(Note: this is the second in a series, following this post. The same requests for courtesy and careful argument apply.)
There is a whole range of texts which we ought to discuss with special care, that include those that have been used to justify or inspire violence against women, against Jews, against children and against gay people. That does not mean that we should make them say something other than what they do say. It only means we should handle them with care, knowing that past users of these texts have been complicit in a range of abusive, threatening, violent and (literally) murderous behaviour not unrelated to their use of the texts. The two texts I want to address in this post are among them. (And yes, dear reader, I know there are other texts, but one post at a time, please!)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
Curiously, the first of these texts was quoted today in a letter in the Church Times. (Sadly, I can’t link to it, since the CT doesn’t quite get the internet or indeed the general principle of subscription – bizarrely it costs more to subscribe than it does to buy it weekly in a newsagent.) There a certain Felicity Crow writes from rural Gloucestershire:
Christ came to remove not one jot or tittle of the Law. The Law says a man shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination. This is not a question of opinion.
Those who teach or preach otherwise … should be stark staring terrified. … To those who go against him and pollute his teaching Christ is totally terrifying.
That is one point of view (he says drily) and I’ll come back to it in a moment. (I hope questioning is allowed as Jesus readies the thunderbolts.) Ironically it is printed next to a very different letter, from someone whose name and address have been withheld.
I have been a worshipping Christian my entire life, but where I once found solace and friendship at church, it is true to say that I now feel like the enemy – a second class citizen … I spent many years coming to terms with my sexuality, and had a nervous breakdown in doing so.
This illustrates, I think, exactly why I am pleading for care. Let us assume for a moment that the end result of all these explorations will be a defence of the traditional position. Then I would note that Jesus was able to say to the woman caught in adultery “Go and sin no more” because he had first become her rescuer and protector. We can, I think, hear hard things from those we know love us, but if we never hear anything but hard things, it leaves us feeling very doubtful that we’re loved at all. Why would anyone want to know, far less trust and obey, a Jesus who sets out to terrify?
At one level, it seems to me that we can have some agreement about these texts themselves. They say pretty much the same thing, although the second elaborates and adds the punishment. It seems most likely that “lie with a male as with a woman” primarily refers to anal sex, although the euphemism is wide enough to embrace the possibility of other activities. It seems clear that it is specific actions that are being spoken about. It is worth noting that, unlike a fairly common view of the Roman world, both the penetrator and the penetrated are equally guilty. The implication, although rarely noticed, is also that, since this is a matter of purity, anal rape of an unwilling partner would still lead to the death penalty for both rapist and raped alike.
Moving beyond that to further interpretation is far from straightforward, however. At the most basic level, there is little obvious historical context. The development of the legal materials, the possibility of a separate Holiness Code (Lev 17-26) being incorporated into (later?) P material, the dating of earlier and final recensions all leave much of this lacking a clear cultural context within which to understand it. One possibility might well be pagan temple prostitution, or other cultic sexual activity. But it might not have that kind of connection at all. It may, as with so many other features of the priestly writings, be concerned with a particular construction of what is order, and therefore safe, and what chaos, and therefore dangerous. It could be held that there is a quite rational emphasis on the maintenance of sex for procreation, and procreation alone, at a time when mortality rates made this a matter of elementary survival and the common good. Non-procreative sex threatens the well-being of the community of Israel.
It seems to me impossible to adjudicate between these possible interpretations, and quite likely that there are elements of all three. In every case, the text is implicated in a particular context. The third context is one that some parts of the world can still identify with, and it also raises some awkward questions for heterosexual people, and the ways in which the modern West (at least outside the Roman Catholic Magisterium) conceptualises sex. The second possibility may lead to some of the more interesting and fruitful questions in cross-cultural interpretation. Order and chaos are primal categories, theologically, culturally, politically and psychologically. Saying the text needs interpretation is not the same as immediately kissing it goodbye.
The other issue that confronts and confuses the interpreter however, is one of selection. I go back for a moment to Ms Crow’s letter. Note that she has selected Lev 18:22 over Lev 20:13. In saying that not a jot or tittle in the Law are altered, she has nonetheless chosen the verse that omits the death penalty. Everyone selects, and so everyone interprets. These troubling verses are surrounded (staying within the boundaries of the so-called Holiness Code)by some very different ones. It includes laws that are reinforced in the New Testament and are regarded effectively as universal moral laws, such as “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). It includes laws that no Christian even begins to think might be applicable today, such as “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27).
It contains laws that the Church now regards as incompatible with its understanding of the will of God: “As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.” (Leviticus 25:44). Nonetheless, for a large part of Christian history, tradition saw this law as perfectly acceptable. It contains laws that the Church, or modern society, has effectively sidelined, and which are rarely debated: “Do not take interest in advance or otherwise make a profit from them, but fear your God; let them live with you. You shall not lend them your money at interest taken in advance, or provide them food at a profit.” (Leviticus 25:36-37). By contrast with the law on slaves, for the larger part of Christian history, the church thought this law was of ongoing significance, and revealed the will of God for Christian society.
Laws dealing with sex are mixed up with laws dealing with sacrifice, conduct for priests, general ethical behaviour, and other matters. The question of interpretation is not a cop-out, nor a way of avoiding difficulties. It is a necessary response to the nature of the text and in particular to the reading of Leviticus, where the selective and variable nature of Christian interpretation is perhaps at its most obvious. We Christians, at least, do select, and our selections appear to change. The question is “have we made the right selections?” Are our selections truly refracted through the gospel?
The broader themes of order and chaos, and the place of the communal good offering a context in which to think about sexual behaviour that seem to relate to the specifics of these texts will be important ideas to return to in placing one cultural reading in tension with another. But the whole must be related to the Christ who enters the ultimate undoing in death of God’s created order in order to recreate it, and the one who creates a new community reordered around the pattern of his faithfulness, rather than Torah-obedience.
This may be a bigger task than I intended to take on (or indeed am capable of).
24 responses so far ↓
1 Bob MacDonald // Jul 18, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Whether this is to big for you or not, I am glad you have taken it on. And Bravo for this original work. What a pleasure it is to read the Scripture (or the prayer book) with you.
I note that these two texts are part of a chiastic structure within the holiness code. I suspect the center is ‘thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ - but I do not have Milgrom’s 3 volume commentary to hand to check out his analysis where he also points out that the double ring structure of the whole book. And Leviticus itself is of course the central book of the Torah and some have argued for a concentric structure of the 5 books. So whatever we make of it, it is beautiful, so Torah is loved - but loving it does not mean we have to misread it.
There is no fear in love.
2 Peter Kirk // Jul 18, 2008 at 11:17 pm
This is certainly a big task. Indeed making proper sense of how far the Old Testament law is applicable to Christians today is something I have never seen adequately done. That is a good reason to rely primarily on New Testament teaching on such matters. So I look forward to what you have to say about the Romans and 1 Corinthians passages.
3 Bishop Alan Wilson // Jul 18, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Doug, Although rather busy right now, I’m so glad you’ve taken this on, and will look forward to walking through the Sctiptures with you on it — maybe in parallel to some of the Indaba stuff here at Lambeth near the end of this conference. It is a bit bizarre, given the anger around this subject, how little reverent and serious commentary there is on these texts int heir own terms. Also, how much of what there is either assumes a special rigorist hermeneutic or a simply dismissive one…
4 Chuck Blanchard // Jul 19, 2008 at 1:02 am
Doug: Thanks for undertaking this project. Like Peter Kirk, I think that the focus should be on the New Testament. Nonetheless, given that Paul is the author of the relevant portions of the New Testament that discuss homsexuality, it seems to me that you appropriately begin with the Scripture that Paul would be aware of. It seems to me that an understanding of what Paul was trying to say on this topic inevitably leads one back to Leviticus. And I also think that Paul’s views may help to illuminate Leviticus.
Although I have come to my own (layperson) views on this issue, I eagerly await what you have to say!
5 Justin Anthony Knapp // Jul 19, 2008 at 3:24 am
Doug,
As always, amen. I am a bit suspect of the fundamentalist as well as the revisionist readings: they almost always smack of reading a political ideology into the Bible.
At the risk of quibbling, I have to take exception to this passage:
“It includes laws that no Christian even begins to think might be applicable today, such as ‘You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.’ (Leviticus 19:27).”
I have a full facial beard for precisely this reason and I would consider myself a Christian. Certainly, you are completely right about a great many Christians - the vast majority wouldn’t give this a second thought or would find a convenient (ugh) or thoughtful (yay) justification for breaking this law. I, on the other hand, in the midst of breaking many laws in the Law, do obey this one and not for aesthetic purposes (trust me.)
-JAK
6 Bob MacDonald // Jul 19, 2008 at 3:31 am
And here I was thinking to get a hair cut and tidy my beard if only for my wife’s sake!
7 Tim Chesterton // Jul 19, 2008 at 4:48 am
This is getting better and better, Doug - I appreciate the care and time you are putting into this.
8 Mark B. // Jul 19, 2008 at 7:38 am
Peter Kirk makes a good point: how the NT appropriates the OT in the light of Christ is the central question for Christians.
Doug, it’s worth making a close study of Robert Gagnon’s book ‘The Bible and Homosexual Practice’ for how St Paul has applied the Levitical passages, as well as Jude’s use of Gen 19, and other passages. Gagnon is also excellent for getting the ‘whole picture’ of the Bible rather than atomistic prooftexting (and atomistic explaining away). A critical question for me has always been what Jesus meant by porneia in Mark 7.21.
The meaning of some of the Torah passages and their raison d’etre has been a puzzle in history to Jews (e.g. Maimonides) as well as Christians, for which cultural anthropology (e.g Mary Douglas) as well as basic ethical reasoning (as in Maimonides) may provide some clues.
I notice an allusion to Phyllis Trible’s book in your title and as a catholic evangelical I’m sure you would not be following the easy approach of Trible (’unmask the enemy and reject’).
9 steph // Jul 19, 2008 at 9:39 am
I like what you are saying Doug.
Michael Westmoreland-White on Levellers has
been writing some good posts on biblical
texts and homosexuality. He has reacted to
Richard Hays’ interpretation of Romans in two
posts on 18th July, and he posted an
index of his previous posts on the subject on
the 14th July.
I’m glad not everybody takes the rule on
facial hair literally now. I sometimes feel
intimidated by bearded men and I also worry
that beards get a bit grubby sometimes.
10 steph // Jul 19, 2008 at 9:47 am
http://levellers.wordpress.com/
This is the link to Michael
Westmoreland-White’s blog
11 Mark B. // Jul 19, 2008 at 9:58 am
Westmoreland-White gets it quite wrong on slavery. The Bible, and especially the NT, consistently makes it clear that slavery is never a positive good but arises out of living in a fallen world, as a consequence of debt, military defeat, or penal servitude. The NT always treats slavery as a thing to be overcome if possible.
I haven’t read Hays enough to see if he makes this point clearly, but the point is discussed at great length by Gagnon (see his website), and this is where W-W should engage the argument.
12 steph // Jul 19, 2008 at 10:04 am
I’m not sure how the Bible supports Mark in
his claims but I was hoping Doug might want
to look at Levellers himself.
13 Mark B. // Jul 19, 2008 at 10:06 am
steph: reading may remove some uncertainty.
14 steph // Jul 19, 2008 at 10:50 am
mark - I should really have been more precise:
I disagree with you.
15 Mark B. // Jul 19, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Steph: understood. To be precise: I find nothing in the NT that considers slavery positively (except being a ‘doulos tou christou’) but rather something to be overcome if possible - though not by a Spartacus-type rebellion. Slavetrading is condemned in 1 Tim 1.10 - along with other sins. Can you point me to texts that indicate differently?
16 doug // Jul 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Steph, thanks for the link to M W-W i shall try to take a look. I am reading these comments, but may end up mainly responding (implicitly) in the way I write subsequent posts.
Mark, thanks for clarifying your response to Steph. You do seem to have a tendency to state your view as though no other is possible, and it can be quite annoying, and turn dialogue into something more bad tempered.
In regard to what you say about slavery, I don’t think any of these questions are exact parallels, and making them so does a disservice to the argument. But when you say “the Bible is clear” I can only point you to past history and the abolitionist debates which, whatever else they provide, provide ample evidence that a few generations ago the Bible was perceived as far from clear, and its interpretation and meaning was at the heart of the argument over slavery.
17 Mark B. // Jul 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Doug, I know that quite a few slaveholders in the South (and probably in Britsh West Indies) - many of them solid Episcopalians or Anglicans - sought to justify ‘the peculiar institution’ on assumed biblical grounds, along with a certain view of biology (the alleged inferiority of the Negro) and historical mythology (’manifest destiny’ etc) - evidence of their better education and social standing than Baptists and Methodists! It was usually done with something of a defensive conscience, because Northern evangelicals (and English evangelicals like Wilberforce & co.) bitterly - and sometimes violently (Harper’s Ferry; Bleeding Kansas) opposed it in the name of Christ and humanity.
But the point is that chattel slavery from Africa to the New World was a comparative innovation: for centuries the practice had been outlawed in Christian Europe because it was seen to unacceptable for one Christian to enslave another. Only by treating the black African as ‘less than human; and doing it in the New World was there an opening for slavery. But even there it was never uncontroversial or uncondemned. Praise God for the early Quakers!
My request to Steph is to show me where the NT speaks approvingly of slavery. I don’t know where it does.
18 steph // Jul 20, 2008 at 1:09 am
Mark - sigh - I never said the NT
condones slavery. I said I
disagreed with you - inferring your
blanket statement that claimed Michael
was “wrong”. Michael was talking about
the lack of counter texts in the comments
of one of his posts.
My original comment however was intended
for Doug who is putting time and effort
into understanding this important topic,
and I am grateful to him for considering
Michael’s perspective.
19 Drew // Jul 21, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“I find nothing in the NT that considers slavery positively”
Regarding this, what is clear is that the NT says that you should treat your slaves well - as a member of the family. However, this does not change that they are your property. So even if we own another human being and treat them well, is it just?
Often at this point a certain “trajectory hermeneutics” is employed as if such a position is all that novel. True that the rules with slaves were clear: treat them well. But there is nothing that openly forbids the practice of slavery and no indication that this was a practice that was on its way to being outlawed as something of a less than human enterprise. No matter how you cut it, owning another human being places that person on a much lower existential level than one’s own self. Slaves were not considered “neighbors” certainly in the sense that Leviticus 19 notes to which Jesus referred.
Paul’s use of slavery is metaphorical. It is creative irony. Only there, as a slave, do we find freedom. This is the yoke of Christ. In other forms of slavery, as a slave to another human, it is the lack of personal will and freedom that makes Paul’s proclamation of his own slavery so ironic and rhetorically potent.
This is where Gagnon’s work is very weak and William Stacy Johnson’s work is strong. Remember also that the injunction in Leviticus is to kill those who are caught in same sex acts. This speaks to Doug’s point of selectivity. If this really is a literal abomination as we want to hear in many cases, why not continue with the injunction to put those caught in the act to death? It is my judgment that “both sides” of the debate break down with their respective selectivity here.
20 Mark B. // Jul 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Drew, I don’t agree. Paul does more than say ‘be kind to your slaves’; the implication of Philemon 16- 17, ‘…no longer as a slave … welcome him as you would welcome me’ (at least as Gagnon reads it, pp. 444-448) is that Philemon should manumit Onesimus. 1 Cor 7.21 also indicates that Paul did not consider slavery a desirable condition. To treat a slave ‘as a member of your family’ does in fact undermine the notion of another human being as property. Slower than Spartacism but a lot more effective, one might say. There are a lot of ethical issues I wish the NT spoke more explicitly on (e.g., abortion, polygamy, euthanasia), but I’m not sure if it did we’d be any more inclined to obey. After all, a lot of contemporary Christians (of all varieties) pay little more than lip service to its teaching on divorce.
In judging what is a legitimate ‘trajectory’ (as opposed to a post factum rationalization that suits our mindset or politics), we need to involve:
1. the consentient witness of the NT on the matter in hand;
2. the fundamental cruciform principle of Gospel obedience (dying to self, being alive to Christ);
3. clear-headed moral reasoning.
How, for example, might you apply these ‘rules’ to your recent post on abortion?
21 Mark B. // Jul 21, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Drew asks: “If this really is a literal abomination as we want to hear in many cases, why not continue with the injunction to put those caught in the act to death?”
Briefly, because, outside places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, we live in pluralist societies, not theocracies, and in the NT, which was birthed in just such a pluralist world, judgment in these matters is left to God. Adultery and idolatry were also once punished by the death penalty by the criminal law in medieval European society.
22 Mark B. // Jul 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm
To amplify my last point: in the OT there is little clear (some would say, none at all) teaching on postmortem retribution, while this is very evident in the NT. So the NT leaves many matters of judgment in the hands of God, perceiving that the pagan State has a more limited role in maintaining order and punishing egregious evil.
I forgot to note in a previous post that slave-trading is denounced by Paul in 1 Tim 1.10, and by John in Rev. 18.13.
23 magistra // Jul 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm
How do those who believe that the Old Testament’s views on sexual matters are still valid (even if they reject food regulations etc) deal with Deuteronomy 23: 23-29, which prescribes punishment for rape victims in some circumstances? (Betrothed woman who doesn’t call for help is to be executed, unbetrothed woman is to be married to her rapist).
24 MetaCatholic » Reading the Bible without gay abandon // Aug 9, 2008 at 6:41 pm
[...] The levitical legal texts [...]
Leave a Comment