Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities

Four Crucial Questions: Taking Seriously the Differences between the Leviticus text and
the Romans text. (Lev 18:2; 20:13 and Romans 1:24-27)

Question

Why the prohibition of male-male anal intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13

(unique in the Ancient Near East)?

Question

Why the omission of any reference to female same-sex relations here in Leviticus

and indeed in the entire Bible (Gen 19, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10 and Jude 7 explicitly designate

only males; Rom 1:26-27 probably fitting the same pattern).

Question

What is Paul’s intention in Rom 1:26-27, where his letter rhetorically echoes the

Leviticus prohibitions (without actually laying down any law or command)--but then in the

remaining chapters largely deconstructs the elements of the sexual ideology present in the

rhetoric of Rom 1:24-27?

Question

If Rom 1:26 refers to female homoeroticism, why does Paul rhetorically amplify

the Leviticus prohibitions of male-male anal intercourse to include females?

Question

If Rom 1:26 refers to heterosexual anal sex, why does Paul rhetorically amplify

the Leviticus prohibitions of male-male anal intercourse to include females who offer

themselves to males?

Writers on Rom 1:26-27 commonly confuse questions regarding Leviticus with those about

Romans, posing the question generally: “Why the prohibition of male same-sex intercourse?”

(Gagnon 2001:128-142; see Brooten 1996:245-53), instead of taking seriously the

differences between Leviticus (18:22; 20:13—legal prohibitions referring only to males) and

Romans (1:24-27, in a letter consisting of rhetorical persuasion, addressed to and referring to

women as well as men). On the more popular level confusion is multiplied by lumping all the

questions under the modern term “homosexual/ity” (referring primarily to the sexual orientation

of persons, and always implying that lesbians are included). The above four questions, of

course, are crucial for any efforts to treat the Bible as normative—or even as a traditional

source of human wisdom for judicial decisions—because if our answers simply point to ancient

culturally limited conditions that are no longer universally applicable, the texts come to be

treated more as a curiosity for the entertainment/edification of Bible students, rather than as

of transcendent importance and authority for contemporary churches and societies.

Conncectiong the Dots, Linking the Trees, Exploring the Forest

1 The connection with idolatry

. Most commonly, both in the cases of Leviticus and

Romans, scholars have pointed to the prominent references to idolatry (Lev 18:21-22, 1-5, 24-

30; 20:1-5, 22-24, 27; Rom 1:18-23, with v. 25 inserted in the very center of the rhetoric

against unclean sexual practices (1:24, 26-27). Matthew Kuefler would even specify that Paul’

s intention is to denounce pagan cultic prostitution (2001:257, 383-84, note 55; see above,

Section 9). Robert Gagnon admits that “Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been

the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel” (2001:130). Given

the idolatrous context of the sexual activities referred to, references to those practicing male-

male anal intercourse are viewed as comparable to the eating of meat sacrificed to idols,

where it is not the eating of meat itself that is condemned, but such an act as an expression of

idolatrous worship and lifestyle (1 Cor 8-10; cf Rom 14:1-15:13). Gagnon objects that the

prohibitions of male-male anal sex are sandwiched between prohibitions of incest, bestiality

and adultery (2001:129-132), but such practices also are often linked with idolatrous, pagan

lifestyles (see the “Strange Woman” in Proverbs). The multiple prohibitions of incest in both

Lev 18 and 20 would reflect the concern that procreation of progeny and heirs take place in

the context of stable households where women are protected against male predators (Milgrom

2000:1567; similarly with reference to adultery). Specialists in ancient legal documents remind

us that a prohibition may remain unchanged over centuries, while the original motivation may

be forgotten and be successively replaced by other motivations.

2 The connection with oppression, violence, child abuse, pederasty

. Just as the

“Exodus paradigm” of Yahweh’s liberation of oppressed Israelite slaves constitutes the heart

of the Pentateuch, including the “Holiness Code” (Lev 17-26; Hanks 1982/83), so in Romans,

God’s wrath against all idolatry and “oppression” (1:18, 29; 2:8; 3:5) provides the framework

for the treatment of God’s giving over the Gentiles to enslavement to lust and sexual

uncleanness (1:24-27). Similarly, the reference to male sexual misbehaviour (arsenokoitai) in

1 Cor 6:8-10 is subsumed in a vice list headed by “oppression,” and in the vice list in 1 Tim 1:

12 the same term is immediately linked to slave trade (capturing youths for abuse in

prostitution). For Biblical writers the idolatry of successive empires was denounced as

providing the religious rationalization for oppression and sexual abuse of the weak by the

strong (Rom 1:18). Thus understood, Paul’s negative rhetorical description of Gentile sexual

uncleanness (1:24-27) is not basically concerned with the gender of the partner, but with

raging sexual desires leading to abuses of power that harm the weak (see above, Sections 1,

oppression-violence-rape; 3, covetousness; and 8, on paedophilia). Contextually interpreted,

then, the rhetoric of Rom 1:24-27 does not aim to propound some new abstract universal

“sexual ethic,” a new law condemning all homoeroticism, but to persuade Paul’s audience to

manifest solidarity with him in his proclamation of a law-free gospel and in the establishment of

inclusive, subversive churches throughout Nero’s empire.

3 “A procreative dead end” (Gagnon 132-34)

. In the case of the priestly Holiness Code in

Leviticus (reflecting the priestly creation mandate to “be fruitful and multiply,” Gen 1:28, P),

the most apparent intent of the laws is to maximize procreation in the disastrous post/exilic

context (Jacob Milgrom 2000:1565-70; cf 1748-50, 1784-90). Much of Leviticus 18 and 20

reads like manuals for maximizing population growth (avoid child sacrifice and sex with

menstruating women, animals and other males). Sarah Melcher points to the relation

between priestly procreation concerns with patrilineal inheritance and just land distribution, as

defended in the Jubilee laws of Lev 25 (1996:98-99). However, unlike the post/exilic priests,

Plato, the Stoics, Philo and Josephus, Paul shared with Jesus an apocalyptic perspective that

made him singularly disinterested with the procreation of more children (Rom 13:11-14; 1 Cor

7; 9:5; cf Matt 19:12; Brooten 252). For Paul, the quite limited and dubious value of

heterosexual marriage had to do with reducing excessive sexual desire (“burning”) and

satisfying the emotional needs of couples who were unable to discipline their passions (1 Cor

7:2-5, 9, 36; Brooten 1996:248, note 97; quite different are Eph 5: 21-33, 1 Tim 2:15 and Tit 2:

4, all from Paul’s later disciples).

4 Unholy mixing of semen with excrement

. According to Saul Olyan, in the case of

Leviticus, “male-male anal intercourse may have been proscribed in order to prevent the

mixing of two otherwise defiling substances [excrement and semen] and thereby prevent the

defilement of the land of Israel” (1994:203). Steven Bigger points out that the explicit concern

in Leviticus 18 and 20 is not the mixing of semen with excrement, but with menstrual blood (18:

19) and Robert Gagnon objects that there is not corresponding prohibition against

heterosexual anal intercourse (2001:134-35), but Leviticus hardly offers itself as a complete

sex manual (nothing about masturbation, oral or intercrural sex, cross-dressing or eunuchs; cf

Deut 22:5 and 23:1). In the case of Romans, however, all such interpretations overlook Paul’s

radical deconstruction of the clean/unclean distinction (Rom 1:24 à 14:14, 20; see Section 5

above).

5 Gender Discomplementarity as a Violation of the Created Order (Gagnon 135-142;

cf Brooten 1996:264-66)

. Elsewhere, in 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul uses, but also subverts, gender

hierarchy; see Gal 3:28; Rom 16). In 1 Cor 11 Paul employs rhetoric heavy with gender

hierarchy references, not to reinforce gender hierarchy per se, nor to deny women positions

of leadership, but for the simple goal of maintaining the cultural tradition of women’s head

coverings when prophesying and praying in the assembly and thus avoid the kind of

unnecessary offense that would render evangelism ineffective. Notably, in the course of the

20th century, almost all traditionalists relegated half a chapter of commands and supporting

rhetoric regarding women’s head coverings to the sagging shelf of biblical items deemed

culture-bound and no longer literally applicable to modern cultures--yet left unquestioned two

verses regarding sexual behaviour in Rom 1:26-27 (despite the references to “nature” in both

texts).

In 1 Cor 11:1-16 Paul does seek to maintain elements of the symbolism of gender distinction

and social hierarchy: head coverings for women when praying and prophesying (Brooten,

correctly, 1996:252). However, just as the Apostle deconstructs the ideology and supporting

rhetoric regarding “nature/against nature” (1:26-27à 2:14, 28; 11:24), so gender distinctions

and social hierarchy also get deconstructed (especially in Rom 16; Gal 3:28; and even in 1

Cor 11:11-12; cf. Brooten 191). The Apostle’s apocalyptic disinterest in procreation is one

factor that enabled him to deconstruct the entire ideology promoting acts that are “natural”

and condemning any acts “against nature” (Rom 11:24). Just as Jesus escaped Mary’s

pressure to marry in John 2 (the wedding at Cana) and instead taught his disciples to “bear

fruit” metaphorically (John 4:36; 12:24; 15:2, 2, 2, 4-5, 8, 16, 16), so Paul rejected literal

procreation and refers to “bearing fruit” (Rom 1:13; 6:21-22; 7:4-5; 15:28). Robert Gagnon’s

insistence that Paul seeks to perpetuate a sexual ideology of male-female “complementarity”

is a variation of gender hierarchy concepts (Brooten points out that “complementarity” is

modern shorthand jargon for patriarchal male superiority).

6 The connection with covering/excessive desire

. Roy Bowen Ward concludes that

Rom 1:26-27 possibly “represents an antihedonistic, pro-procreation argument typical of

Hellenistic Jews who wish to set themselves apart from the pleasure-oriented Romans” (1997:

284). He also considers possible Brooten’s interpretation of Paul as arguing from “an

independent active/passive, gender hierarchical idea” (294) rather than the antihedonistic,

pro-procreational tradition. However, as Dale Martin (1995) and David Fredrickson (2000)

have shown (section 3 above), what Paul opposes in Rom 1:24-27 is not pleasure per se, but

excess desire. As the epistle unfolds the Apostle makes clear that this “excess” of desire is

defined, not by how much fun it is, but as that which leads to harming the neighbour (abuses

of power, oppression, injustice that make peaceful community life impossible; Rom 13:8-10;

Hanks 2000; Philip Esler, Rom 12-15). The Greek antihedonistic tradition was not echoed due

to any opposition to pleasure per se, but only in so far as the pleasures in question involved

coveting (excessive desire) that destroyed community.

7 The rhetorical trap

. What all these positions overlook, however, is that Romans is not

Leviticus and Paul’s intention in his rhetoric in 1:18-32 in the context of the epistle is not to be

equated with legal material like the prohibitions of male-male anal sex in Lev 18:22 and 20:13.

Paul does not simply present an “argument” that reveals his intentions—he prepares a

rhetorical trap: his rhetoric seeks first to reflect and appeal to the prejudices of his audience,

not simply and rationally expound his own viewpoint. When we recognize that in 1:18-32 Paul

is laying his first rhetorical trap, we can understand how three of the key elements in his

rhetoric get deconstructed as the letter unfolds (allowing only his critique of coveting,

excessive desire that harms the neighbour, to stand). The first rhetorical trap (1:18-2:16)

catches the “homophobes” (be they Gentiles or Jews); the second (9:1-11:36) entraps “anti-

Semites” (who despise Judaism; see Countryman, Section 5 above).

Of course, we may be confident that certain elements in Rom 1:18-32 really do reflect the

Apostle’s own convictions: God as the unique creator whose wrath is manifest against all

idolatry, injustice, oppression, and violence (1:18-23, 25, 28-32)—behaviour that fails to

manifest love for God and neighbor. And even in 1:24, 26-27 the rhetoric against coveting

(excessive desire leading to acts that harm the neighbour) continues as a norm for behaviour

throughout the letter. However, the fact that Paul deconstructs the elements in his rhetoric

regarding behaviour that is “unclean,” “unnatural” and resulting in social shame, makes clear

that he does not intend to construct any “ethical absolute” against all non-procreative sexual

behaviours, nor against any that subvert traditional gender hierarchy (or “complementarity”),

be they heterosexual or homoerotic. What survives the deconstruction process as

transcendent norm for the churches is the prohibition of coveting (excessive desire that harms

neighbour and destroys community solidarity) and the command to love neighbour (13:8-14).

In his conclusion Roy Ward Bowen (1997:284) cites as something Paul opposed in Rom 1:26-

27 a saying common in first-century Pompeii:

May whosoever loves (amat) prosper,

May he perish who knows not to love (amare);

May he twice perish, whoever forbids to love (amare).

Bowen concludes that Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:26-27 would fall under the anathema of

this saying. To the contrary, if we follow Paul’s letter to its conclusion, Paul (even more

radically than Jesus), sets forth as the supreme norm for human behaviour that of inclusive

love for neighbour that does no harm (13:8-10). Although the Apostle does not repeat Jesus’

specific words about wholehearted love for God as the first and greatest commandment, in the

structure of Romans and its theology, glorifying and praising God undoubtedly should be

understood as concrete manifestations of such love for God (note loving praise of God at the

climactic points in the letter’s structure: 11:33-36; 15:7-13; 16:25-27).

A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:24-27 in its Context
Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks

Part 3
Connecting the Dots, Linking the Trees,
Exploring the New Forest

Note: The pound sign (#) indicates that more detail or related treatment
of the marked subject is discuessed in other place(s) in this docuemnt.