We now come to Part 5 of my book analysis series on Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s (Dr. S) controversial book, God: An Anatomy. In this post, I am going to look at Part 3 of Dr. S’s book, which is entitled, “Genitals,” and includes four chapters: Chapter 4 (“Cover Up”), Chapter 5 (“Phallic Masculinities”), Chapter 6 (“Perfecting the Penis”), and Chapter 7 (“Divine Sex”). Now, there is a lot in these chapters, almost too much to cover in just one post. Nevertheless, that’s what I’m going to try to do. If I was to summarize the argument Dr. S makes in his portion of her book, I’d have to say this: She argues that YHWH’s penis plays a predominant role throughout the Old Testament, but in the New Testament and throughout Church history, sex and genitalia were downplayed by those power; but that couldn’t stop some from celebrating the powerful penis of Christ.
Now, you might be thinking, “I really don’t remember reading too much about YHWH’s penis in the OT or Jesus’ penis in the NT. Where is Dr. S getting this from?” Excellent question!
That question really needs a two-part answer. As far as the OT is concerned, Dr. S gets it from pointing to a number of ANE myths in which the genitalia of ANE gods were praised and exalted. To anyone who knows anything about ANE cultures and myths, this is nothing new. Most of the religious/cultic practices in the ANE were rooted in fertility cults, in which it was believed that the sexual arousal and performance of the gods ensured the fertility of crops and people alike. Therefore, since Dr. S holds the view that ancient Israel was just like any other ANE culture, she assumes YHWH was just like those gods, and that leads her (I would argue) to some very curious and questionable exegesis.
Indeed, I don’t really think you can call it “exegesis” at all. The fact is, she shows no real interest in interpreting the OT passages she brings up within the context of the larger, surrounding text. Why not? Because she has already discounted the final form of the text as essentially the product of later “phallocentric” scribes of the exilic and post-exilic period who more interested in cultivating and maintaining “male power” of the post-exilic religious establishment. This serves as her justification for dismissing the actual context of the biblical text. So, without the actual context to contend with, that opens the door to cherry-pick random verses and simply interpret them in light of other ANE myths which may or may not be in any way connected to verse in question.
As for Dr. S’s take on various NT passages, she refers to a number of pieces of Christian art, dating from the early centuries of the Christian era to roughly the Renaissance. Again, there seems to be very little interest in understanding the verses and passages in question within the context of the given New Testament book or letter. With that, let’s dive right in.
Let’s Look at Chapter 5: Cover Up
In Chapter 5, Dr. S begins by referring to Bassano Romano’s sculpture of The Risen Christ in the Church of San Vincenzo Martire, as well as one of Michelangelo’s sculptures of Christ—both depict Christ in the nude. Some people, Dr. S says, have a problem with nudity, especially when it comes to Jesus. (Nevermind the fact that sculptures like these were done throughout Church history and are still prominently displayed, clearly showing that many, in fact, do not have a problem with it).
Then, after a rather detailed description of penises, scrotums, labia, and clitorises, Dr. S refers to the story of Adam and Eve, and how the first thing they do after they eat the forbidden fruit is cover their genitals because they are ashamed. She correctly points out that it is a misreading of the text to think that their sin had anything to do with sexuality. It had to do with disobedience.
Paul and Jesus and the He-Man Woman-and-Sex-Haters Club?
From there, Dr. S claims that both the Apostle Paul and Jesus himself viewed sex as something, if not bad, certainly not preferable. She says, “For Paul, an out-and-proud celibate himself, the holy and the horny could not and should not mix” (95), and quotes Galatians 5:16-17 as proof of this: “Live by the spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the spirit, and what the spirit desires is opposed to the flesh.” According to Dr. S, Paul promoted a “pro-celibacy theology of salvation” (100).
To get right to the point, this is an absolutely horrible reading of Paul. Yes, Paul was what we can call a “gifted celibate,” but no one who knows how to read (and think clearly) can read his remarks on celibacy and marriage in I Corinthians 7 and think he has a problem with sex and marriage. Yes, he says he wishes everyone one was like him, but then acknowledges everyone is gifted differently, that getting married is not sinning, and that married couples should have sex. Absolutely nowhere does he disparage marriage or sex within marriage.
As for Galatians 5:16-17, I am absolutely shocked that Dr. S evidently doesn’t even know what Paul means by the term “the flesh.” Paul uses the Greek word sarx, not as a sexual term that denotes literal flesh, but rather as an eschatological term for the “old age mindset/worldview.” The essence of his Gospel message was that through Christ, God’s Spirit had been poured out on humanity, the Kingdom of God had been established, and we have been given a taste of the Age to Come. Therefore, those who accept Christ as Lord and who receive the Holy Spirit now live by the Spirit and produce the fruit of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, etc.
By contrast, those who haven’t accepted Christ and received the Holy Spirit are still living according to the mindset of the old age, what Paul cause “the flesh.” And what characterizes that old age mindset (the “flesh”) are things like “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing” (Galatians 5:19-21). Now, even though Paul mentions fornication and impurity (sexual sins), he’s not condemning sex, in and of itself. In addition, nothing else he mentions as “the works of the flesh” are sexual at all. Instead, they all have to do with things that divide and produce conflict. Put all this together, it is blindingly obvious that Dr. S’s attempt to use Galatians 5 as “proof” that Paul taught that “the holy and the horny could not and should not mix” is mystifying—that is not what Paul is saying at all.
As for Jesus, Dr. S claims that he too undermined the social worth of marriage and childbirth when he said, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Matthew 10:37). Instead, Dr. S says that Jesus favors “an androcentric model of family in which male believers are bound together by faith, not blood” (96), and she includes references to the gnostic texts of the Acts of Thomas and the Gospel of Thomas, that depict Jesus as viewing sexual intercourse as filthy and not worthy of the heavenly life.
Again, this is a simply a horrible reading of what Jesus taught. I don’t even know if it is worth the bother of explaining just how bizarre this reading of Jesus is. Yes, Jesus (and Paul, and the entire NT) taught a Gospel that called for all humanity to be united by faith in Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. But no, nowhere does Jesus imply this “model” is limited to male believers. Where in the world does Dr. S get this from? In addition, it is obvious that what Jesus (and Paul and the entire NT) is saying is that this unity in Christ is to transcend racial and cultural boundaries. To suggest that Jesus is disparaging marriage and childbirth is just flat out bizarre. That is not what Jesus (or Paul, or anyone else in the NT) is saying at all.
From there, Dr. S claims that early Christian baptisms were often done in the nude, but when men took exclusive control over Church leadership, because they had to baptize both men and women, “genitals and buttocks were hastily hidden” (101). Whether or not this is true, I don’t know. Dr. S simply does not cite anything to back up this claim. The fact that she completely misunderstands both Paul and Jesus, I’m afraid I can’t take her word for it concerning this claim.
The Old Testament Prophets and the Godly Groin
In any case, in true “Gish Gallop” fashion, Dr. S then jumps back to the Old Testament, specifically to Ezekiel’s vision of God on His throne in Ezekiel 1:27-28, Isaiah’s vision of God on His throne in the Temple (Isaiah 6), and the book of Hosea. In Ezekiel 1:27-28, Dr. S claims that the word translated as “waist” or “loins” really mean “groin,” and therefore Ezekiel “openly acknowledges God’s genitals” and the “godly groin” (103). This is yet another instance where basic reading competency and context comes into play. Ezekiel is simply describing the vision he has of God and is distinguishing what he sees from above God’s waist from below God’s waist. Now, yes, both in this vision and any description of any person, the midsection involving the hips is going to include the genitalia area. But to suggest Ezekiel is specifically pointing out God’s genitals goes way beyond what the text is actually saying. Simply put, it is reading into the text an emphasis that isn’t there.
As for Isaiah 6, Dr. S claims that the Hebrew word shul often translated as something like “the hem of his robe” really means “penis.” Therefore, she claims that Isaiah was saying that YHWH’s penis filled the Temple. She writes, “God’s genitals are enormous. No wonder the seraphim coyly position their wings over their own. Like temple priests donning underpants, their covering gesture in the divine throne room acknowledges their humble stature in the presence of the well-endowed deity they praise” (104).
Again, this is just silly. It’s not offensive or shocking—it’s just stupid. How stupid? Let’s just consider other instances in the Old Testament where the same Hebrew word shul is used:
- Exodus 28:33-34: A description of the hem of the robe of the priestly garment
- Exodus: 39:24-26: Again, a description of the hem of the robe of priestly garments
- Jeremiah 13:22, 26: Within a prophecy of judgment, YHWH says that Judah will be punished for its idolatry and says that their “skirts will be lifted up” and they will be beaten
- Lamentations 1:9: In a lament of the destruction of Jerusalem, the writer depicts Jerusalem’s sin and idolatry as a woman having uncleanliness in her skirts
- Nahum 3:5: In a prophecy of judgment against Nineveh, YHWH equates His judgment with “lifting up the skirts” of Nineveh
So, I must ask, should we translate these verses the way in which Dr. S has translated Isaiah 6:1? Did YHWH say that penises be put on the priestly garments? Was YHWH saying that part of his judgment, on both Judah and Nineveh, involved lifting up men’s penises? To be clear, nowhere else in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word in question translated as “penis.” In every case it indicates a skirt or the edge of a garment.
As for Hosea 2:20-23, Dr. S says Hosea is “well aware that God is equipped with a penis – and it is large enough and potent enough to arouse and fertilize the heavens and the earth” (108). Let’s look at the passage in question: “I will take you for my wife in faithfulness; and you shall know the LORD. On that day I will answer, says the LORD, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel; and I will sow him for myself in the land. And I will have pity on Lo-ruhamah, and I will say to Lo-ammi, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘You are my God.’”
The way Dr. S sees YHWH’s penis in this passage is by (A) appealing only to the mythology in other ANE fertility cults and (B) completely ignoring the clear theological and prophetic message in Hosea. To be clear, it is absolutely true that the various ANE fertility cults contains highly sexualized imagery, with gods engaging in sex acts to ensure fertile crops. That is why pagan temples and shrines had temple prostitutes. You would go there, have sex with a “sacred prostitute,” and the gods would look on, get aroused by watching you have sex, and then they would in turn have more sex, and that would bring about an abundance of crops.
The theological outlook of Old Testament prophets like Hosea, though, completely condemned such practices. The very prophetic act of Hosea of marrying Gomer, a cult prostitute served as an illustration of YHWH’s relationship with Israel. Israel was not to go after foreign gods (foreign lovers) and play the prostitute. Taking part in pagan fertility cults would actually bring about barrenness and shame. Instead, YHWH likens His covenantal relationship with Israel with marriage. The point of Hosea’s message was that staying faithful to YHWH’s covenant and being a “faithful wife” would bring about fruitfulness and honor, and that YHWH was constantly appealing to Israel to turn from her idolatrous and pagan ways. Again, faithfulness to the covenant, and not pagan fertility cults, would bring blessing and abundance.
Now yes, the term “know” here indicates an intimate and often sexual relationship. In marriage, a man “knows” his wife, and they have a child. In Hosea, though, the prophet is playing around with this idea of “knowing.” If Israel plays the prostitute and “knows” foreign lovers/gods, she will be unfaithful to the covenant and will thus no longer “know” YHWH because she will have forgotten the covenant. The end result will be she will be barren and ashamed. Hence, “knowing” YHWH is seen in connection to actual knowledge and faithfulness to the covenant—that is what brings blessing, not pagan fertility cults. To make that point, Hosea uses similar metaphorical language and imagery, but the context makes it pretty clear that YHWH is not like those foreign gods.
But again, Dr. S is coming to the text with the preconceived assumption that YHWH is just like any other ANE fertility god, therefore she sees “know” and references to fruitfulness, and she immediately sees YHWH’s penis, even though nowhere in Hosea 2:20-23 is penis, or any conceivable euphemism for penis, mentioned.
Conclusion Thus Far (chapters 6-8 being saved for later)
It looks like analyzing Part 3 of Dr. S’s book will take two posts after all. What is abundantly clear here in chapter 5 will be repeated in chapters 6-7, though. As we can see, in her discussion of these various biblical verses, Dr. S makes repeated references to various ANE mythological stories involving other ANE gods and uses them as the interpretive framework to understand how the biblical writers depict YHWH in relation to both Israel and other nations within history. Of course, she pays no attention to the actual context of these passages, and in order to make her argument that these verses really are about YHWH’s penis, she engages in (to be kind) some rather imaginative translational maneuvers. Since she is coming to the biblical texts with the assumption that YHWH was perceived as no different than the other ANE gods, and that the “monotheistic” and “phallocentric” writers from the exilic and post-exilic periods were attempting to cover up the real history and religion of ancient Israel, she feels empowered and justified to engage in such questionable translational decisions…that are as highly imaginative as they are ridiculous.
This reminds me of the cosmic spermbank.