What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation
Probing into numerous questions about gender and sexuality, Dale Martin delves into the biblical texts anew and unearths surprising findings. Avoiding preconceptions about ancient sexuality, he explores the ethics of desire and marriage and pays careful attention to the original meanings of words, especially those used as evidence of Paul's opposition to homosexuality. For example, after a remarkably faithful reading of the scriptural texts, Martin concludes that our contemporary obsession with marriage--and the whole search for the "right" sexual relationships--is antithetical to the message of the gospel. In all of these essays, however, Martin argues for engaging Scripture in a way that goes beyond the standard historical-critical questions and the assumptions of textual agency in order to find a faith that has no foundations other than Jesus Christ.
280 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2006
18 people are currently reading
598 people want to read
About the author
Dale B. Martin
11 books35 followersDale B. Martin specializes in New Testament and Christian Origins, including attention to social and cultural history of the Greco-Roman world. Before joining Yale in 1999, he taught at Rhodes College and Duke University. His books include: Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity; The Corinthian Body; Inventing Superstition: from the Hippocratics to the Christians; Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation; and Pedagogy of the Bible: an Analysis and Proposal. He has edited several books, including (with Patricia Cox Miller), The Cultural Turn in Late Ancient Studies: Gender, Asceticism, and Historiography. He was an associate editor for the revision and expansion of the Encyclopedia of Religion, published in 2005. He has published several articles on topics related to the ancient family, gender and sexuality in the ancient world, and ideology of modern biblical scholarship, including titles such as: "Contradictions of Masculinity: Ascetic Inseminators and Menstruating Men in Greco-Roman Culture." He currently is working on issues in biblical interpretation, social history and religion in the Greco-Roman world, and sexual ethics. He has held fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany), the Lilly Foundation, the Fulbright Commission (USA-Denmark), and the Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (elected 2009).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 22, 2015
In this book, Dale Martin, professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, presents his "Postmodern Christian historicism" and brings it to bear upon topics surrounding biblical interpretation and gender/sexuality. He is soaked in the Reader-Response school of Literary Theory, and so places the determinative (maybe even the sole) importance upon how a reader influences what a text means, and furthermore, what a reader does with the text. He explicitly rejects hermeneutical strategies that attempt to pin down one, sole biblical meaning in the author's intention, or the original audiences reception, or the text itself, or any other strategy. Martin is an avowed anti-foundationalist, meaning, he thinks there are no solid foundations, no "givens," no "referees" that tell us how to read the Bible, which interpretations are "better" or "worse," which are valid and invalid. The entire book, in fact, approaches various topics, such as family, divorce, homosexuality, Paul and marriage, etc. and argues time and again that the interpreters of the biblical texts have influenced (often in ways they aren't aware of) the meaning of the text to support some ideological construct. The most significant cardinal sin, in my estimation, that Martin draws attention to is what he calls "heterosexism," or in its more violent forms, "homophobia" which has undergirded interpretations of the Bible throughout history. Really, this is where Martin's "Postmodern Christian HISTORICISM" features. He is Postmodern, in the sense that he gets rid of foundations (centers, ideals, etc.); he is Christian in the sense that he believes that these texts should be read in the context of the church tradition; and he is a historian because he makes frequent use of the historical critical method of interpretation.
As you can imagine, Martin doesn't fall into some one denomination or hermeneutical community. He explicitly says that he thinks good biblical interpreters will be well-versed in multiple approaches to reading the Bible - for example, he reads the Patristics, the Medievals, the Puritans, the Queer theorists, the conservatives, etc. He engages with them all - even if he critiques some (and most) of them on several accounts (and harshly). In the final analysis - and this was my favorite part of the book - Martin appeals to the numerous New Testament verses, as well as Augustine, in defense of the claim that the greatest commandment is love. Love is the greatest commandment. And, as Augustine says, any one who interprets the Scriptures in a way that does not build up the double love of God and of neighbor does not understand the Bible. The Bible cannot be read passively, as we "wait" and "listen" for God's revelation. Such attempts unwittingly hide from us the fact that we are always actively reading, co-constructing meaning, and making use of the text for our own assumptions and values. The only truly Christian way to read the Bible (and perhaps even this is too foundationalist itself!) is to change our values, to become those who interpret the Bible for the end of "love." While "love," Martin thinks, isn't a "foundation" for ethics, it is a better medium for discussing Christian ethics ("Is this interpretation loving?") than debates surrounding exegesis ("What does this text mean?"). On this point, Martin is brilliant. He concludes his book talking about the "stance" of love that we are called to take, an active, engaged, very biased orientation to love God, ourselves, and our neighbor. The Scriptures are a space, a cathedral, in which we can move and walk and think - and Scripture serves its purpose (Augustine again) when it makes us loving. Scripture, in other words, should be read with a stance of love. If we don't attempt to read the Bible lovingly, if we do not question our own interpretations and practices and political perspectives by reference to the bear minimum test-case of love, we risk complicity with hurtful, violent, evil ideologies that destroy our fellow humans who were made in the image of God. Martin's genius comes when he highlights the evil committed against gays, lesbians, transgenders and others who don't fall within the traditional confines of gender and sexuality. If we want to be loving, we must listen to these voices, and do our absolute best, with our limited, contingent, broken "knowledge" to love with all we have. This is the "Christian" way. It is, undoubtedly, a "leap of faith," as Kierkegaard said.
The implication for all of this is that we must not merely "claim" but must "demonstrate" that our interpretation of a Scripture is more loving than its alternatives. This doesn't end all debating in the least. But it re-centers the debate around (hopefully) listening to one another, caring for one another, loving and being loved. If there is a Christian calling, if there is a hermeneutical stance, let it be faith, hope, and love - chiefly, love! To love and be loved by giving of ourselves and being given to by another - this is the end toward which we strive.
As you can imagine, Martin doesn't fall into some one denomination or hermeneutical community. He explicitly says that he thinks good biblical interpreters will be well-versed in multiple approaches to reading the Bible - for example, he reads the Patristics, the Medievals, the Puritans, the Queer theorists, the conservatives, etc. He engages with them all - even if he critiques some (and most) of them on several accounts (and harshly). In the final analysis - and this was my favorite part of the book - Martin appeals to the numerous New Testament verses, as well as Augustine, in defense of the claim that the greatest commandment is love. Love is the greatest commandment. And, as Augustine says, any one who interprets the Scriptures in a way that does not build up the double love of God and of neighbor does not understand the Bible. The Bible cannot be read passively, as we "wait" and "listen" for God's revelation. Such attempts unwittingly hide from us the fact that we are always actively reading, co-constructing meaning, and making use of the text for our own assumptions and values. The only truly Christian way to read the Bible (and perhaps even this is too foundationalist itself!) is to change our values, to become those who interpret the Bible for the end of "love." While "love," Martin thinks, isn't a "foundation" for ethics, it is a better medium for discussing Christian ethics ("Is this interpretation loving?") than debates surrounding exegesis ("What does this text mean?"). On this point, Martin is brilliant. He concludes his book talking about the "stance" of love that we are called to take, an active, engaged, very biased orientation to love God, ourselves, and our neighbor. The Scriptures are a space, a cathedral, in which we can move and walk and think - and Scripture serves its purpose (Augustine again) when it makes us loving. Scripture, in other words, should be read with a stance of love. If we don't attempt to read the Bible lovingly, if we do not question our own interpretations and practices and political perspectives by reference to the bear minimum test-case of love, we risk complicity with hurtful, violent, evil ideologies that destroy our fellow humans who were made in the image of God. Martin's genius comes when he highlights the evil committed against gays, lesbians, transgenders and others who don't fall within the traditional confines of gender and sexuality. If we want to be loving, we must listen to these voices, and do our absolute best, with our limited, contingent, broken "knowledge" to love with all we have. This is the "Christian" way. It is, undoubtedly, a "leap of faith," as Kierkegaard said.
The implication for all of this is that we must not merely "claim" but must "demonstrate" that our interpretation of a Scripture is more loving than its alternatives. This doesn't end all debating in the least. But it re-centers the debate around (hopefully) listening to one another, caring for one another, loving and being loved. If there is a Christian calling, if there is a hermeneutical stance, let it be faith, hope, and love - chiefly, love! To love and be loved by giving of ourselves and being given to by another - this is the end toward which we strive.
July 19, 2013
Dale Martin's Sex and the Single Savior is an accessible introduction for how we might engage and interpret Scripture in ways that avoid many of the problems in modern foundationalist readings. Martin is insistent that we need to avoid foundationalism, and while I'm far from certain that we can ever do this (and his criticism of specifically epistemological foundationalism seems weak and, in this collection of essays at any rate, undeveloped), his critiques are essential reading for any serious Christian who is interested in imagining and building the Church in our era. We desperately need to move beyond the culture wars that were constructed by the old left and the old right and which have ensnared American Christians in unending squabbling over traditions both new and old and exhausted the Church of the energy, joy, and focus needed to take on the problems of the world. Martin's collection of essays is a very important contribution for the task of moving beyond these wars. I do have some qualms about particular interpretations and many of his weak criticisms of modern philosophy - he preaches to the choir in that many of those latter criticisms would really only appeal to those already enamored with continental philosophy or the wide variety of "postmodern" projects out there, and these people make up a large percentage of his readership I suspect. However, his Greek exegesis of passages in the New Testament related to homosexuality is very convincing, and his chapter on how Jesus and Paul really do seem to have some unconventional ideas about family that fly in the face of our culture's traditional family structure (one that emerged partly in the modern period and then crystallized in post-war America) is laudable and thought-provoking. I highly recommend this book.
July 31, 2013
An incredible book. Martin provides powerful reasons for questioning traditional Christian interpretations of the Christian and Hebrew scriptures, and has been successful in persuading me that, for various reasons, that the scriptural texts do not provide us with good reasons to reject homoeroticism as sinful.
Perhaps the most compelling chapters are 3 and 10, in which Martin contends that the tradition's interpretations of "arsenokoites" and "malakos" are open to serious challenge, and that an experience of feeling divine acceptance is for LGBTQ Christians precisely what it was for the Galatians: actual acceptance. Certainly this isn't a necessary truth, since a child molester might feel that his activities are accepted by God when in fact they aren't. Still, such experiences do constitute evidence of acceptance, and biblical prescriptions against such moral acceptance (if there are any) no more constitute a defeater for such experiences than they did for early, uncircumcised Gentile Christians.
There is far more that could be said, but I recommend that everyone read it for themselves. For years, I have held a conservative position on this issue, but have now abandoned it, and largely thanks to Martin's book. I suspect some people are afraid of that possible transformation; they want to maintain a traditional view of homosexuality. But if they desire to do so out of a sense of duty to 'follow the Bible', they should not ignore this book, since it seeks (in part) to understand what the Bible says, but perhaps more than that it seeks to understand how we should approach the Bible in the first place.
Perhaps the most compelling chapters are 3 and 10, in which Martin contends that the tradition's interpretations of "arsenokoites" and "malakos" are open to serious challenge, and that an experience of feeling divine acceptance is for LGBTQ Christians precisely what it was for the Galatians: actual acceptance. Certainly this isn't a necessary truth, since a child molester might feel that his activities are accepted by God when in fact they aren't. Still, such experiences do constitute evidence of acceptance, and biblical prescriptions against such moral acceptance (if there are any) no more constitute a defeater for such experiences than they did for early, uncircumcised Gentile Christians.
There is far more that could be said, but I recommend that everyone read it for themselves. For years, I have held a conservative position on this issue, but have now abandoned it, and largely thanks to Martin's book. I suspect some people are afraid of that possible transformation; they want to maintain a traditional view of homosexuality. But if they desire to do so out of a sense of duty to 'follow the Bible', they should not ignore this book, since it seeks (in part) to understand what the Bible says, but perhaps more than that it seeks to understand how we should approach the Bible in the first place.
August 30, 2020
Are you a Christian? You should read this. Challenge yourself to think about scripture in a different way.
November 17, 2022
Christians want the Bible to be clear. Martin’s argument is that historical criticism of the Bible cannot provide a clear, unified ethic. He writes chapters on the texts usually put forth as condemning same-sex relationships - 1 Timothy 1:10; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Romans 1 - to show they are not nearly as obvious as seen at first glance. First glance there is key, for the words arsenokoites and malakos are straightforwardly translated in contemporary translations as “homosexuals”, “homosexual offenders” or something like that. Yet this is not even close to what these terms actually meant, nor were they translated like this until recently. Malakos, for example, just means “effeminate” and Martin shows that in the ancient world an effeminate man could certainly enjoy sex with women. Were we to translate it as effeminate today, and take the sacred “authorial intent” seriously, we might find ourselves condemning men who wear nice shoes or nice clothes in general, laugh too much, wear aftershave or enjoy sex with women too much (p. 48).
Martin also shows how far contemporary understandings of marriage are from Paul’s world. It practically goes without saying in most Christian circles that marriage is blessed by God. Yet throughout church history, this has not always been taken for granted. In the early and medieval church, celibacy and virginity were seen as the high road. Plenty of theologians allowed for marriage for the propagation of the species, but encouraged couples not to enjoy sex too much or to do it too often. Our contemporary understanding of the nuclear family - a couple and their kids under one roof - is little like the large families of relatives and servants who lived together in much of history. This is even before we get to Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians 7 which, Martin argues, are not an endorsement of desire but rather a rejection of desire in sex and marriage.
I’ve read a good many books over the years arguing in favor of (and against, fwiw) same-sex relationships. This is not the best one - I’d recommend David Gushee’s Changing our Mind or James Brownson’s work first. But it depends what you’re looking for. Martin’s argument takes a slightly different take. Martin’s argument is to show a historical-critical argument cannot settle the debate. Further, he argues against foundationalism of any kind. Rather than seeking a solid foundation in which to construct a theology, Martin admits there is none.
This could be especially uncomfortable to many readers. I’d have hated it 20 years ago.
Martin argues for creative and imaginative biblical interpretation. He looks to Augustine’s principle that a good interpretation is judged on whether it increases our love of God and love of neighbor. Martin admits critics will find this flimsy - anything can be justified in the name of love. But Martin’s retort is that any other argument is just as flimsy. Building on the foundation of historical critical interpretation? That does not settle the issue and disagreements still abound. Tradition? Which one? What about community? Again, this can be just as abused as love.
Overall, this is a book worth being wrestled with by any interested in biblical interpretation especially as it regards issues regarding LGBTQ persons and Christianity.
Martin also shows how far contemporary understandings of marriage are from Paul’s world. It practically goes without saying in most Christian circles that marriage is blessed by God. Yet throughout church history, this has not always been taken for granted. In the early and medieval church, celibacy and virginity were seen as the high road. Plenty of theologians allowed for marriage for the propagation of the species, but encouraged couples not to enjoy sex too much or to do it too often. Our contemporary understanding of the nuclear family - a couple and their kids under one roof - is little like the large families of relatives and servants who lived together in much of history. This is even before we get to Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians 7 which, Martin argues, are not an endorsement of desire but rather a rejection of desire in sex and marriage.
I’ve read a good many books over the years arguing in favor of (and against, fwiw) same-sex relationships. This is not the best one - I’d recommend David Gushee’s Changing our Mind or James Brownson’s work first. But it depends what you’re looking for. Martin’s argument takes a slightly different take. Martin’s argument is to show a historical-critical argument cannot settle the debate. Further, he argues against foundationalism of any kind. Rather than seeking a solid foundation in which to construct a theology, Martin admits there is none.
This could be especially uncomfortable to many readers. I’d have hated it 20 years ago.
Martin argues for creative and imaginative biblical interpretation. He looks to Augustine’s principle that a good interpretation is judged on whether it increases our love of God and love of neighbor. Martin admits critics will find this flimsy - anything can be justified in the name of love. But Martin’s retort is that any other argument is just as flimsy. Building on the foundation of historical critical interpretation? That does not settle the issue and disagreements still abound. Tradition? Which one? What about community? Again, this can be just as abused as love.
Overall, this is a book worth being wrestled with by any interested in biblical interpretation especially as it regards issues regarding LGBTQ persons and Christianity.
June 29, 2014
An amazing book on multiple levels. Its a must-read if you care about issues of sexuality and gender and how they intersect with Christian theology. In addition, its a must-read if you are concerned with the larger question of how we "should" read Scripture/biblical foundationalism. Its a thought provoking read that is well worth your time so check it out. It has made me more self-reflective on the assumptions that guide my own reading of Scripture and more humble about the 'conclusions' I draw from Scripture.
September 3, 2013
I really, really enjoyed this book. While I don't agree 100% with everything Martin says, he definitely challenges one to think hard about many different things regarding how we interpret the Bible. And he's charmingly funny while doing so.
September 11, 2025
The point of this book is precisely to show that "foundationalist" approaches to the biblical text are just a way Christian deceive themselves that they themselves are holding the true meaning of the text. Nothing could be farther from the truth, Dale Martin proposes.
Foundationalism, or the idea that the text (or anything) contains a meaning that can be recovered through historical methods, is simply not true, and the state of biblical criticism now is proof to that. The author then, takes the most controversial subjects known to Christians now (homosexuality, family values, divorce, the sexuality of Jesus, Paul's opinions on Sexuality) and basically strips them naked showing that the Christian consensus on these matters is built on flimsy foundations, using preconceived notions to inform their readings of the text with the pretension that those are the actual readings and, also, meanings. As a specialist in New Testament studies, Dale Martin reverses their entire process against them, showing how in all seriousness with all the historical tools on hand, he can completely prove opposite conclusions, scientifically. How can we, then, take absolute ethical standards from a text that we don't really know what it means, that is ripe with ways of seeing the world that even the most conservative of us have thrown away as useless and ancient? How can we be sure that such ethical standards would hold, or endure?
Before we could say that the author is fighting Foundationalism with even more of the
same, he actually tries to bring forth solutions. The postmodernist way of reading the bible, as how he intitulates it himself, is very similar actually to how Paul himself would have read the Old Testament: letting the experience inform the reading. This is not just a liberal way of seeing hermeneutics, but this is exactly how we already do it, without assuming it ofc. The delusion of having access to the true meaning is a delusion that (here citing Kierkegaard) contradicts faith.
But then, is there anything to inform a Christian reading of the Bible, anything at all? Dale Martin proposes that love should be that standard. How can one say that they possess the Christian meaning of Scripture when it promotes hate, hate of others and hate oneselves?
"What would Jesus do?"
Foundationalism, or the idea that the text (or anything) contains a meaning that can be recovered through historical methods, is simply not true, and the state of biblical criticism now is proof to that. The author then, takes the most controversial subjects known to Christians now (homosexuality, family values, divorce, the sexuality of Jesus, Paul's opinions on Sexuality) and basically strips them naked showing that the Christian consensus on these matters is built on flimsy foundations, using preconceived notions to inform their readings of the text with the pretension that those are the actual readings and, also, meanings. As a specialist in New Testament studies, Dale Martin reverses their entire process against them, showing how in all seriousness with all the historical tools on hand, he can completely prove opposite conclusions, scientifically. How can we, then, take absolute ethical standards from a text that we don't really know what it means, that is ripe with ways of seeing the world that even the most conservative of us have thrown away as useless and ancient? How can we be sure that such ethical standards would hold, or endure?
Before we could say that the author is fighting Foundationalism with even more of the
same, he actually tries to bring forth solutions. The postmodernist way of reading the bible, as how he intitulates it himself, is very similar actually to how Paul himself would have read the Old Testament: letting the experience inform the reading. This is not just a liberal way of seeing hermeneutics, but this is exactly how we already do it, without assuming it ofc. The delusion of having access to the true meaning is a delusion that (here citing Kierkegaard) contradicts faith.
But then, is there anything to inform a Christian reading of the Bible, anything at all? Dale Martin proposes that love should be that standard. How can one say that they possess the Christian meaning of Scripture when it promotes hate, hate of others and hate oneselves?
"What would Jesus do?"
April 17, 2019
Martin regularly reads Biblical interpretation and ancient Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman history in ways that remind me of how Foucault reads history. You may disagree, even deeply, with his reading. It’s never boring, though. Martin is an anti-foundationalist. I am not. But this book so consistently made me think more deeply about Scripture, Biblical interpretation, Biblical interpreters, the Church, and the formation of Christian ethics that it deserves the highest marks from me. And some further reading, including a few rereads of chapters here.
October 22, 2020
This book was helpful and challenging in the emphasis on biological family placed in evangelical culture over and against the New Testament witness of Jesus and Paul (both celibate men). There is much in this book from which even 'orthodox' Protestants can learn. Lots of helpful exploration of what we as Christians mean when we say that the Bible "says" something - even if I ultimately disagree with the author's conclusions.
April 8, 2025
Continuing to catch up on books that I put on my to-read list probably 15 years ago... this book was fascinating from a literary criticism stand point by reinforcing that text has no meaning aside from the meaning making process that readers engage in. It also was a reminder of how radical the Bible was/is. So radical that as modern readers we still tone it down, or of course, use it as a method of control rather than free people from the structures of society.
November 11, 2021
Martin asks: "are there no standards, methods, or safeguards against misuse of Scripture?" his answer, "no" (181). This book reflects this.
Also, he gives a "new" interpretation: "Postmodern Christian Historicism" with a strong focus on "love," (162-169) and does not like the interpretations of N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, Stanly Hauerwas, among others.
Also, he gives a "new" interpretation: "Postmodern Christian Historicism" with a strong focus on "love," (162-169) and does not like the interpretations of N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, Stanly Hauerwas, among others.
April 11, 2022
Don't let the breezy, easy-to-read nature of this title fool you. This book is underpinned by Biblical scholarship of the highest order. Dale does an excellent job of trying to read the text openly, with as little bias as possible, and on every page, he succeeds.
Terrific book, and should be required reading in all universities, Bible study groups, and the like.
Terrific book, and should be required reading in all universities, Bible study groups, and the like.
September 1, 2017
Really loved this as a way to explore a variety of hermeneutical approaches outside of and against historical criticism--all with sexuality and gender as a kind of test case. Several fun and enjoyable essays.
February 19, 2022
Skimmed.
Want to read
October 7, 2020Read part of this for class, interested in reading the whole book at some point.
July 28, 2025
Incredible piece of scholarship on NT sexuality which provides an alternative to the ideas of William Loader.
December 29, 2014
Amazing. Everyone should read this book. Even if you don't agree with Martin, he brings up a lot of things to think about. It starts very academically and dry, but doesn't stay that way. It's actually a series of essays so it is very easy to read once you get into it.
I really enjoyed learning about how marriage as the "tradition" as it is seen today is actually a complete departure from the teachings of Paul and even Jesus. Martin sparked my interest in biblical interpretation and history and I look forward to reading more by him and others.
I really enjoyed learning about how marriage as the "tradition" as it is seen today is actually a complete departure from the teachings of Paul and even Jesus. Martin sparked my interest in biblical interpretation and history and I look forward to reading more by him and others.
February 18, 2012
Probably the most logical collection of essays on Christian sexual ethic and Biblical interpretation. I will have to re-read it several times to absorb all of the info packed into this excellent book.
September 2, 2013
A fantastic book! The only real negative thing I can possibly say about it is that I didn't enjoy the conclusion content. Though I know to expect it with Christian scholars, I won't hold it against it.
October 21, 2011
simply amazing .... it charts new territory for reading for Scripture in a postmodern context while challenging those who oppose homosexuality in their interpretations of various biblical texts.
July 29, 2016
This book profoundly shaped how I understand reading and interpreting the biblical text. It challenged me to encounter and embrace some of the grey areas in my faith.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews