Beyond a Reasonable Doubt pt. 4: Gender Roles and Conclusion

A reading into biblical texts regarding abnormal gender roles for the time

In part one of this four-part series, we looked at how Jesus views religious self-righteousness, the sin in which he casts the harshest of words. In part two, we looked at the Old Testament and discussed that there is no hard evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah in any way addresses loving, consensual, life-long same-sex relationships. We also discussed the context behind the prohibitions in Leviticus. In part three we examined Paul’s use of natural law in Romans 1 and into translation uncertainties in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy. Now, we will look to some scripture that that illustrates characters with high regard that go against the gender roles that many believe to be biblical.

Let us first turn to the Old Testament. There are two fascinating stories in here that completely skew our understanding of relationships. The first is the relationship between Ruth and Naomi in the book of Ruth. I will be very clear that there is not any direct evidence of anything sexual taking place between the two of them. What I am stating is that these two go beyond the “normal” female to female relationship and break down some of the norms. Ruth proclaims the following to Naomi:

Ruth put Naomi into the category of a man. This is not typical of the time period. First of all, women did not have the rights that many of us believe they should have today, which is being completely equal to men. For her to follow a widow was absurd. It goes deeper. As Eugene Rogers points out, as stated in the book of Ruth, “The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, ‘A son has been born to Naomi.’” For the writer of this book to attribute Ruth and Boaz’s child to Naomi is another breakdown of the customary norms. Child attributions are only given to the parents, and in that time, generally only the father. This not only puts Naomi into the category of a man, but lowers the status of Boaz, the child’s father. Since the child “has been born to Naomi,” it could even be argued that Boaz has been placed into the role of a woman, the possible sin of μαλακός, a man being considered soft, effeminate, taking the role of a woman, or coerced into such a role. Is this a stretch? Possibly. Quite likely. The point is that this goes against what is considered biblical gender roles.

The second unusual same-sex relationship in the Old Testament is that of Jonathan and David. Again, as I stated with Ruth and Naomi, there is not any direct evidence to suggest that there was a sexual relationship between these two. We simply do not know either way. I am not implying that there was. What we do know is that they had an unusually close bond. The language of covenant was used in 1 Samuel 20. It goes deeper, as Eugene Rogers points out, the verse stating: thereupon Jonathan runs to David, kisses him, and takes on the role of a king’s daughter in passing the succession to him and envisioning for himself the role of consort: . . . ‘you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next to you’” (p.189). A man in this time, assuming the role of a daughter, which is what a consort role would be, is unheard of. This also is a possible example of μαλακός. Jonathan is taking on a feminine role, going against biblical manliness. Even if he is not receiving sex as a woman, he is still receiving, actually, self-initiating the role as a woman.

These examples may seem small and trivial in our society, but this was pushing the limits in the ancient Jewish society in which they took place. There were certain roles and expectations, and here, Ruth and Jonathan, esteemed figures in the Hebrew bible, went against these roles and expectations. This is a big deal. I’ll reiterate that I’m not talking specifically about sexual actions, but still, actions that pushed limits and need to lead us to show grace and leeway in how we address people that act outside what we think is the right way to act.

Lastly, let’s take a look at eunuchs. There’s a great deal of scholarly debate regarding eunuchs. Eunuchs are people, mostly understood to be biological males, missing key reproductive parts, either by birth or by some altering event. Scholar Megan Defranza argues there might be an overlap between intersex people, people born with male and female parts, and eunuchs. Eunuchs may be a third sex. Scholar Preston Sprinkle is unconvinced and believes there is no evidence to suggest eunuchs are anything other than biological males with missing parts. Jesus remarks in Matthew 19 that some are born eunuchs, some were made so by others, and some made themselves eunuchs. Based on Jesus’ words, we know there were people born in such a way. What we don’t know is if they are in someway intersex, or whether they are simply infertile.

Why is this important? Regardless of how people become eunuchs, we know that their role in society is not of the typical male. Eunuchs often serve female royalty because there is not a threat of sexual aggression, though it is believed by some that some eunuchs can still have sex, they simply cannot reproduce. Regardless, in the law of Moses, Eunuch’s were not allowed to be in high holy areas, as we see in Deuteronomy:

There was a stigma against these people with some form of gender ambiguity. While they may not have been receiving sex from dominant males, they would likely fall under the broad category of μαλακός. They were not acting as dominant men. Whether or not (and I believe not) this falls under Paul’s intended target in 1 Corinthians from the last post, it is still worth noting. When we assume everyone should fit into a certain category, not everyone does. The law of Moses did not allow eunuchs the same privilege as the average Jewish man. By the time we get to the book of Acts, however, we see something new.

So, we have eunuchs, these biological men and perhaps sometimes intersex men, who lived their lives in the role of another gender, not as a man or a woman, who were initially not allowed full privileges in Jewish culture, later being affirmed by Jewish prophets, like Isaiah, then Jesus when teaching about divorce, and finally, a full welcome into God’s Kingdom through baptism in Acts 8. In fact, the book of Acts describes how most of us, Gentiles, who were once outsiders were welcomed into the Kingdom, how ritual eating, which was once required, was no longer, and now the eunuchs, who once had limited rights, are now full members. The book of Acts shows us a pattern of accepting and welcoming people that were once not part of the story. It shows us God calling clean, that which was once considered unclean.

All three of these examples show us how even though there are certain roles and standards in scripture, there are times when those standards are altered in ways that seem to honor God. I’m not saying to throw caution to the wind. I am definitely not suggesting a license to do whatever pleases you. All of this must be explored from a place of humility, a place of willingness to be corrected. Marriage is mentioned in scripture in Genesis, creation, as male and female, equal yet opposite. Jesus reaffirmed this. But, as these illustrations show, sometimes there are deviations from the biblical norm that God seems to honor.

This four-part series has demonstrated doubt regarding an absolute prohibition of same-sex marriage. Scripturally speaking, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that same-sex marriage is in fact, outside of God’s design. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that same-sex sexual activity is sin. The keyword here is: suggest. While scripture does suggest a great deal about such a prohibition, with 2000+ years of cultural differences, new scientific understanding, and the fact we are dealing with real human beings with real longings, feelings, and all of that great complexity, I do not see allusions and suggestions as strong enough to bar someone from a potentially sanctifying relationship. This prohibition can literally be the cause of people losing their faith or driving them to suicide. Is same-sex marriage honored by God? I do not know. Personally, while I do see how uncontrolled lust, regardless of whom or what it’s directed at is sinful not honored by God, I struggle to see how true love can not be honored by God. That is my personal feeling, but I admit, my feelings are not authoritative.

To sum all of this up, as we discussed in part one, Jesus held the highest degree of angry words for those that use religion to bully others, which is why I plead the case that the burden of proof lies on the side of those arguing for the traditional stance. If we hold the traditional stance and happen to be wrong in our interpretation, then we are being bullies that are blocking access to God from people who desperately need it. In part two we looked at how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah deals with rape, unbridled lust, arrogance, and lack of concern for the poor and outsiders, but does not address consensual, loving same-sex relationships. We looked at how Leviticus was written in a specific context, and while the language does not address that context, it is still influenced by it. That influence is doubt in the case of prohibition. In part three, we looked at how Romans 1 is about idolatry and how Paul makes an assumption regarding natural law that appears to be scientifically incorrect. We learned that there is a good chance that the words used in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy have ambiguous meanings that might be pointing to Leviticus, but also might have meanings regarding exploitation. Lastly, today we learned that there are examples in scripture of relationships that push biblical boundaries and seem to be honored by God.

It may seem absurd to overturn two+ millennia of church history for a bit of doubt without concrete evidence. While I’m a strong believer in tradition as part of our authority, as mentioned in part one, the stakes are too high. We cannot be the barrier between persons and God, between persons and the church. We are here at the intersection between what scripture seems it could be saying and the devastating effects of the hell LGBTQ+ people go through because of it. I wrestle with this tension constantly. I do not want to lead people astray. It causes me to tremble at times. But, I do not want to be responsible for the literal or figurative death of another person. This is not simply an issue. We are talking about real human beings, made in the real image of God, with real feelings, real longings, and real hopes for relationships with God and with one another.

Sources for this blog are from the following materials:

• Dale Martin: Sex and the Single Savior
• Eugene Rogers: Sexuality and the Christian Body
• Preston Sprinkle: People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue
• Preston Sprinkle: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/10/eunuchs-male-female-or-other/
• https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/even-eunuchs-are-included/
• http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/09/exclusion-and-inclusion-of-eunuchs.html