael Dellaperute, “Born This Way: The Intersex Objection and a Classical Defense of the Gender Binary and a Heteronormative Sexual Ethic” (PhD dissertation, Clarks Summit University, 2024), 149.
[10]J. Budziszewski, On the Meaning of Sex (Wilmington: ISI Books, 2012), 38-40. McCoy, “What It Means To Be Male and Female,” 146.
[11]John Paul II, Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body(Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media, 2006), 14.5.
[12]Gerald Hiestand, “Put Pain like That Beyond My Power,” in Beauty, Order, and Mystery: A Christian Vision of Human Sexuality, ed. by Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2017), 112.
[13]Some other reasons why God created us with a sex differentiation as male and female are: (1) The one-flesh union of marriage, (2) procreation, (3) To represent a picture of the gospel in the relationship of Christ and the Church. See S. John Hammett and J. Katie McCoy, Humanity, (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2023), 174-180.
[14]N.T. Wright, letter to the editor, Times (UK), August 3, 2017, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/.
[15]Straub JJ, et al. Risk of Suicide and Self-Harm Following Gender-Affirmation Surgery. Cureus. 2024 Apr 2;16(4):e57472. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57472. Erratum in: Cureus. 2024 Jun 11;16(6):c182. doi: 10.7759/cureus.c182. PMID: 38699117; PMCID: PMC11063965.
[16] P. Dennis Hollinger, Creation and Christian Ethics: Understanding God’s Designs for Humanity and the World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2023), 60.
[17]DeFranza, Sex Difference in Christian Theology, “Journeying From the Bible to Christian Ethics in Search of Common Ground,” in Two Views on Homosexuality, The Bible, and The Church, ed. by Preston Sprinkle, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), “Good News for Gender Minorities.”
[18]DeFranza, “Journeying from the Bible to Christian Ethics in Search of Common Ground,” 70-71.
[19]DeFranza, “Good News for Gender Minorities,” 157-173.
[20]DeFranza, “Journeying from the Bible to Christian Ethics in Search of Common Ground,” 70-71.
[21]Allison, “A Theology of Human Embodiment,” 119.
[22]Ibid, 119.
[23]John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 26-27.
[24]DeFranza, “Good News for Gender Minorities,” 177.
[25]Owen Strachan, “Transition or Transformation? A Moral-Theological Exploration of Christianity and Gender Dysphoria,” in Understanding Transgender Identities: Four Views, ed. by James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2019), 60.
[26]The necessity of this binary for the command to procreate would also apply to humans. Allison, “A Theology of Human Embodiment,” 119.
[27]DeFranza, “Good News for Gender Minorities,” 160.
[28]Ibid, 174-178.
[29]Denny Burk, What is the Meaning of Sex?, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 178; Yarhouse, Understanding Gender Dysphoria, 34.
[30]See Meltem Ozdemir et al., “Ovotesticular Disorder of Sex Development: An Unusual Presentation,” Journal of Clinical Imaging Science 9, no. 34 (2019), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6737443/; Favale also says, “even in the rarest CCSD [congenital conditions of sexual development] an individual can develop both ovarian and testicular tissue, but even in this case, he or she will produce one gamete or the other, not both.” Abigail Favale, The Genesis of Gender, (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2022), 129; Nancy Pearcy, Love Thy Body, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2018), 219-222.
[31]Favale, The Genesis of Gender, 125.
[32]April Herndon, “Why Doesn’t ISNA Want to Eradicate Gender?” Intersex Society of North America, FAQ, http://www.insa.org/faq/not_eradicating_gender.
[33]Burk, What is the Meaning of Sex?, 178.
[34]Wilson, Mere Sexuality, 46.
[35]R. Gregg Allison, Embodied: Living as Whole People in a Fractured World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2021), 119.
[36]Hebrews 4:14-16; Sam Allberry, What God Has to Say About Our Bodies: How the Gospel is Good News for our Physical Selves, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021), 123, 132.
[37]Straub JJ, et al. Risk of Suicide and Self-Harm Following Gender-Affirmation Surgery. Cureus. 2024 Apr 2;16(4):e57472. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57472. Erratum in: Cureus. 2024 Jun 11;16(6):c182. doi: 10.7759/cureus.c182. PMID: 38699117; PMCID: PMC11063965.
[38]Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, (Third Edition New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 276; John Dominic Crossan, A Long Way from Tipperary: A Memoir(San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2000), 164-165; Gerd Ludemann, The Resurrection of the Messiah (Oxford University Press, USA, 2011), 163-164.
[39]N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003); Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2010); James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15:3-5,” New Testament Studies, Vol. 60, Issue 04, (2014): 475-498.
[40]Oliver O’ Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Leiscster, UK: IVP Press, 1994), 31.
[41]Matthew Mason, “The Wounded It Heals,” in Beauty, Order, and Mystery: A Christian Vision of Human Sexuality, ed. by Gerald Hiestand and Todd Wilson, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017), 139.
[42]Wilson, Mere Sexuality, 48.
[43]Mason, “The Wounded It Heals,” 141.
[44]Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 344.
[45]James Ware explains that our resurrection bodies will be the same numerical bodies we have before death by highlighting the sequence of paired verbs Paul uses in verses 36-49. See James Ware, “The Resurrection of Jesus in the Pre-Pauline Formula of 1 Cor 15:3-5,” New Testament Studies, Vol. 60, Issue 04, (2014), 486.
[46] John Calvin and John Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 61.
[47]Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 99.