Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition.

Sexuality and Jesus Tradition. By William Loader. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2005. Pp.viii + 288. Paper, $30.00.

Loader's goals in this book are modest and timely, and both lend to the book's overall success. He seeks not to make a definitive statement about Jesus' position on sex and sexuality, but limits himself to drawing some conclusions concerning the broader "Jesus tradition" (the gospels and Paul). He seeks not to enter the narrower debate concerning same-sex desire, but seeks to understand early Christian views on sex and sexuality in broader terms.

In Chapter One, "Sex and Danger: Passion and Responsibility," Loader examines a series of texts that reflect early Christian views of passion, self-control, and intent. He argues that Matt 5:27-28 (adultery and adultery of the heart) treats adultery and murder in the same way: both are crimes against the property of other people. Matthew then takes this further by arguing that even desiring something that is not one's own is wrong. But Matthew does not object to the sexual response in itself; what matters is that one takes responsibility for one's own sexual desire. Matthew's focus is also on the man: the man who looks at a woman in order to desire her must lake responsibility for that himself. He should not, as was common in the culture, blame his desire on her. Loader also sees this focus on male sexual responsibility in the texts on cutting off one's hands and feet and tearing out one's eyes if they should contribute to sexual immorality (Matt 5:29-30 and parallels). In perhaps the most speculative part of the book, and therefore the least convincing, he sees in the references to hands and feel euphemisms for masturbation and penises/ fornication respectively (and certainly not to be taken literally), and in the reference to "whoever causes the little ones to stumble" (Matt 9:42) an allusion to and condemnation of pederasty. On the whole, however, Loader mounts a convincing argument in this chapter that the focus of Matthew (and possibly of Jesus) is on males and counseling them to deal with others in a non-sexualizing manner.

In Chapter Two, "Order and Chaos: Marriage and Divorce," Loader analyzes the differences between the various divorce sayings of Jesus (Matt 5:31-32 and 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18; and 1 Cor 7:10-11). Loader argues that behind these sayings there lies a common assumption: that there is no such thing as divorce, since no human has the authority to undo what God has joined. Anyone divorcing one and marrying another (and presumably having sex with that person) actually commits adultery since the original marriage cannot be undone by human will. Loader concludes, quite securely, that there is sufficient evidence "to support the supposition that the historical Jesus opposed divorce" (p. 112). He also argues that Matthew's famous exception clause, does not contradict those sayings that lack the clause, but only makes explicit what was universally recognized: adultery necessitates divorce, a position based in assumptions about purity in the ancient world. Whether and with what restrictions remarriage might occur in these instances is unclear.

In the final chapter of the book, "Celibacy and Hope: Interim Choices," Loader considers the question of celibacy. He concludes that Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul all agreed that celibacy was the preferred option, but that it was a gift or calling. It could not be imposed on others, and thus sexual activity was allowed. Yet all three related their sexual choices to live now as they would live in the future kingdom in which sex would be unnecessary since procreation would be unnecessary. There is an interesting tension then in the early Christian writings. On the one hand, marriage is affirmed and the celibacy chosen by Jesus and Paul is not demanded of others. On the other hand, they appear to look forward to a future in which sexual activity will be unnecessary.

The book would have benefited from a more careful attempt to explain or understand this tension than is received (pp. 247-52). I also found it hard, having reading through all the evidence, to agree with Loader's conclusion that "there is a strong affirmation of sexual relations" (p. 251) in these writings. It seems the texts point to a different conclusion: these early Christian communities had a generally pessimistic view of sex--it was a necessary evil (for procreation), acceptable but not ideal, and inappropriate in paradise. Ultimately, these issues are minor, however, and even the very frequent grammatical and syntactical (proof-reading/typesetting) errors in the book do not diminish from the value of Loader's treatment of this thorny topic.

Zeba Crook

Carleton University