Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology . Gwen B.

Sayler 81

Dialogue in Dialog

Beyond the Biblical Impasse:

Homosexuality Through the Lens
of Theological Anthropology
By Gwen B. Sayler
Abstract: What does the Bible say about homosexuality? The argument developed in this article
demonstrates that the five biblical texts often cited as proof that the Bible condemns homosexuality
reflect a theological anthropology that is challenged within Scripture itself and that has been determined
by the church to be contextual rather than binding in relation to other debated issues. By bringing the
theological anthropology reflected in the five texts into conversation with contrasting biblical anthro-
pologies, it becomes possible to re-frame the contemporary conversation on homosexuality in terms of
discerning which biblical theological anthropology will be considered authoritative for the church in the
21st century.

Key Terms: theological anthropology, priestly holiness tradition, gender role distinctions, same-sex sexual
intercourse.

Whether they take place in the academy or in the
congregational pew, conversations about homosexu-
ality tend to become heated and sometimes painful.
Christians confessing the biblical witness as author-
itative often are frustrated by the paucity of biblical
references to same-sex sexual intercourse1 and by
conflicting interpretations of what the few references
do or do not claim. To many scholars and lay people
alike, the debate over what these verses claim in
relation to the contemporary conversation has
reached an impasse.
This article seeks to move beyond that impasse
by utilizing theological anthropology as a heuristic
tool to situate individual references to same-sex
sexual intercourse within the context of the theo-
logical milieu that generated their composition.
By bringing the theological anthropology reflected
in these references into conversation with contra-
sting biblical anthropologies, it becomes possible
to re-frame the contemporary conversation on
homosexuality in terms of discerning which bib-
lical theological anthropology will be considered
authoritative for the church in the 21st century.
This re-framing offers hither-to largely unexplored
avenues for situating the discussion on homosexu-
ality within the larger context of human sexuality
and the holistic mission to which the church is
called.

Gwen B. Sayler is professor of Hebrew Bible at Wartburg Theological Seminary in Dubuque, Iowa. Among her works are Who Is God ? (Fortress,
1999), and Genesis: Creation, Choices, and Consequences (Fortress, 1996).
82 Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005
Theological Anthropology of
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
The times were tumultuous. Significant portions
of the Jewish community had been deported to
Babylon in the aftermath of the devastating defeat
inflicted on Judah by the Babylonian Empire in 587
BCE. Shaken to the core by the collapse of the
Davidic monarchy and the destruction of the
Jerusalem Temple, the Jewish community in
Babylon existed precariously in a religiously
pluralistic world in which pagan religions exerted a
strong pull on many of the people. Mounting a
strong counter-challenge to these competing claims
was essential for the community. Many exiles feared
that if the walls between us and them werent maker. She is the passive recipient, subordinate to
built very high to avoid any mixing with them, the
Jewish community would disappear.
This was the world of the priestly authors of the
Torah, the men who struggled to give confidence and
courage to a community whose identity was threatened
as never before. Drawing on ancient traditions and
integrating previously written documents into their
writings, these authors were responsible for the Torah
in its final form. As priests concerned above all with
holiness, its not surprising that they were drawn to and
further developed the ancient priestly holiness
traditions located in the book of Leviticus.
From the priestly perspective, the essence of holi-
ness is separation. God is holyseparate from creation.
Israel is called to be holy by remaining separate from the
nations and by keeping separate the various categories
around which daily life is ordered: You shall not let
your cattle breed with a different kind; you shall not
sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there
come upon you a garment of cloth made of two
kinds of stuff. (Lev 19:19) The critical importance of
keeping categories separate, of avoiding any kind of
hybridization, is evident in repeated condemnations
of mixtures or confusions as toebahabominations.2
This logic permeates priestly theological anthro-
pology. The human body is perceived as a microcosm
of the cosmos. Holiness depends on each Israelite body
remaining separate from non-Israelite bodies, and keep-
ing separate the categories built into the structure of the
universe itself. As with seeds and clothing, so with
human bodiesno mixing of categories is allowed.
This logic guides rules about sexual relationships.3
Like their near-eastern and Greek counterparts,
the priestly authors assume that penetration is the
essence of sexual intercourse. Men are penetrating
agents. Women are penetrated recipients of male
activity. The centrality of these male/female categories
for priestly anthropology is evident in the terms used
to describe the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:27:
So God created humanity (adam) in Gods image:
male (zakar) and female (neqbah) God created them.
The Hebrew word zakar also means memory. The
male is the one through whom memory passes; he is
the active memory-making agent. The Hebrew word
neqbah means hole, orifice bearer. The female is the
one whose hole is penetrated by the memory
the active male.4 From the priestly perspective, these
distinctionswhat we would term gender role
categoriesare imbedded in creation itself.
While the priestly authors share these categories
with their neighbors, they utilize them differently. In
Greek thought the categories function within a sys-
tem driven by issues of status and honor. In priestly
thought the driving force is what we would call
gender clarity. Men must be able to penetrate like
real men. Those who cannot must be excluded: He
whose testicles are crushed or whose male member is
cut off shall not enter the assembly of the Lord
(Deut 23:1). Moreover, men are to dress like men
and women like women. A woman shall not wear
anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put
on the garment of a woman; for the one doing this is
an abomination to the Lord your God (Deut 22:5).
For the priestly authors, abominationmixing or
confusion of categories, here what we would term
gender role categoriesis abhorrent.5
Within the world of this theological anthropol-
ogy, it is precisely the mixing of gender-role cat-
egories that is stake in the condemnations of male
same-sex intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.
Since Leviticus 20:13 simply repeats the rule given
in 18:22 and adds a punishment for its violation, my
focus will be on the original statement of the rule.
The text is located in the section of Leviticus
(chapters 1726) that extends holiness from the
 Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology
sanctuary into the ordering of daily life in the com-
munity. Chapter 18 is permeated by injunctions to
Israel to remain separate from the idolatrous beliefs
and ways of the surrounding nations (18:15, 21,
2427). Rules for maintaining proper categories in
sexual relationshipsin particular, rules for keeping
separate what needs to be separateare interspersed
with these injunctions. In between a warning not to
burn children to the god Moloch and a rule about
avoiding sex with animals, Leviticus 18:22 states: You
shall not lie with a male as with [the lying of] a woman;
it is an abomination.
The lying of a womana literal translation of
the Hebrewrefers to the passive, penetrated posi-
tion in sexual intercourse. A man is not to take the
position of a woman in intercourse; in other words,
he is to be on the top, not the bottom. It seems clear
that what is condemned is male/male anal inter-
course. Why its condemned is equally clear. Within
the theological anthropology in which men are
defined as penetrating agents, male/male anal inter-
course is a mixing of gender-role categories that
cannot be toleratedan abomination.
The Jewish scholar Daniel Boyarin turns to the later
Talmud to support the thesis that the issue addressed by
the priestly writers is gender-role distinction, not
homosexuality as we define it. Commenting on the
Babylonian Talmud Niddah 13b, Boyarin notes that
the Talmud understands the Torahs interdiction in
Leviticus 18 and 20 to be limited to male/male anal
intercourse. Other male/male non-penetrative sexual
practices, such as intercrural intercourse, are included
in the category of masturbationa category that is not
condemned. In contemporary language, the issue at
stake in Leviticus and its later Talmudic interpretation
is proper gender-role differentiation, not orientation or
object choice. The text does not address the issue of
homosexuality as that issue typically is framed in our
conversations today.6
The Hebrew Bibles Contrasting
Anthropologies
The theological perspective of the priestly authors is
dominant, but not exclusive in the Hebrew Bible.
. Gwen B. Sayler 83
Over against the priestly call for separation from the
nations, the books of Ruth, Esther, and Jonah as well
as numerous prophetic oracles paint a much more
inclusive picture of Israel and the nations. Over
against the gender-role categories so central to
priestly theological anthropology, the post-exilic
prophet Third Isaiah proclaims: Let not the for-
eigner who has joined himself to the Lord say The
Lord will surely separate me from Gods people;
and let not the eunuch say, Behold I am a dry
tree. 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. . . . for my
house shall be called a house of prayer for all
peoples. Thus says the Lord God, who gathers the
outcasts of Israel, I will gather yet others to me
besides those already gathered (Isaiah 56:35).
Eunuchsmen unable to play the active pene-
trating rolewill be gathered into the community
and given an everlasting name. This oracle of Third
Isaiah is a vivid challenge within the Hebrew Bible
to the theological anthropology underlying the con-
demnations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Clearly,
the priestly anthropology is not the only theological
anthropology in the Hebrew Bible.
The Leviticus texts are the only references to
same-sex intercourse in the Hebrew Bible. The
priestly theological anthropology underlying them
continues to be reflected in New Testament con-
demnations of same-sex intercourse.
Theological Anthropology of
Romans 1:2427
Several hundred years after the priestly writers did
their work, a first century Jew newly named Paul
emerged as a leader of the nascent Christian church.
His experience on the road to Damascus led him to
believe that through the death and resurrection of
Jesus the walls separating Jew and Gentile had come
tumbling down. In the new creation brought into
84 Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005
being by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus,
salvation is offered through faith to all who believe
in Jesus the ChristJew and Gentile alike.
This, of course, is the primary theme of Pauls
Letter to the Romans. While in Romans Paul con-
sistently challenges the priestly categories separating
Israel from the nations, he is less consistent in chal-
lenging the gender-role categories integral to priestly
theological anthropology. This is apparent in his
argument in Romans 1.
Pauls goal in Romans 12 is to convince his
readers that neither Jew nor Gentile has any claim
to righteousness before God. Chapter 1 establishes the
desperate situation of Gentiles apart from Christ;
chapter 2 does the same for Jews. Throughout
Romans 1, Pauls debt to the theological anthropol-
ogy of Leviticus is clear. Like Leviticus and similar
to other Hellenistic Jewish authors, Paul condemns
the Gentiles as idolatrous. Like Leviticus, he utilizes
the language of holiness, impurity, defilement,
shame, and abomination to develop his theological
argument.
The condemnation of same-sex sexual intercourse
occurs as explication of Pauls assertion that God has
given up the idolatrous Gentiles to the desires of
their hearts, to impurity, to the dishonoring of their
bodies among themselves (1:24). The language of
impurity, particularly situated as it is here in the
context of condemnation of pagan idolatry, hearkens
back to the language and concerns of Leviticus 18.7
Paul continues: Therefore, God gave them over to
degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural, and likewise men aban-
doned natural intercourse with women and burned
in their desire for one other, men with men per-
petuating shameless acts with one another; and the
corresponding penalty which was in the nature of
things for their error they received in themselves
(1:2627).
Here Paul condemns same-sex intercourse as the
unnatural act of people who previously have turned
away from God. The shape of this condemnation
raises at least two sets of questions for us: 1) How
does Paul define the categories natural/unnatural,
and what are the implications of that definition for
our contemporary conversation? 2) What are we to
make of Pauls assertion that same-sex intercourse is
a demonstration of Gods wrath against humans
who refuse to honor God as creator?
Discerning how Paul defines the categories nat-
ural/unnatural in Romans 1:2427 is complicated
by the rarity with which he uses this terminology in
his letters. An inter-textual search for other Pauline
references that can shed light on the definition at
work in Romans 1 leads us to 1 Corinthians 11.
There, addressing the issue of male and female
worship leadership in the Corinthian congregation,
Paul asserts: But I want you to understand that the
head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is
her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any
man who prays or prophecies with his head covered
shames his head, but any woman who prays or
prophesies with her head unveiled shames her
headit is the same as if her head were shaven. . . .
For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is
the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory
of man. . . . Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a
woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to
wear long hair is dishonorable to him, but if a
woman has long hair it is her glory? (1Cor 11:
35, 7, 1315).
In this text what nature teaches clearly is
defined in terms of what we would call gender-role
distinction. Men are to look and act like men . . . and
women like women. To do otherwise is against
natureunnatural. This gendered definition of
natural, set in the context of the hierarchical theo-
logical anthropology of 1Corinthians 11, sheds
light on Pauls definition of natural/unnatural
in Romans 1. In fact, Pauls somewhat surprising
decision in Romans to mention female same-sex
intercourse at all and to condemn it before
condemning male same-sex intercourse might be
intended to serve precisely as an illustration of
where the unnatural gender deviance denounced
in 1Cor 11 might lead.8
In Romans 1:26, Pauls condemnation of female
same-sex intercourse begins with the pronoun
their. Their women are the ones engaging in
unnatural intercourse. The referent of their can
be assumed to be wives and daughters of Gentile
men. The fact that women are identified in relation
to the men to whom they are attached is part and
 Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology
parcel of the anthropological model Paul is using
the same hierarchical model with its gender role
categories that he used in 1Cor 11. It is within the
context of this model that his subsequent condem-
nations are situated.9
Research into the Hellenistic Jewish milieu in
which Paul speaks reveals that he is not unique
among his counterparts in condemning same-sex
intercourse as unnatural. Josephus argues that the
only sexual relationship allowed by Jewish law is
natural intercourse between a man and his wife,
undertaken for the sole purpose of procreation. He
further states that in this natural union the woman is
inferior in every respect to the man.10 Her womb is
simply the field in which the mans seed is sown.
Philo argues that Leviticus condemns male same-
sex intercourse for two reasons: 1) in it one man
plays a passive feminine role, which is contrary to
nature; and 2) it is not procreative, which to Philo
is the sole purpose of sexual intercourse.11 It should
be noted that Philo also defines sexual intercourse
with a menstruating woman as unnatural, as are
sexual relations between one species of animal and
another.12
In expressing these views, Paul and his Hellenistic
Jewish counterparts reflect both ancient priestly
theological anthropology and the Greco-Roman
world view in which asymmetrical sexual relation-
ships were viewed as the norm. Utilizing extensive
data from the Greco-Roman world, Bernadette
Brooten argues convincingly that the shapers of
Pauls culture defined any type of vaginal inter-
course, whether consensual or coerced, as natural.
What makes it natural is the proper gender-role
configurationto wit, an active penetrating man
and a passive penetrated woman. What we call
rape, for example, would be classified as natural
intercourse. Within that cultural worldview, female
same-sex intercourse is condemned as unnatural
on the assumption that one of the women must be
attempting to play the active penetrative male role;
conversely, male same-sex intercourse is condemned
on the grounds that one of the men is submitting to
the passive female penetrated role. In the cultural
milieu in which Paul speaks, penetrative position is
the operative category in evaluating sexual relation-
ships as natural or unnatural.13
. Gwen B. Sayler 85
Paul doesnt share all the priestly concerns of his
Jewish counterparts Philo and Josephus. He says
nothing about the naturalness or unnaturalness of
sexual relationships with menstruating women and is
not at all concerned with procreation. However,
writing as a man of his time and culture, he does
share with them and with Greco-Roman authors
certain assumptions about proper gender-roles con-
figurations. That Paul condemns same-sex sexual
intercourse as unnatural is clear. Why he con-
demns it also is clear. He does so based on a hier-
archical theological anthropology that defines men
as active penetrating agents and women as passive
penetrated recipients. At stake is what we call proper
gender role distinction.
Situating Pauls condemnations in the context of
the anthropological model operative in Romans 1
sheds light on the question of how he defines nat-
ural and unnatural. It also leads naturally to the
second question raised by Pauls words: is same-sex
intercourse by its very nature a manifestation of the
Gods wrath against human idolatry? This is the
position of New Testament scholar Richard Hays.14
Hays argues that God created man and woman to
be in a complementary sexual relationship, an argu-
ment for which he finds theological warrant in the
creation stories of Genesis 13. From Hays perspec-
tive, in Romans 1 Paul is using same-sex intercourse
to provide a vivid image of humanitys primal
rejection of the sovereignty of God the Creator.15
As he develops his argument, Hays acknowledges
that Paul speaks from a Hellenistic Jewish cultural
context that shapes his understanding of nature.
He also asserts that Paul appeals to an intuitive
conception of what ought to be in the world
designed by God in distinguishing natural from
unnatural intercourse.16
In critiquing Hays argument, Bernadette
Brooten agrees that Romans 1 is concerned with
humanitys rebellion against God and that for Paul
same-sex intercourse does constitute a flouting of
the sexual distinctions that are fundamental to Gods
creative design.17 She challenges, Hays, however, on
the grounds that he fails to deal with the question of
why Paul and other ancient writers define certain
sexual distinctions as natural. Noting that Hays
concedes that Paul constructs his concept of nature
86 Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005
by appealing to an intuitive conception of what
ought to be in the world designed by God, she
questions why Hays doesnt consider the impact of
the anthropological model Paul is using on his
intuition of the nature of Gods design for crea-
tion. She concludes that ultimately Hays attributes
full truth and authority not only to Paul, but also to
the anthropological model predominant in Pauls
culture.18
Building on Brootens critique, I would like to
suggest that Hays lack of attention to gender-role
categories in the theological anthropology of the
priestly texts and in Romans 1 allows him to make
ontological claims about Gods design for creation
that exceed the biblical witness. Certainly, the stories
of Genesis 13 celebrate the creation of male and
female and the blessings of procreation and becom-
ing one flesh. Yet, as Jewish scholar David Daube
notes, these are blessings, not commands.19 To use
these texts to limit the creativity of the Creator in
shaping and forming a diverse creation runs the risk
of transforming a wonderful blessing into a com-
mand that excludes and condemns a part of the
diversity that perhaps is Gods design for creation.
To establish his carefully articulated argument
that Gentile and Jew alike are in utter need of
Jesus Christ, Paul utilizes a particular theological
anthropology in Romans 1:2427 to condemn
same-sex intercourse as a violation of what to him
are natural gender role categories. Part of the
hermeneutical challenge before the contemporary
church is to discern whether this anthropological
model with its definition of natural remains
authoritative today and then to spell out the impli-
cations of what is discerned.
Predecessor ELCA church bodies went through
this hermeneutical discernment process when con-
sidering whether to allow the ordination of women.
After struggling with Pauls admonitions in 1Cor 11
and in other texts, the church discerned that the
theological anthropology reflected in those texts was
contextual and thus not binding in the contemporary
conversation. Based on this hermeneutical prece-
dence, I suggest that the condemnations of Romans
1:2427based as they are on a theological anthro-
pological model the church has already determined to
be contextualcannot be used in the ELCA to argue
definitively that homosexuality is contrary to Gods
will or a manifestation of Gods wrath. While
Romans 1 cannot be used to argue for the full
inclusion of homosexual bodies within the Body of
Christ, neither can it be used to argue against it.
1Corinthians 6:9 and 1Timothy
1:10
The question of whether and to what extent Paul
refers to same-sex sexual behavior outside of Romans
1 is made difficult by ambiguities surrounding two
words arsenokoitai and malakoithat appear in a
vice list in 1Cor 6:9. Vice lists were a common genre
in the Greco-Roman world. As Victor Furnish notes,
Paul utilizes and adapts these lists to address issues of
concern for the communities he addresses.20 The list
in 1Cor 6:9 condemns the immoral, idolaters, adul-
terers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, greedy, drunkards, revil-
ers, and robbers. Difficulties inherent in translating
malakoi and arsenokoitai are evident in the ways the
terms are translated as: homosexuals (RSV, 1st ed.),
sexual perverts (RSV, 2d ed.), guilty . . . of homo-
sexual perversion (NEB), and as male prostitutes
and sodomites (NRSV).21
Paul seems to have been the earliest author to use
the term arsenokoita. Since arsen is Greek for man
and koites means bed, some sort of sexual activity
is envisaged. Noting that the Septuagints translation
of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 places the words arsenos and
koite in near proximity to each other, Martii Nissi-
nen suggests that perhaps Paul simply is creating a
neologism based on the Septuagint version.22 In this
case, the reference is to male same-sex anal inter-
course, with all the blurring of gender roles inherent
in that activity. Clearly, the meaning of arsenokoitai
is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant great caution in
stating what it does or doesnt mean in reference to
contemporary discussions on homosexuality.
In contrast to arsenokoitai, the word malakoi was
known in the Greek world of Pauls time. Defined as
soft, it often has an effeminate nuance, especially
when used in reference to pederasty. Nissinen notes
that in Greco-Roman sources the term does not refer
to we call a mans sexual orientation or gender
 Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology
identification, but to his moral effeminacythat
is, to his lack of self-control and yielding to plea-
sures.23 Self-control and discipline, not sexual
object choice, is what is at stake in judgments
against malakoi.
Thus, while same-sex sexual behavior quite likely
is condemned in 1Cor 6:9, the reasons for that
condemnation are unclear and seem to bear little
resemblance to the shape of the discussion about
homosexuality in the church today. Similarly, the
reference to arsenokoitai in the vice list of 1Tim
1:10 is full of ambiguity as regards its potential
value for the contemporary discussion.
The two vice lists and Romans 1:2427 are the
only New Testament references to same-sex sexual
intercourse. All reflect a theological anthropology in
which the issue at stake is gender role distinction,
not what in contemporary terms is called orienta-
tion. The theological anthropology represented in
these texts, however, is not the only theological
anthropology reflected in the New Testament.
The New Testaments
Contrasting Anthropologies
While Paul utilizes the priestly anthropological
model in Rom 1 and 1Cor 11, elsewhere he chal-
lenges its gender-role categories on the grounds that
in Christ a new realitya new theological anthro-
pologyhas come into being. This anthropology is
reflected in the baptismal confession of Galatians
3:2728: For as many of you as were baptized
into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there
is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ
Jesus. It is reflected also in Pauls references to the
believers body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit
(e.g., 1Cor 6:19) and in his use of Body of Christ
imagery to describe the Christian community (e.g.,
1Cor 12). Pauls insistence on the importance of
each part of the Body, particularly those parts often
regarded as less worthy of respect (1Cor 12:1426)
invites the reader to envision a community struc-
tured far differently than through the neat gender-
role categories of priestly theological anthropology.
. Gwen B. Sayler 87
Paul, of course, is not the only voice in the New
Testament. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus words
and actions consistently challenge priestly theologi-
cal anthropology. His parables of the reign of God
disrupt priestly categories separating clean from
unclean, outsider from insider, righteous from sin-
ner. Moreover, in a world in which mixing is con-
demned as abomination, Jesus table fellowship
is one of the greatest mixers of all time. Melanie
Morrison argues that Jesus table fellowship with the
contemptible of his worldprostitutes, persons with
disabilities or incurable illnesses, persons labeled
sinner because of their economic and social
classfunctions as a sign of Gods inclusive love at
the heart of the reign incarnate in Jesus. In this
context, she notes that particularly in Matthew and
Mark, Jesus call to repentance is aimed not at
persons categorized as sinners within priestly theo-
logical anthropology, but at those who seek to
exclude them as despised and disreputable. Jesus
shatters the categories that keep people apart, that
separate them from one another. Theres room for
all at the table, including and particularly the most
vulnerable in society. Of such is the reign of God.24
Jesus challenge to the priestly theological anthro-
pology includes a challenge to its gender-role
categories. Jesus invites men who dont meet the
criterion real men to the table and includes them
as equals. He affirms women who take an active role
in reaching out for healing, and includes them as
equals in the mixed company of believers that follow
him. Old priestly gender-role categories are super-
ceded in the Reign of God.
Although he says a lot about adultery and
divorce, Jesus says nothing about same-sex
intercourse. However, Martii Nissinen suggests that
one text may have more bearing on our conversation
about homosexuality than is often realized. Matthew
19:1012 reports the following conversation
between Jesus and the disciples: The disciples said
to him, If this (Jesus response to the Pharisees
concern about divorce) is the case of a man with
his wife, it is better not to marry. But Jesus said to
them, Not all men can receive this saying, 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 men, and there are
88 Dialog: A Journal of Theology . Volume 44, Number 1 . Spring 2005
eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the
sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to
receive this, let him receive it.
Who might qualify as a eunuch from birth? Nis-
sinen notes that the Greek word eunouchoi, defined
as those incapable of marriage, can in a broad sense
include anyone for whom marital life is impossible.
He suggests that given our modern definition of
marriage as the permanent union of two heterosex-
ual individuals, persons who qualify as eunuch from
birth, that is individuals for whom marriage is
impossible, might well include persons whose orien-
tation is homosexual.25 The proposal is intriguing.
Both Third Isaiah and Jesus envision a world in
which there is room for men who cannot play the
active penetrating role in sexual intercourse. Can
these challenges to priestly gender-role categories
serve as a resource for the church in the contempor-
ary conversation about homosexuality? The possibil-
ity is intriguing.
Conclusion
What does the Bible say about homosexuality? If
only the answer were as clear as many questioners
would like! The argument developed in this article
has demonstrated that the five biblical texts often
cited as proof that the Bible condemns homosexu-
ality reflect a theological anthropology that is chal-
lenged within Scripture itself and that has been
determined by the church to be contextual rather
than binding in relation to other debated issues. The
question before the church as regards homosexuality
actually is one of theological anthropology: which
biblical theological anthropology will the church
discern as normative in its discernment process?
Re-framing the question as one of theological
anthropology will facilitate movement beyond the
present interpretative impasse to a more expansive
conversation on sexuality. Each one of us comes to
the conversation as an embodied sexual person with
desires and dreams, needs and challenges. We need
to learn to talk together about these things theologic-
ally. We need to discern the implications of the
theological anthropology we claim as authoritative
for each one of us as embodied sexual persons in the
marvelous creation with which God has gifted us.
Re-framing the question in terms of theological
anthropology also will facilitate clarification of what
actually is at stake in the churchs conversation on
homosexualityto wit, the very presence of embo-
died homosexual persons within the community. It
will clarify, for example, contradictions inherent in
the interpretive move of permitting homosexuals to
be ordained as long as they dont act on their
sexuality. A heterosexual is heterosexual whether
engaged in sexual intercourse or not. The same is
true of homosexuals. As a lesbian pastor who has
chosen to remain celibate in order to be allowed to
continue my pastoral call to serve God among Gods
people, I can say with all my heart that mandating
celibacy as a way around the issue of sexual embodi-
ment is not a healthy route. On the contrary, the
requirement has caused deep and searing pain to
many homosexual bodies and has been detrimental
to the health of the church as well.
Re-framing the question in terms of theological
anthropology also will reveal the total inadequacy of
the varieties of interpretative strategies designed to
condemn homosexuality while at the same time
welcoming homosexual persons in the church. It
will clarify the contradictions inherent in efforts to
separate being from behaving, efforts often
articulated in the slogan loving the sinner while
hating the sin. I am who I am and you are who
you are irregardless of what any one of us is or isnt
doing in the bedroom. The issue in the conversation
is the theological anthropology of embodiment, not
activity or the lack-there.
The churchs conversation has begun, and theres
no going back. Is there room in the various denomi-
national corners of the Body of Christ for homo-
sexual bodies? Truly, I do not know. The theological
anthropology the church adopts in its hermeneutical
discernment will be crucial. Embodied lives are at
stake in the conversation.
Endnotes
1. The five biblical references to same-sex sexual intercourse include Lev
18: 22 and 20:13; Rom 1:2427; 1Cor 6:9; 1Tim 1:10.
 Beyond the Biblical Impasse: Homosexuality Through the Lens of Theological Anthropology . Gwen B. Sayler 89

2. Daniel Boyarin, Are There Any Jews in the History of Sexuality? 13. Brooten, 241253.
Journal of the History of Sexuality 5.3 (1995) 341345.
14. Richard Hays, Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John
3. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1722. AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000) Boswells Exegesis of Romans 1 Journal of Religious Ethics 14 (1986) 184215.
13711378.
15. Ibid., 184.
4. Boyarin, 341349.
16. Ibid., 194.
5. Ibid., 340345.
17. Ibid., 191.
6. Ibid., 337339.
18. Brooten, 245.
7. Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses
19. David Daube, The Duty of Procreation (Edinburgh: University
to Female Eroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 232234.
Press, 1977) 16.
Newton, Michael, The Concept of Purity and Qumran and in the Letter of
Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 102104. 20. Victor Paul Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul (Nashville: Abing-
ton Press, 1968) 84.
8. Brooten, 236241.
21. Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical
9. Ibid., 239241.
Perspective, translated by Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998)
10. Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion, 2.199201, with an English trans- 114.
lation by H. St. J. Thackeray in Josephus, vol. 1 (London: William Heine-
22. Ibid., 116.
mann, 1926), 373.
23. Ibid., 117118.
11. Philo of Alexandria, On the Special Laws, 3. 742, with an English
translation by F. H. Colson in Philo, vol. 7 (London: William Heinemann, 24. Melanie Morrison, The Politics of Sin: Practical Theological Issues in
1949), 479501. Lesbian Feminist Perspective (Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit, 1998), 217220.
12. Ibid., 3.782. 25. Nissinen, 120121.