You Weren't Part of the Holiness Code
Because Dan McClellan says so
I’ll be using some theological terms in this newsletter - if you’re comfortable with them, keep on reading. If you have no clue what I’m talking about, no problem at all. Scroll down a bit and below every section I have small explainers.
What you’re reading now is part of a series where we're taking a step back and try to gain a better perspective on the infamous "Clobber Verses."
Don't worry, I won't rehash the same old arguments. Instead, I'll explain why I believe there are no clobber verses in scripture and why focusing on them might be damaging to the queer community in the long term.
As a matter of fact, we don’t need a magnifying glass to understand what the Bible says about certain topics. This understanding isn't just about queer issues - we could apply the same approach to female leadership, for example. It’s the understanding that sometimes we use conservative hermeneutics in a progressive context.
Here's the thing: During our deconstruction journeys, many of us got comfortable questioning certain things, but we never really changed our cookbook i.e. we're still using conservative hermeneutical methods, which don't leave much room for ambiguity. They draw hard lines between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and contaminated. So while we might have realized it's odd that the God who created us would reject some of us for loving someone of the same sex, we're still trying to make the text say what we hope it says. In this case, it may be hard to believe that Paul would condemn gay people, so surely we must be misunderstanding him, right?
This is where intersectional theology comes in, like a surprise ingredient that changes the whole flavor of the dish. It tries to amplify voices from the margins - you know, the ones that are usually drowned out by the noise of the patriarchal society of the first century.
When you listen to those voices, you hear a completely different story. So let’s listen to them today and see if they can offer a fresh perspective. A perspective that will require us to get comfortable with ambiguity.
I believe that the bible neither condemns nor condones homosexuality, and - here's the kicker - that leaves room for the possibility that Paul was a misogynistic and homophobic guy who can still give us some spiritual direction. It's like finding out your problematic uncle has some good recipes - you can appreciate the cooking without endorsing the cook.
Clobber Verses refer to the handful of Bible passages often used to condemn homosexuality. They're called "clobber verses" because they've been used to "clobber" or attack LGBTQ+ individuals.
Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of text interpretation, particularly the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.
Intersectional theology considers how various social categorizations such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation interconnect and influence religious interpretation and experience.
Quick disclaimer - for the sake of full transparency. These thoughts are not necessarily my own. I’ve never been good with words and as a theology student always agreed with these thoughts but whenever I was asked to explain them, I couldn’t get the words out of my mouth. It’s because of people like Dan McClellan and Prof. Martti Nissinen that my thoughts can be properly expressed. What you see written down, while my own words and my own conclusions, is heavily influenced by those two. So if you like this, you should definitely follow their work.
Sifting Through Misinterpretations: A Fresh Look at Leviticus
Remember when I promised we'd steep ourselves in a discussion about Leviticus? Well, it's time to put that kettle on and dive deep into how both conservatives and progressives (or post-evangelicals—whatever label you prefer) often misuse these ancient texts.
Before we begin, a necessary caveat: This post will discuss sexuality in clinical terms, which some readers may find uncomfortable. Consider this your trigger warning—proceed with care.
Want to hear something funny/not funny? The most common comment I receive on social media is a quote from Leviticus 18, stating that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman. It's served up like a stale cookie, regardless of context:
I express joy about my bottom surgery? Leviticus 18.
I celebrate my continued relationship with Kim? Leviticus 18.
I argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? Yup — Leviticus 18.
Let's be clear: This response is never in context. I’d be open if it was posed as a question like: "How do you reconcile Leviticus 18 with your statement that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?" But even this approach contradicts my non-foundationalist worldview.
This knee-jerk quoting of scripture isn't limited to discussions of sexuality. Recently, a commenter on a video about the Olympic controversy involving women's appearances replied, "XX and XY genes are a thing, you're DA fool." This response completely missed the point that the controversy isn't about transgender athletes but about unrealistic expectations of how women should look. Ugh.
Shit like this highlight a bigger issue: many commenters seem to copy-paste whatever comes to mind without engaging with the actual content. It's like throwing ingredients into a bowl without considering the recipe—the result is rarely palatable.
Oops, that was a tangent, let's return to Leviticus 18 & 20. I stand by the statements I’ve made before: the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality because that would be anachronistic. The concept simply didn't exist when these texts were written. One could argue that Leviticus 18 condemns homosexual acts—specifically, men having sexual intercourse with men, but even that should be placed within it’s context.
As we continue to dig deeper in these texts, we should consider their historical and cultural context, as well as the dangers of applying ancient laws to modern concepts without careful interpretation. Like a complex recipe, understanding Leviticus requires attention to all its ingredients and the cultural "oven" in which it was baked.
Foundationalism: A philosophical approach to knowledge and belief that asserts that all justified beliefs and knowledge claims must ultimately be based on a set of foundational, self-evident truths. In theological contexts, foundationalism often manifests as the belief that certain religious or doctrinal claims are inherently true and serve as the basis for all other beliefs. In our discussion, a non-foundationalist approach to biblical interpretation challenges the idea that there are unchanging, self-evident truths in scripture, instead emphasizing the importance of context, cultural understanding, and ongoing interpretation.
Kneading Through Ancient Norms: Consent and Hierarchy in Mesopotamian Sexuality
The concept of consensual sex is unfortunately a very modern creation. In ancient times, sexuality was largely hierarchical. If we had to distill this entire newsletter into one sentence, it would be this: "Penetrating a person of the same hierarchical standing was considered shameful and had everything to do with the desire to dishonor the other person."
But how do we know this? Fortunately, we don't need to resort to speculation or emotional connections to the topic. Instead, we can sift through well-documented Mesopotamian and Assyrian texts that provide crucial context for understanding Leviticus.
Let's start with Šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin, a collection of cuneiform tablets. (For those history buffs out there, isn't it exciting to see cuneiform mentioned outside of a textbook?) These tablets contain over ten thousand omens, but I’m particularly interested in two that discuss human sexuality.
From these texts, we learn that when a man takes an active role (i.e., is the penetrator—remember, we're getting clinical here), it's typically considered a good omen. Conversely, when a woman takes the active role, the omen becomes unfavorable.
Four specific omens are particularly relevant as they discuss situations where the passive partner is penetrated by a non-female partner:
“If a man has anal sex with his social peer, that man will become foremost among his brothers and colleagues."
It's important to note that this isn't about consent, which would be anachronistic. This omen speaks to hegemony (I’m sorry ya’ll, I can’t find a better term than this haha) manifested through sexual acts.
Two other omens discuss a man having intercourse with an "assinnu" (an Ishtar cult member) and a "geršeqqû" (a temple or palace worker):
"If a man has sexual relations with an assinnu, hardships will be unleashed from him. If a man has sexual relations with a geršeqqû for an entire year, the deprivations which beset him will be kept away."
The last omen states:
"If a man has sexual relations with a male houseborn slave, hardship will seize him."
Huh… essentially having sexual relationships with anyone but a houseborn slave is considered “auspcious.” Scholars seem to agree this last omen is inauspicious because no social recognition can be gained from the act.
I don’t want to keep repeating myself but it's important to note that these omens aren't about homosexuality—again, that's anachronistic. Instead, they're about hegemony and social standing. While our modern sensibilities make us want to vomit at this hierarchical view of sexuality, we must understand it within its cultural context. At the same time, can you imagine the potential for psychological trauma such norms could cause?
Some would argue that consent is not entirely held on to today - even the FBI’s definition of rape leaves a lot of people groups out.
Šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin: An ancient Mesopotamian omen series, whose title translates to "If a city is set on a height." This extensive collection of cuneiform tablets, dating back to around 1600-1000 BCE, contains thousands of omens covering various aspects of daily life, including celestial events, animal behavior, and human activities. In our discussion, it provides valuable insights into ancient Near Eastern views on sexuality and social norms.
Mesopotamian: Relating to Mesopotamia, an ancient region located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, roughly corresponding to modern-day Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of Syria and Turkey. In our newsletter, Mesopotamian texts and laws provide crucial context for understanding the cultural milieu in which the biblical book of Leviticus was composed.
Cuneiform: An ancient writing system used in Mesopotamia, characterized by wedge-shaped marks on clay tablets. In our discussion, cuneiform texts provide valuable insights into ancient Near Eastern laws and cultural norms.
Omens: Signs or occurrences believed to foretell future events or reveal hidden truths. In the context of ancient Mesopotamian sexuality, certain sexual acts were interpreted as omens, indicating good or bad fortune.
Assinnu: A term from ancient Mesopotamian texts referring to a person associated with the goddess Ishtar. Often described as a cultic functionary or priest, the assinnu's role and social status were complex and not fully understood. In some contexts, they were associated with non-normative gender expression or sexual practices.
Geršeqqû: Another term from ancient Mesopotamian texts, typically translated as "court attendant" or "palace servant." The exact duties and social status of a geršeqqû are not entirely clear, but they were likely lower-ranking members of the royal household or temple staff.
Hegemony: A concept referring to dominance or leadership, often in social or cultural contexts. In our analysis of ancient sexual norms, hegemony relates to the power dynamics and social hierarchies reflected in and reinforced by sexual practices.
Stirring the Pot: Middle Assyrian Laws and Sexual Prohibitions
Let's turn our attention to some good ‘ol Middle Assyrian Laws that add more flavor to our understanding of sexual norms and prohibitions.
These laws reveal a society deeply concerned with reputation and social status, particularly as it relates to sexual behavior. Look at this law, for example, regarding the spread of rumors about a man's sexual activities:
"If a man furtively spreads rumors about his comrade, saying: 'Everyone has sex with him,' or in a quarrel in public says to him: 'Everyone has sex with you, I can prove the charges,' but he is unable to prove the charges and does not prove the charges, they shall strike him 50 blows with rods; he shall perform the king's service one full month; they shall cut off his hair; moreover, he shall pay one talent of lead."
This law shows the severity with which false accusations of passive sexual behavior were treated. The punishment for this gossip is quite extreme, involving physical punishment, forced labor, public humiliation, and a hefty fine.
The Middle Assyrian Law gets even more specific (one might say more Leviticus-esque) with the following law:
"If a man has sex with his comrade and they prove the charges against him and find him guilty, they shall have sex with him and they shall turn him into a eunuch."
Should I just say what we all think? DAAAAAAMN! that’s a pretty harsh punishment. While one might be tempted to say "serves you right" to a rapist, the severity of the punishment and its focus on emasculation through forced passive sex and castration is deeply troubling.
These texts show us how much was at stake when it came to someone’s social status. To strip someone of their social standing was considered a grave offense, worthy of severe punishment.
The difference in the texts of the Šumma ālu ina mēlê šakin and the Middle Assyrian Laws set the stage for understanding Leviticus. They show that the Assyrians were not a fan of the Mesopotamian omens, just like the Israelites were not fans of the previous inhabitants of their newly conquested land.
Middle Assyrian Laws: A collection of legal texts from ancient Assyria (c. 1075 BCE) that provide insights into social norms and legal practices of the time. In our discussion, these laws offer valuable context for understanding the sexual prohibitions in Leviticus.
Eunuch: A man whose testicles have been removed, often for social or religious reasons in ancient societies. In the context of our newsletter, the threat of being turned into a eunuch was used as a severe punishment for certain sexual acts, highlighting the importance of masculinity and social status.
The Proof is in the Pudding: Contextualizing Leviticus 18 and 20
While the Mesopotamian and Middle Assyrian texts provide valuable context, we can also glean significant insights from a close reading of Leviticus itself. In other words - we don’t actually need that context to come to the same conclusions.
Leviticus 18:22-23 (JPS translation) states:
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.
Do not have carnal relations with any beast and defile yourself thereby. Likewise for a woman: she shall not lend herself to a beast to mate with it; it is perversion
These verses present three prohibitions, all of which involve concepts of hegemony:
The prohibition against lying with a man as with a woman, i.e., penetrating a man. For the record this refers to free men of equal status.
The prohibition against carnal relations with beasts, which results in defilement. The term "defile" shares the same root as "abhorrence" or "abomination," indicating something that cannot be cleansed through ritual.
The specific prohibition for women against mating with beasts. This is termed a perversion, literally "against nature."
Comparing this with Leviticus 20:13-16 reveals some interesting nuances:
If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—and they retain the bloodguilt.
If a man takes a woman and her mother [into his household as his wives], it is depravity; both he and they shall be put to the fire, that there be no depravity among you.
If a man has carnal relations with a beast, he shall be put to death; and you shall kill the beast.
If a woman approaches any beast to mate with it, you shall kill the woman and the beast; they shall be put to death—and they retain the bloodguilt.
Can we talk about that both parties are to be put to death? A natural question would be “WTF does the other person (or animal) have to do with this?” In this ancient worldview, "abhorrence" was seen as something akin to a disease that required the elimination of both the perpetrator and the one penetrated to cleanse society. Yeesh.
From these verses, we can infer a few key points:
The belief that "abhorrence" needs to be rooted out completely, with anyone in contact becoming contaminated. An idea that was widespread - for example in Zoroastrianism a women had to go to a hut for the entire duration of her period, only looking at another person during your period would contaminate the others.
These texts are primarily about hegemony, not homosexuality as we understand it today.
The Israelites, like those following Middle Assyrian Law, were undergoing some sort of an ethical revolution, distinguishing themselves from surrounding cultures. This is LITERALLY the function of all holiness texts: to separate (the root meaning of "holy") one group from another.
Male-to-male penetration dramatically alters the masculinity status of both parties. The passive partner is degraded physically and socially, while the active partner transgresses divinely sanctioned familial limits. Both parties body before God is irrevocably destroyed, marginalizing them socially and theologically.
This is me speculating but I find it interesting that the ‘penetrated’ is also being put to death. It makes me think that this is what it means to have ‘bloodguilt’ - by destroying someone’s status we also take on the responsibility of taking their lives.
To fully appreciate the context of these prohibitions, it’s important to zoom out a bit and consider the conclusion of Chapter 18. I’ve bolded out text to highlight the core message in our context.
Do not defile yourselves in any of those ways, for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out
Thus the land became defiled; and I called it to account for its iniquity, and the land spewed out its inhabitants.
But you must keep My laws and My rules, and you must not do any of those abhorrent things, neither the citizen nor the stranger who resides among you;
for all those abhorrent things were done by the people who were in the land before you, and the land became defiled.
So let not the land spew you out for defiling it, as it spewed out the nation that came before you.
All who do any of those abhorrent things—such persons shall be cut off from their people.
You shall keep My charge not to engage in any of the abhorrent practices that were carried on before you, and you shall not defile yourselves through them: I יהוה am your God.
The text emphasizes that these practices defiled the land and its previous inhabitants, leading to their expulsion. The Israelites are warned not to defile themselves or the land in the same way, lest they too be "spewed out."
This broader context reveals that these prohibitions are part of a larger system of holiness and separation. They are not isolated rules about sexuality, but part of a comprehensive worldview that sought to distinguish the Israelites from surrounding nations and maintain their special relationship with their deity.
Yes but there is no widespread consensus. Dr. Joanna Töyräänvuori holds a different interpretation that states that Leviticus 18 and 20 is talking about two men having sex with one woman.
Zoroastrianism: An ancient Persian religion founded by the prophet Zoroaster, likely in the 2nd millennium BCE. It is one of the world's oldest continuously practiced religions and was once the official religion of Persia (modern-day Iran). Zoroastrianism is characterized by its dualistic cosmology of good and evil, belief in one supreme deity (Ahura Mazda), and emphasis on personal choice in the cosmic struggle between truth and lie. In the context of our discussion, Zoroastrian purity laws provide an interesting comparison to biblical concepts of ritual purity and contamination.
Blood guilt: In biblical and ancient Near Eastern contexts, blood guilt refers to the culpability or responsibility for shedding someone's blood (i.e., killing them). This concept often extends beyond the individual perpetrator to their family or community. In Leviticus and other biblical texts, blood guilt is sometimes associated with ritual impurity and the need for atonement. In our discussion, it relates to the shared culpability of both parties in prohibited sexual acts, reflecting the text's view of these acts as deeply contaminating or destructive to the social and spiritual order.