Adam, Eve, and Robertson’s View Rebutted

Josh Klein
Aug 15
14 min read

Updated: Oct 30

As I sat down to write a review of Brandan Robertson’s book Queer and Christian (see review here: Queer and Christian Review) I quickly came to the realization that I would need to choose between reviewing the book and refuting the arguments. While I addressed some of the arguments in the review I left much on the cutting room floor. However, given that Robertson declares that the arguments he offers in this book are,

“…the best arguments to disarm the anti-queer interpretation of these texts.” (pg. XXIV)

I think that it behooves a rejoinder. Generally, I have seen Robertson’s book mostly ignored by conservatives. This is a mistake. Most of the arguments aren’t novel but they would be new to many people sitting in churches today. However ordinary these arguments are they are continuing to gain traction among evangelicals, especially those that have been led astray by the feminist and queer theory of the day. A refusal to step into the ring to address these claims is tantamount to giving up the game before the ball is tipped. Much like Robertson’s book, my attempt at addressing his arguments is not about convincing Robertson he is wrong, I doubt I will, nor is it about convincing the LGBTQ+ activist as that is nearly impossible. The goal here is to show that orthodox Christian scholarship can and does refute these arguments soundly. Again, at some point I would love an opportunity to address these claims with Robertson face to face but until then written rejoinders will have to suffice. In part two of Robertson's book he sets out to "reclaim the Bible" from historical interpretations of certain concepts and texts that he sees as anti-queer. What Robertson sees as reclaiming the Bible would, in my opinion, better be described as

co-opting.

Most of his arguments in this section are not based in historical orthodox scholarship but on revisionist theology tethered primarily to critical theory and liberation theology. Let's get into his first argument.

Chapter 10 – It’s Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve

Robertson starts at the beginning: Genesis. He sees the narrative surrounding the creation of the first humans as having more to do with companionship than procreation and more to do with defeating loneliness than accomplishing the creation mandate. He also indicates, early in the section, that the creation story in Genesis is:

“…an ancient collection of poems and stories intended to tell the origin of the Jewish people.” (Pg. 57)

Perhaps Robertson means to point to the entirety of Genesis. However, a later quote seems to show this is not his intention:

“Genesis Chapter 1 begins with a poem describing how god created and organized the world, then explains how God created Jewish people. Most people skip over this important context: Genesis isn’t a description of the creation of all of humanity, but rather, the creation of the Jewish people in particular.” (pg. 58)

This is quite the claim, and a claim for which there is no source linked. Robertson links two works for understanding Genesis. One from a more traditional perspective (Discovering Genesis: Content, Interpretation, Reception by Iain Provan) and one from a textual critical perspective: Reading Genesis: Ten Methods edited by Ronald Hendel. Neither source supports the claim made that the creation narrative is intended to be a description of the origin of the Jewish people rather than the world at large. Both sources are likely supposed to support the following quote even though it seems as though Robertson is using the sources to prop up the larger thesis that the creation narrative was about the origination of the Jewish people:

“The practices, beliefs, and worldview preceded the written story” (pg. 58).

To which I would say, “yes of course they were” but that does not justify the reinterpreting of these stories into being something they are not. The creation account is not about how the Jewish people came to be but is meant as a refutation of other ancient near-east creation myths and as such is meant to explain the existence of the universe in total. Robertson goes on to say:

“The first humans who appear in Genesis 1 are not described as either male or female, but as simply humans who are given the command to “be fruitful and multiply (v. 28), without any indication that there was a proper joining together of males and females in anything like what we would call marriage” (pgs. 58-59)

This claim is both true and false. The truth in this claim lays in the fact that the words “man” and “woman” are not used in relation to marriage until Genesis 2. This is true, but what can we really extrapolate from that? If Genesis 2 is a focused creation narrative on humanity we would expect the institution to be there to help explain the command uttered in 1:28. How are they to be fruitful and multiple? Genesis 2 answers this question. Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to work in tandem. The falseness of this claim is in the conflation of two different Hebrew words. Robertson makes the claim that ish (Hebrew for male) and isha(Hebrew for female) are not used until Genesis 2. This is true but

ish (pronounced: eesh)

and

isha (pronounced eeshah)

are not the primary words for male and female. There is a bit of Hebrew word play happening here in the narrative.

refers to the man betrothed to the

isha.

The two sexes are based in the same root within themselves the

Isha

is derived out of the

Ish

just as Eve is created from Adam's rib. This is a set up for marriage between the two beings as Genesis 2 is set to introduce the concept and institution of marriage or

one-flesh union

(joining the two halves that were pulled apart). However, these are not the only two words for male and female, in fact, God introduces his created human beings as male (Zakar) and female (Neqeba) in Genesis 1:27 but Robertson leaves this detail out. An answer as to why he leaves out this detail lies in his use of the term “

gendered”

in reference to the terms

ish

and

isha

. While male and female refer to a biological reality some have argued that

ish

and

isha

refer to gendered reality. Ironically, Robertson’s appeal to the Talmud later in the chapter will undermine this understanding of the Hebrew concept of gender and sexuality. Regardless, a culture have different language to explain the same reality is common. We do the same:

man, gentleman, lady, woman, madam, sir, guy, girl

... These all reflect the same reality in different settings. Hebrew does the same thing with male and female. This language use is not a hint at gender identity it is simply how language commonly works. Robertson will go on to claim then that Genesis 2 is speaking to companionship while Genesis 1 is focused on procreation. Robertson gets to his point on page 61:

“To zero in and say, “Well, Adam was a biological male, and Eve was a biological female, and thus, all relationships can only reflect his pattern” is like saying, “Well, it was a boy who cried wolf, so only boys must tell lies.” That was not Aesop’s intention – it’s missing the forest for the trees.”

But this is a false analogy. Adam and Eve were meant to model something, God indicates such in Genesis 2 and Jesus ratifies this in Matthew 19:4-6. Aesop’s fable is about lying but the creation myth (if it is a myth)

about the first marriage. Finally, notice how Robertson broadens his claim to say, “all relationships can

only

reflect this patter.” No conservative scholar would say that “all relationships” are structured this way. In fact, the claim is about a very specific type of relationship: The marriage relationship. Of course there are other types of important and meaningful relationships but none of them are possible without the first marriage relationship. It is this particular kind of relationship that gives rise and life to all others. Drilling down into that Genesis 2 passage one would find the word “ezer” in describing the “help” that the woman is to provide. However, the question then must be asked: With

what

is she intended to help? His loneliness? After all, was Adam REALLY alone? God was with him, he had just named and organized all of the animals, but none was found that was “suitable” for

HIM.

This leaves a solitary possibility, his mandate: “Be fruitful and multiple.” Robertson states that there are two primary lessons of the creation story. The first is about the imago dei and while I may disagree with some nuances, I think we can both agree that this is the case. Yes, human beings, all human beings, whether I agree with their ideology or lifestyle or not, are made in God’s image and deserve dignity and respect because of that. The problem lies in his second observation. His second observation focuses on human loneliness. That it is not good for man to be alone. Robertson then broadens this out to all relationships. These relationships do matter of course but the creation narrative is not about them. It is about the type of relationship that can accomplish the goal given to the first man. A particular type of relationship. It is not about companionship, for we as humans can find some type of companionship with animals and certainly should find companionship with the God that created us. The goal to be fruitful, multiple and subdue (or correctly order) the earth though can only be accomplished by a one flesh type of relationship. Man cannot do this alone. It is impossible to accomplish this divine command in isolation. We are not asexual creatures that can self-procreate. When God gives a helper to Adam to accomplish this task it is not to solve his problem of loneliness (though that is a fortunate biproduct!) but to solve the issue of fulfilling the first divine command. God does not give Adam a good friend, business partner or romantic companion but rather he gives Adam a

mate

. Only a partner with the capability of bearing children can help accomplish this command, and this partnership is not one of subservience but of necessary symbiosis. If God had given Adam another Adam, then it would still have been impossible to accomplish his task. Creation still would have been

not good

even if Adam was not

alone

. Thus, the female companion is a necessary component to the finality of the “very good”-ness of creation. To say otherwise is to cheapen the God ordained differences between he sexes and to render Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 impotent. It is simply a fact of the matter that a same-sex relationship could never accomplish the initial task for which humanity was created. While loneliness might be solved, for a time, the command in Genesis 1:28 would be left undone and it would be God’s fault! No, this story is about more than companionship. More than loneliness. It is about God’s divine plan for human thriving, and this revolves around the seminal relationship in all creation and the apex relationship for which all of creation was oriented. It is only through the one-flesh partnership of Adam and Eve that the building blocks for order, civilization and procreation can even be accomplished. To divorce the creation narrative from this distinction is to remove some of its power and to explode the primary relationship on which civilization was built. At the end of the chapter, Brandan Robertson offers a text box blurb called a “quick response.” In it, he gives his readers ammunition for rebutting the marriage and sexuality argument based on Genesis 1 and 2. It looks like this:

This response falls flat for a few reasons. The first of which is explained in the above paragraphs but there are at least two other flaws with this reasoning. First, this “objection” is an informal (as well as an attempt at crude humor)

reductio ad absurdum

argument. It shows that the principled intent of marriage is procreation (fulfillment of Gen. 1:28) and this cannot be accomplished alone and cannot be accomplished in tandem with someone of the same sex. While it is crude, a rebuttal elevating companionship above procreation does not address the core argument which is something like:

If marriage is established in Genesis 2:24 as fulfilment of God’s creative work in Gen 1:27 to accomplish the command of Gen 1:28 which is reiterated in Gen. 2:20-22 and is ratified in Jesus’ affirmation of “from the beginning” in Matthew 19 then it stands to reason that biblical marriage is only that which, in principle, can help to accomplish such a task.

The final reason Robertson’s “response” does not work is that it starts with a non-sequitur. Whether the first two chapters are poetry, mythology or history is of no matter. Even if the first two chapters are poetry the burden of proof lies on Robertson to show how this poem allows for same-sex marriage within that framework. The warping of the poetry to fit this interpretation would indicate an eisegetical reading of the text. Whether or not this text is literal or poetry the question is: What does it plainly teach about mankind, its relationships and its general purpose on this earth? Punting to poetry to avoid objective implications of the passage is inappropriate exegesis. A straightforward reading, even in poetry, would not allow for the type of forced interpretation offered by Robertson. Robert Shenk puts it this way, and I think he is correct:

“It is not simply that Adam had no one to speak with or commune with. He had that in God. We the readers have seen this. And we have also seen that God himself was not alone before Adam. Now we are about to learn that the aloneness of Adam is highlighted in order to display the nature of God by the creation, not merely of Eve, but of Woman for marriage to the Man. Marriage is the climactic creation flourish of God which completes the image of God in his human wilful-creatures.” (pgs 43-44)

In sum, this “quick response” fails on multiple levels both in rhetoric and in content. It fails to address the core contention, it ignores or reinterprets

Genesis 1:27-28

to suit its own ends, and redefines marriage because of that reinterpretation or lack of acknowledgement.

The final argument in this chapter lies in the final paragraph on page 62. I addressed this briefly in my review but want to take it on directly here.

“The Talmud notes the existence of eight different gender identities ranging from

zachar

, meaning biological make;

nekevah

, meaning biological female;

androgyno

s, meaning those who have characteristics of both genders;

tumtum

, meaning those who have no distinct gender identity; and even categories for what we would consider transgender:

saris hamah

and

saris adam

for those born male but who later transition to female, and

aylonit hamah

and

aylonit adam

for those born female but who later transition to male.” (pgs. 62-63)

To source this claim Robertson links to Rachel Scheinerman of the website “my Jewish learning.” Hidden at the bottom of this article is this gem in the final paragraph:

“In recent decades, queer Jews and allies have sought to reinterpret these seven genders of the Talmud as a way of reclaiming a positive space for nonbinary Jews in the tradition. The starting point is that

while it is true that the Talmud understands gender to largely operate on a binary axis

, the rabbis clearly understood that not everyone fits these categories.” (emphasis mine)

Notice, hidden in the source is the concept that Talmudic Judaism did

not

historically recognize “eight different gender identities” but that the “

Talmud understands gender to largely operate on a binary axis.

” What does this mean? This means that there is an effort to reinterpret what the Talmudic tradition communicated into a framework based on gender ideology when this was not the original or natural intent in the plane text. This is akin to how gender ideologues view Jesus’ teaching on Eunuch’s in Matthew 19. So, let’s take a quick look at each “gender expression” in the Talmud and how it more closely reflects how to categorize biological anomalies rather than explode the normative understand of sex and biology. The terms

Zachar

and

Nekavah

are obvious enough as they are used in Genesis 1 to refer to male and female and herein lies the reason for the Talmud’s extension of other words to describe aberrations. While the Hebrew Bible certainly shows that, in a pre-fall context, it is obvious that human beings were created as

male

and

female

(note, none of these other descriptors are used in the Creation narrative which would, even according Talmudic teachings, indicate that these other words are describing a “post-fall” reality) there are certainly some biological aberrations to deal with. So, let’s deal with them:

Androgynos

This is a Greek term from which we get our term “androgynous”. An “Androgynos” was simply intersex. A biological aberration. Interestingly, an Androgynos could not be taken as a wife nor could he dress as a woman. Far from being a “gender identity” this category was meant to give Rabbis direction in how to deal with people born with

intersex

(formerly known as hermaphroditism) traits. This is a biological phenomenon, not a psychological one and one we have a category for and treatment for today.

Tumtum

A “Tumtum” was an exceedingly rare medical condition where a person had indeterminate sexual organs. They were either male or female but at birth it was difficult to tell because a membrane, sometimes referred to as “skin” obscured the sexual organs and often led to infertility. However, there is a story of a Tumtum fathering seven children. But again, this is a biological phenomenon, not a psychological one, nor does it have anything to do with gender.

“There is no ambiguity about the gender of a tumtum. We just need to get a glimpse of the genitals. (The eleventh century dictionary known as the

Aruch

connects the word tumtum with the word atum (

אטום), meaning sealed.) The problem is that the genitals are covered by what is usually described as skin. Once this cover is surgically opened, the gender will be revealed.”

Saris Hamah and Saris Adam

Robertson mentions these two as if they are different gender identities but they are simply references to different circumstances leading to the same sexual anomaly. Mainly – eunuchs. A

Saris Hamah

is a person born with ambiguous genitalia or a defect in which their genitalia is malformed which renders them infertile. They are presumed to be a male until they go through puberty and start to exhibit female characteristics but are infertile. Modern science has taken much of the guesswork out of this condition. A modern analog would be Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. This is a condition to be treated not an identity to be affirmed. However, a

Saris Adam

is someone who had surgery to remove his genitalia: a Eunuch. This was not often done voluntarily and if it was only if it was a physically medical necessity. In no way does this prove the existence of “transgenderism” in the colloquial sense. These people were either unfortunately deformed or unfortunately mutilated against their will.

“On the basis of this evidence, such people are categorized as either

saris

in the male case (usually translated as “eunuch,” but better translated as “sterile,” the assumption being that he can in fact have sexual relations,

Mishnah

Yevamot

8:4

), or

ailonit

in the female case, a Hebrew term that the Babylonian Talmud explains pseudo-etymologically as a “ram-like” woman (

Ketubbot

11a).”

Aylonit Hamah and Aylonit Adam

This is the opposite version of the

Saris

. In this situation the person presents as female but is infertile. They may develop

some

male characteristics later in life but are presumed to be infertile. Recent medical studies have identified this group of people as those that suffer from

Turner’s Syndrome

and again, are not gender identities. The

Ay’lonit Adam

is, again, one that has been mutilated to resemble those born with this condition. Modern ideologues have used these clear medical cases as fulcrums for reading gender ideology into ancient Judaism but this is ahistorical and dangerous. All of these supposed “gender-identities” can be found to be specific medical conditions or forced mutilations and thus they undermine the very case the gender activists seek to make.

“However, the halakhic literature nowhere suggests that the saris or the ailonit are in fact not “really” man or woman. Importantly, and in contrast to late ancient physiognomy (see below), the goal of decoding such signs is not to establish or to undermine a mere appearance of genuine masculinity or femininity and to detect a hidden effeminacy, but to infer a potential incapacity to reproduce before marriage is contracted.”

The reason the Talmud addresses these issues is not because these Jews had a sense of gender-identity but because procreative ability was an important marker for marital contracts to be ratified and expectations of marriage set. In Judaism it is a husband and wife’s duty to bear children but if one gets married to a person with these conditions it is impossible to bear children and so special cases require specific guidance from the leaders of the day.

Conclusion

So, what did we learn? First that Robertson’s reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not only heterodox but lies outside the realm of a majority of good historical scholarship and second that his proofs in both the Talmud and in the reading of Genesis 2 with a “queer” lens are found bankrupt. His arguments simply do not work when presented with the historical, biblical, philosophical and contextual evidence. God did, indeed, create Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve for a reason. And while I would not recommend Christians using this crass form of argumentation it does get at the heart of the matter. Marriage, as established in Genesis 2 is for the benefit of humanity as the apex of creation was in the one flesh union of Adam and His wife Eve (according to Karl Barth anyway) and demonstrated that the image of God is made most complete in humanity within the structure of heterosexual marriage which joins the two parts made from one in Genesis 2. Which is why marriage is upheld as a symbol of God and the Church in the New Testament. No such arguments, even if formulated with clever wording and reasoning from critical theory, can dismantle this core truth of scripture. Thank you, Next.