The most important observation would be that Ms. Hall certainly does not believe that Adam, Eve, or Jesus actually existed. She is simply interested in using scripture as a joke to support her transgender agenda and belief. Her premises must be accepted in order to reach her tortured conclusion. Her arrogance is stunning.
The worst offenders are the Christian’s who claim to take the Bible literally. Of course they don’t actually do that; they impose their own filters on stories and phrases to fit their particular ideology. If they really did as they claim to do, they would quickly see that Jesus must be, by their own exegetical rules, the first transgender male.
The teaching of the church from ancient days through today is that Jesus received his fleshly self from Mary. The church also teaches that Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve.
Saying that Jesus “received his fleshly self from Mary” is shaded and adds spin to the idea that he was born of Mary. And to say that “the church teaches” that “Jesus is the new Adam, born of the new Eve” suggests an attribution that is not established, and a definition that is essentially dictionary manipulation.
Now Eve is a fascinating creature for many reasons. The Bible tells us she is the first example of human cloning, which I touched on in this post. But the fun doesn’t stop there. If we take the Genesis account in it’s literal meaning, as conservative Christians demand that we do, she is also the first case of a transgender woman. God reached into Adam, pulled out a bit of rib bone, and grew Eve from that XY DNA into Adam’s companion. She was created genetically male, and yet trans-formed into woman.
Modern genetics may suggest that Eve came from Adam's DNA, but we cannot say for certain. For that matter, we don't know how an entire grown being could spring from a rib bone. To put modern limitations or parameters on how God created Eve from Adam is a misrepresentation of how God works. Stunning presumption on the part of Ms. Hall. However, once created Eve was recognized as a woman by herself, by God, and by Adam. No confusion there. She bore children, she was female partner to Adam. She did not change day to day according to how she “felt.”
Then along comes 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, and yet trans-formed into man.
Exactly what the scripture means when indicating the Holy Spirit came upon Mary is wholly unknown. In fact, it is clear that it took more than Mary and her XX chromosomes to produce the baby Jesus with XY chromosomes, but in reading the New Testament it is clear that Jesus was all male, with no ambiguity whatever. He was perceived as male, acted male, and certainly in the Jewish religious culture was recognized as a male teacher and prophet. Suggesting that Jesus was “cloned” from Mary is Ms. Halls flight of imagination rather than a scriptural interpretation.
A quick look at the dictionary for the prefix “trans” tells us that it means “across,” “beyond,” “through,” and “changing thoroughly,” all of which are great terms for the person of Christ. He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations.
In his person, and in his salvific actions, Jesus is truly the first and forever trans man.
It is interesting that Ms. Hall ends her preposterous blog by saying of Christ that “He cuts across all boundaries. He is beyond our understanding. He is through all and in all. He changes us thoroughly into new creations.” That does not sound confused at all. It does not suggest any sense that Jesus was anything other than a “He,” or that there was any difficulty in recognizing his gender or perceived gender. It is true that Christ changes us thoroughly into new creations (if we allow and embrace him), and so if Ms. Hall is saying that He is a transitional figure, that would certainly be accurate.
The bottom line is that Ms. Hall is trying to be cute by blaspheming Christ. She is not cute, nor does she make her point. In fact, her poor reasoning suggests just how specious the entire transgender debacle is. It is not a serious consideration of genetics any more than Ms. Halls posting is a serious consideration of scripture, rather it is nothing more than an attempt to trample the rights and the common sense understanding of the many to establish the preposterous LGBTQ agenda of the few.