God's Sexuality In The Bible...

[David Bokovoy]

As some here know, over the past year or so, Iâ??ve been working on an article that addresses the sexuality of the biblical God. Iâ??ve about completed my writing, and have entered the stage of reading everything I can find that has already been written on the subject.

In the process of accumulating this bibliography, I came across a truly amazing book written by Howard Eilberg-Schwartz entitled Godâ??s Phallus.

Warning, don't read on if this academic subject offends you...

I agree with much of what the author suggests, though Iâ??m skeptical of portions of his argument and wish that the analysis featured a more in-depth consideration of the implications of other Near Eastern texts for the author's arguments.

Still, I gained several fresh insights from the book. Itâ??s extremely well written, in fact, I simply couldnâ??t put it down until I had completed the read.

The authorsâ?? interpretation of the development of the idea of a non-corporeal deity in late Judaism and Christianity would no doubt prove problematic for many Bible believers, albeit not for Latter-day Saints.

As the author explains in his introduction:

â??The title of this book is shocking, because the thought of God having a penis is shocking. Most Jews and Christians think of God the father as lacking a body and hence beyond sexuality. Without a body, God obviously can have no sexual organ.

But from where does the idea of a disembodied God come? What if historically speaking, it is discomfort with the idea of Godâ??s penis that has generated the idea of an incorporeal God?â? (pg. 1)

Eilberg-Schwartz argues that the idea of a non-corporeal deity was a foreign concept to the Old Testament authors and that the view evolved later in Judaism as a direct result of Hellenization.

All sorts of fascinating implications abound throughout the study. These include Adam and Eve becoming like the Gods by covering their sexual organs and a very convincing analysis regarding the talking serpent who feels no shame at exposing his nakedness by shedding itâ??s skin.

Anyway, I really loved the book (though it certainly could offend some overly sensitive readers, and would highly recommend it to those posters on the board interested in divine sexuality, the historical development of Jewish monotheism, and the later Jewish/Christian rejection of the corporeal deity found throughout the Old Testament.

[urroner]

The Backyard Perfesser, "Lord of the Bored" Kerry has often talked about the depictions of the corporeality and sexuality of God in the First Temple's Holy of Holies and whenever he does, many of the Christian critics of the Church have a lot of problems with that and I agree with you about the reason why early Christianity stripped God of His body is because of sexuality. I have had several mainstream Christians tell me that the only reason for a physical body is procreation and so, God the Father doesn't need a body. But this raises an interesting question, does Christ still have a physical body and why would he have a physical body?

[Ron Beron]

As some here know, over the past year or so, I've been working on an article that addresses the sexuality of the biblical God. I've about completed my writing, and have entered the stage of reading everything I can find that has already been written on the subject.

In the process of accumulating this bibliography, I came across a truly amazing book written by Howard Eilberg-Schwartz entitled God's Phallus.

Warning, don't read on if this academic subject offends you...

I agree with much of what the author suggests, though I'm skeptical of portions of his argument and wish that the analysis featured a more in-depth consideration of the implications of other Near Eastern texts for the author's arguments.

Still, I gained several fresh insights from the book. It's extremely well written, in fact, I simply couldn't put it down until I had completed the read.

The authors' interpretation of the development of the idea of a non-corporeal deity in late Judaism and Christianity would no doubt prove problematic for many Bible believers, albeit not for Latter-day Saints.

As the author explains in his introduction:

Eilberg-Schwartz argues that the idea of a non-corporeal deity was a foreign concept to the Old Testament authors and that the view evolved later in Judaism as a direct result of Hellenization.

All sorts of fascinating implications abound throughout the study. These include Adam and Eve becoming like the Gods by covering their sexual organs and a very convincing analysis regarding the talking serpent who feels no shame at exposing his nakedness by shedding it's skin.

Anyway, I really loved the book (though it certainly could offend some overly sensitive readers, and would highly recommend it to those posters on the board interested in divine sexuality, the historical development of Jewish monotheism, and the later Jewish/Christian rejection of the corporeal deity found throughout the Old Testament.

Well, David, you have certainly raised an interesting subject. On a certain level I initially thought of Osiris' lost member and the energy in which Isis located it. Or maybe Shiva's own sense of virility. It would be interesting to see where you want to go with this. Would you say it is a companion read to the Sacred Wedding Rites of Inanna and Dumuzi?

[Honorentheos]

When I first read the title of this thread, I was somewhat hopeful that it would end with a phrase such as, "...and thus we see that God is hot!"

But seriously, is it possible that, rather than showing a connection between a lost truth about the nature of God, this is really showing a certain return to a more pagan and simplistic/anthropomorphic understanding of God/gods held by more simple and pagan cultures? In other words, how is it shown that the similarity is not evidence of a regression in theology in Mormonism rather than a corruption under romanized Christianity? or even hellenised Judaism?

[Sargon]

I simply couldn't put it down until I had completed the read.

Should we be concerned about you??

I don't pretend to be able to add anything as cool as what David has said, but here goes.

Just tonight I was reading chapter 3 of Raphael Patai's book The Hebrew Goddess, 1990 edition, and I came across this interesting paragraph:

The Cherubim were, by any criteria, "graven images," and yet they continued to figure prominently in the Temple ritual down to the very end of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (70 C.E.). Moreover, in their last version the Cherubim depicted a man and a woman in sexual embrace-an erotic representation which was considered obscene by the pagans when they at last had a chance to glimpse it. And nevertheless, the entire contemporary and subsequent Hebrew-Jewish literature contains not a word that could in the remotest be construed as a condemnation of the Cherubim. On the contrary, their presence in the Holy of Holies, the innermost sanctuary of the Temple, and the ritual significane attributed to them, are invariably referred to as a most sacred mystery. Only the Hellenistic Jewish authors, such as the philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the ex-priest Josephus Flavius, speak about the Cherubim with an embarrassment obviously created by the apprehension lest the pagan Greek readers for whom they wrote consider the Cherubim as but the Jewish equivalent of the statues of their own gods and goddesses and thus find a basis to refute and reject the claim that the Jews worshiped only the one invisible God.(pg. 67-68)

I have been learning so much from this book the past few days, I can hardly put it down! After reading this paragraph I was reminded of the criticism leveled against by James White concerning facsimile 2:

Egyptologists tell us that this is the god â??Min.â? Min is an â??ithyphallic god,â? that is, a sexually aroused male deity, as the picture clearly indicates. Min is the god of the procreative forces of nature. Joseph Smith told us that the Egyptian god Min was in point of fact the one true God.

http://vintage.aomin.org/Mintract.html

Clearly trying to smear the LDS Church as some sort of perverted sexual cult, White may want to consider the fact that such themes were also present in the ancient Jewish temples.

[David Bokovoy]

Well, David, you have certainly raised an interesting subject. On a certain level I initially thought of Osiris' lost member and the energy in which Isis located it. Or maybe Shiva's own sense of virility. It would be interesting to see where you want to go with this. Would you say it is a companion read to the Sacred Wedding Rites of Inanna and Dumuzi?

Excellent points, Ron. I do see a strong connection between several biblical traditions and the Mesopotamian concept of the herios gamos. These common links include not only the story of sexuality gained in Eden, but also the physical relationship between gods and humans in Genesis 6, etc.

[David Bokovoy]

Should we be concerned about you??

Most definitely, my Brother!

Albeit not more than Elder James E. Talmage who wrote an outstanding piece entitled "The Eternity of Sex."

I believe that the author of this book raises a very interesting point, namely that it was in part a discomfort with sexuality that led Jews and many Christians thereafter to reject the corporeal nature of God witnessed throughout the OT.

best

[David Bokovoy]

When I first read the title of this thread, I was somewhat hopeful that it would end with a phrase such as, "...and thus we see that God is hot!"

But seriously, is it possible that, rather than showing a connection between a lost truth about the nature of God, this is really showing a certain return to a more pagan and simplistic/anthropomorphic understanding of God/gods held by more simple and pagan cultures? In other words, how is it shown that the similarity is not evidence of a regression in theology in Mormonism rather than a corruption under romanized Christianity? or even hellenised Judaism?

There certainly is a strong bias in Western tradition that associates an anthropomorphic God with primitivism. Obviously, I reject this bias. Whether the sexuality (and by extension the corporeal nature of deity) accepted by many biblical authors is indeed "a lost truth," is irrelevant however from the fact that this view concerning God appears throughout the Bible.

I'm excited to put forth my article, because it runs counter to the generally held, albeit inherently mistaken view, that biblical authors did not view their deity as a sexual being.

[livy111us]

Albeit not more than Elder James E. Talmage who wrote an outstanding piece entitled "The Eternity of Sex."

I met Talmage's grand-daughter on my mission, and she gave me some of his original writings, this included. I was shocked to see that article, but when I was feeling mishcevious one day, I broke down and read it. I know, I'm a wild child.

In all reality, I look forward to reading your paper David. It is a very interesting subject that needs to be addressed in relation to LDS teachings. Thanks!

[Honorentheos]

Whether the sexuality (and by extension the corporeal nature of deity) accepted by many biblical authors is indeed "a lost truth," is irrelevant however from the fact that this view concerning God appears throughout the Bible.

Unless one does not view the bible as divine in origin. If one shows that semitic groups held a natural view of their god that include fertility rights similar to others in the region (as somewhat implied in Sargon's post) does this really do the LDS faith justice? Can it only be seen as a lost connection to the pure truth understood and taught by an Adam? or does it seem more likely that it is simply a return to a more primitive view held by the tribes that became the hebrews and their neighbors which made their way into the hebrew scripture and culture and have since evolved out through hellenist and romanced influences?

I'm excited to put forth my article, because it runs counter to the generally held, albeit inherently mistaken view, that biblical authors did not view their deity as a sexual being.

I wish you the best of luck!

[DH]

Just tonight I was reading chapter 3 of Raphael Patai's book The Hebrew Goddess, 1990 edition, and I came across this interesting paragraph:

Judging from the quote you gave us from The Hebrew Goddess it sounds to me like it was the pagans who were most embarrassed by the idea of divine sexuality. The Greek and Roman mythologies were full of sexuality, to be sure, but the educated elite and the philosophers were often skeptical of their own people's religion. I'm no expert on pagan history, mythology, or philosophy, but I wonder if the Jews and the Christians borrowed various Greek and Roman philosophers' often abstract ideas about perfect forms and ultimate causes, etc., and so the Judeo-Christian God became an abstract principle rather than an actual divine Person.

A couple of people in this thread have referred to pagan religion as simple and primitive. I wouldn't be so quick to do so. After all, at the time it was the Greeks and Romans who were considered the most advanced civilizations, and the most sophisticated. In the first century or so of the Christian era, critics showed a lot of disdain because most Christians were uneducated and belonged to the lower classes. Not to defend paganism or anything! Just saying...

DH

[Rommelator]

Mark Smith had a very interesting disucssion about the sexuality of God in early Israelite and Ugaritic texts in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. I could not stop myself from laughing when I kept reading how El's "hand" is an epithet in the Ugaritic texts for his large p**is that is "as large as the sea".

I look forward to reading your article David!

After reading this paragraph I was reminded of the criticism leveled against by James White concerning facsimile 2:

Ah yes, an excellent connection Sargon. I should have thought of Min, who is identified in some hypocephali as "the Great (or Most High) God", in Fac. # 2 myself. Good catch!

[Honorentheos]

Judging from the quote you gave us from The Hebrew Goddess it sounds to me like it was the pagans who were most embarrassed by the idea of divine sexuality. The Greek and Roman mythologies were full of sexuality, to be sure, but the educated elite and the philosophers were often skeptical of their own people's religion. I'm no expert on pagan history, mythology, or philosophy, but I wonder if the Jews and the Christians borrowed various Greek and Roman philosophers' often abstract ideas about perfect forms and ultimate causes, etc., and so the Judeo-Christian God became an abstract principle rather than an actual divine Person.

A couple of people in this thread have referred to pagan religion as simple and primitive. I wouldn't be so quick to do so. After all, at the time it was the Greeks and Romans who were considered the most advanced civilizations, and the most sophisticated. In the first century or so of the Christian era, critics showed a lot of disdain because most Christians were uneducated and belonged to the lower classes. Not to defend paganism or anything! Just saying...

DH

I think of early judism as pagan. Greeks and Romans as not.

Not to be confused with gentiles.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Honorentheos,

Unless one does not view the bible as divine in origin. If one shows that semitic groups held a natural view of their god that include fertility rights similar to others in the region (as somewhat implied in Sargon's post) does this really do the LDS faith justice?

Iâ??ll let my friend Sargon answer that question.

While I use the linguistic and cultural backdrop of the ancient Near East to help establish the original intended meaning in the writings of biblical authors and the way an ancient Israelite audience might have interpreted those texts, Iâ??m not overly interested in how that information â??does justiceâ? to the LDS faith.

Whatever theological and cultural views that various biblical authors espoused have little to no impact upon my own religious sentiments.

Can it only be seen as a lost connection to the pure truth understood and taught by an Adam?

Some might understand it that way.

or does it seem more likely that it is simply a return to a more primitive view held by the tribes that became the hebrews and their neighbors which made their way into the hebrew scripture and culture and have since evolved out through hellenist and romanced influences?

I donâ??t see the view of a corporeal/sexual deity as â??primitive.â? Nor did most of the Old Testament authors.

Israelite authors demonstrate a continual concern in protecting the sanctity of sexual organs and relationships. This sense of reserved propriety has affected the way in which divine sexuality is addressed throughout the Bible. But it is wrong, in my view, to interpret this moral tradition as a rejection of a sexual God.

I would agree with you, however, that the rejection of an anthropomorphic deity by later Jews and Christians was in part a result of Hellenization.

[Ron Beron]

I'm excited to put forth my article, because it runs counter to the generally held, albeit inherently mistaken view, that biblical authors did not view their deity as a sexual being.

Bring it on, David. We are excited to read anything you got. We can handle it, we're big boys....not that size matters!

[Rommelator]

We are big boys....not that size matters!

ROFL!

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rommelator,

Mark Smith had a very interesting disucssion about the sexuality of God in early Israelite and Ugaritic texts in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. I could not stop myself from laughing when I kept reading how El's "hand" is an epithet in the Ugaritic texts for his large p**is that is "as large as the sea".

I believe that I have read all of Smith's published materials, and I think quite highly of his work. He's certainly one of my favorite scholars. Smith, however, accepts the generally held view that Old Testament authors rejected a sexualized God. Though I often find myself in agreement with Smith's views, we obviously part ways on this particular issue.

best

[Ron Beron]

I have been giving some thought to this and I recall a class in Japanese Culture I taught awhile back which discussed this very thing. Ancient and medieval implicit and even explicit religious practice is replete with phallic symbols that are evident for everyone to see. It was only when the Victorians entered into Japan that the self-conscious Japanese tore down any symbols of the ancient phallus. In fact, the very creation of Japan was done via the use of a symbolic phallus aka a "spear". I swear, David, you can really pull the most interesting things out of seemingly obscure things.

[Rommelator]

Ahem...the name is Rommelator, David. Common, man. I take the time to remember your name, the least you could do is remember mine.

Nah, just kiddin'. Your awesome book with Tvedtnes on Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon more than makes up for this little slip.

Like you, David, I highly enjoy Smith's work. They are really fun and very interesting. Good stuff!

[Ron Beron]

I think of early judism as pagan. Greeks and Romans as not.

Not to be confused with gentiles.

How so? I have always seen Greek and Roman religious practice to have been borrowed from Semitic origins.

[David Bokovoy]

Judging from the quote you gave us from The Hebrew Goddess it sounds to me like it was the pagans who were most embarrassed by the idea of divine sexuality. The Greek and Roman mythologies were full of sexuality, to be sure, but the educated elite and the philosophers were often skeptical of their own people's religion. I'm no expert on pagan history, mythology, or philosophy, but I wonder if the Jews and the Christians borrowed various Greek and Roman philosophers' often abstract ideas about perfect forms and ultimate causes, etc., and so the Judeo-Christian God became an abstract principle rather than an actual divine Person.

A couple of people in this thread have referred to pagan religion as simple and primitive. I wouldn't be so quick to do so. After all, at the time it was the Greeks and Romans who were considered the most advanced civilizations, and the most sophisticated. In the first century or so of the Christian era, critics showed a lot of disdain because most Christians were uneducated and belonged to the lower classes. Not to defend paganism or anything! Just saying...

DH

Hello DH,

If by "pagans" you are referring to the ancient Near Eastern cultures that surrounded Israel, then your assumption that these people were embarrassed by the idea of divine sexuality is very, very wrong.

Rommelator's allusion to the Ugaritic text that celebrates the power and size of El's sex organ is simply one of many, many examples that illustrate the fundamental Near Eastern belief in sexual deities.

Biblical authors weren't embarrassed by the notion either, in fact, I believe that most of them had little doubt that their deity was a corporeal/sexual God.

[David Bokovoy]

Ahem...the name is Rommelator, David. Common, man. I take the time to remember your name, the least you could do is remember mine.

Nah, just kiddin'. Your awesome book with Tvedtnes on Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon more than makes up for this little slip.

Like you, David, I highly enjoy Smith's work. They are really fun and very interesting. Good stuff!

My mistake, Brother. For the sake of clarity, I'll go back and edit.

best

[David Bokovoy]

Though not directly addressed in the book, one of the insights I gained by reflecting upon the authorâ??s ideas concerns the biblical notion of a masculine God.

All throughout the Bible, God appears as a male deity. The adjectives and verb forms that describe Israelâ??s divine Father are always masculine.

Now, consider for a moment the biblical view of masculinity. What constitutes being â??masculineâ? in the minds of biblical authors?

If God is defined in terms of masculinity, and masculinity is defined by biblical authors in terms of sexuality and procreation (think for a moment about patriarchal narratives, and even father/son genealogical lists), if the biblical God is truly masculine, then clearly God should therefore possess the greatest signs of masculinity from an Israelite perspective, namely sexuality and the power to procreate.

I admit that this line of reasoning is not strong enough to establish the argument (I have what I consider plenty of evidence), but it was an interesting thought that occurred to me while I read the book.

[Ron Beron]

Though not directly addressed in the book, one of the insights I gained by reflecting upon the author's ideas concerns the biblical notion of a masculine God.

All throughout the Bible, God appears as a male deity. The adjectives and verb forms that describe Israel's divine Father are always masculine.

Now, consider for a moment the biblical view of masculinity. What constitutes being "masculine" in the minds of biblical authors?

If God is defined in terms of masculinity, and masculinity is defined by biblical authors in terms of sexuality and procreation (think for a moment about patriarchal narratives, and even father/son genealogical lists), if the biblical God is truly masculine, then clearly God should therefore possess the greatest signs of masculinity from an Israelite perspective, namely sexuality and the power to procreate.

I admit that this line of reasoning is not strong enough to establish the argument (I have what I consider plenty of evidence), but it was an interesting thought that occurred to me while I read the book.

If we follow this line then can we therefore assume that the ancient Israelites saw God in less than metaphysical means and more in super physical ala the Mesopotamians? This would have to beg the question of when did we see God as something beyond our understanding and ultra-human, i.e., super spirit (pardon the simplification).

[David Bokovoy]

If we follow this line then can we therefore assume that the ancient Israelites saw God in less than metaphysical means and more in super physical ala the Mesopotamians? This would have to beg the question of when did we see God as something beyond our understanding and ultra-human, i.e., super spirit (pardon the simplification).

No doubt biblical authors viewed deity as "super physical." In fact, it seems to me that not withstanding the theomorphic view of humans witnessed throughout the Bible that Israelites always saw their God as "something beyond our understanding and ultra-human." Of course, I would say the same thing about Mesopotamian religious thought.