A Marginal Christian looks at Leviticus on Sexual Sin Generally*; Matthew on adultery specifically; and what we can learn from Christ's encounters with two adulteresses.
* CAVEAT: I have only a rough idea of how the text is construed by modern-day Jews. This posting is an answer to Christians who use Leviticus as the ground for excluding homosexuals from the community or for denying them civil rights.
One of the most annoying aspects of "The Church of God Without Christ" is ignorance. Yes, ignorance. Most Christians---including or rather especially the leaders of the various sects----don't know and don't WANT to know the history of the church or really anything about its evolution.
Though they can quote scripture, and have a propensity to do so, they can only quote the bits that resonate for them (i.e., that confirm something they already want to believe). I've got family members who can bring the (apparently) apt quote, but if you start questioning them about the source, they have NO IDEA of the context or of how the quoted piece fits within the whole.
The chapters in the Bible that address the ancient laws provide a fascinating picture of life among the Israelites. You have to assume that if at least some of the people weren't engaged in the forbidden conduct, it wouldn't be necessary for God to forbid it.
Now there are Jews who keep to the ancient laws as well as they can; these people have the virtue of consistency and can be said to take the Old Testament literally.
But modern-day Protestant Christians like to go through and cherry-pick the ones that suit them and that they believe 'apply' to the current day. Then they will tell you that they take the Bible literally because it is the authentic word of God and that they take it literally. Oh really? Let's talk about what it would mean to apply Leviticus literally.
1. Sexual sin in Leviticus.
Time for some close reading. I'm going with the New English Bible because those who know better than me say it's more true to the original text. I'm going to take the word of the scholar who assured me that the New English Bible is more accurate, even though I recently saw a bumper stick that said---and this is so delightful---in golden letters upon a black background, "The King James Bible is the True Word of God." Heh.
According to the introduction to the New English Bible, the translation of the New Testament "was undertaken with the object of providing English readers...with a faithful rendering of the best available Greek text into the current speech of our own time, and a rendering which would harvest the recent gains of new scholarship." New English Bible (1971 ed.) Introduction to New Testament at v.
FYI, the New English Bible doesn't use the conventional verse numbers ("which in the New Testament date only from 1551 and have no basis in the manuscripts.") I've done the best I can to identify them correctly for those wedded to the KJB, but I can't warrant my citations.
Before I start, I am going to adopt the assumption of Christians everywhere that Christ's death was a sacrifice that somehow cancelled out the obligation of his followers to make ritual sacrifice as spelled out in Leviticus. I am going to focus on some of the other requirements of Leviticus.
Let's start with the much-touted and much-disputed passage from Leviticus banning homosexuality (between man and man) as an "abomination." Here is the translation set forth in the New English Bible. It is unequivocal. I cannot deny it. It comes from the chapter called 'the law of holiness' and it says:
You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; that is an abomination.
Leviticus, Chapter 18, New English Bible Leviticus (1971 ed.) at 130.
Furthermore, the punishment for this abomination is death.
If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, they both commit an abomination. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon their own heads.
Harsh, eh? But let's not focus too closely on this loophole-free injunction to the ancient Hebrews. There's lots more:
You shall revere, every man of you, his mother and his father. Leviticus, Chapter 19, NEB (1971 ed) at 130-31,
When any man reviles his father and his mother, he shall be put to death. He has reviled his fathyer and his mother; his blood shall be upon his own head.
Leviticus Chapter 20, NEB (1971 ed.) at 132.
I'm not sure, exactly, how 'reviling' differs from 'failing to revere.' Doubtless there is a distinction, but what? I remember as a child hearing one of the more conspicuous Christians of my acquaintance referring to her mom as "stupid," "useless," a "bitch," and "insane." Did I miss a chance for some serious smiting?
Anyway, let's move on. What other acts carried the same or worse penalties to homosexuality (specifically homosexual acts between guys; seems as if there is a little loophole there for lesbians)?
If a man commits adultery with his neighbour's wife, both adulterer and adulteress shall be put to death.
The man who has intercourse with his father's wife [presumably a step-mother] has brought shame on his father. They shall both be put to death; their blood shall be on their own heads.
If a man has intercourse with his daughter-in-law, they shall both be put to death. Their deed is a violation of nature; their blood shall be on their own heads.
If a man takes both a woman and her mother, that is lewdness. Both he and they shall be burnt; thus there shall be no lewdness in your midst.
A man who has sexual intercourse with any beast shall be put to death, and you shall kill the beast. If a woman approaches any animal to have sex with it, you shall kill both woman and beast. They shall be put to death; their blood shall be on their own heads.
Leviticus Chapter 20 (New English Bible 1971 ed.) at 132.
Note that all of the above are framed here as equal crimes. Adultery, certain forms of incest, bestiality, 'lewdness', homesexuality all carried the death penalty. Adulterers received the same treatment as homosexuals or those whose sexuality took a more bizarre turn. (Do I have to remind you of Jesus's gloss on the prohibition of adultery, by the way, or his broad definition of adultery and fornication?)
My point, of course, is that it doesn't make sense to treat homosexuality differently from other sex sins. Or does it? Let's read some more.
There is a set of sexual offenses that I initially thought didn't carry the death penalty; instead the offenders are proscribed (or at least that's what I assume the text means by the phrase 'cut off from their people').
If a man takes his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, and they see one another naked, it is a scandalous disgrace. They shall be cut off in the presence of their people. The man has had intercourse with his sister and he shall accept responsibility.
If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and brings shame upon her, he has exposed her discharge, and she has uncovered the course of her discharge; they shall both be cut off from their people.
[But see Leviticus Chapter 15, which seems to contradict this. In discussing a woman with a 'discharge of blood,' it says, "If a man goes so far as to have intercourse with her and any of her discharge gets on to him, then he shall be unclean for seven days, and every bed on which he lies down shall be unclean.' At first I thought 'discharge of blood' must mean 'bleeding other than menstrual bleeding,' but the next set of verses deal with 'a prolonged discharge of blood not at the time of her menstruation, or whe her discharge continues beyond the period of menstruation', so I can't really work out what the rule is from this or the One True Text in the King James version. Leviticus Chapter 15, New English Bible (1971 ed. 1971) at 126-27.]
The reason I am confused about the intended penalty for the preceding offenses is that the subsequent text identifies a further death penalty text. My version states that if a man has sex with his uncle's wife, "they shall accept responsibility for their sin and shall be proscribed AND put to death."
Perhaps the uncle has special status that makes the level of sin different. The immediately preceding sentence says merely that if a man has sex with an aunt on either side, "they shall accept responsibility." I hate that phrase in any context because it is so ambiguous. It could mean 'apologize'---though that's not really what Leviticus is about---or it could mean 'be proscribed' or 'put to death,' or all of the above. It's ambiguous. I don't see why it's worse to sleep with your aunt-in-law than an aunt to whom you're related by blood, but maybe it made sense to the Hebrews.
The last item in the list is the prohibition against a man taking 'his brother's wife. [I]t is impurity. he has brought shame upon his brother; they shall be proscribed." Since it immediately follows the sentence stating that the death penalty applies to a man (and his uncle's wife) if they sleep together, I guess it didn't apply to any of these?
Anyway, here's my point: The text of Leviticus identifies a number of sexual sins, of which homosexuality is only one and definitely not the only one that carried the death penalty; the same applied to adultery.
I guess I am not sure why Christians of my acquaintance everywhere, many divorced and remarried, think that the text applies to gay men (note that there is an apparent loophole for lesbians) but not to them. The text of Leviticus seems to treat them as much of a muchness.
Jesus talked a great deal about divorce and unequivocally states that a divorced person who remarries commits fornication. Refer to Matthew.
The Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any and every ground?"... [Jesus replies]: "What God has joined togther, man must not separate." "Why then," they objected, "did Moses lay it down that a man might divorce his wife by note of dismissal?" he answered, "It was because your minds were closed that Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives; but it was not like that when all began. I tell you, if a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity, and marries another, he commits adultery.
The disciples said to him, "If that is the position with husband and wife, it is better not to marry." To this he replied, "That is something which not everyone can accept, but only those for whom God has appointed it. For while some are incapable of marriage because they were born so, or were made so by men, there aer others who have themselves renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven. Let those accept it who can."
Matthew, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 27.
He has more to say on the subject in The Sermon on the Mount.
"You have learned that they [the Hebrews] were told, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you this: If a man looks on a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
"If your right eye is your undoing, tear it out and fling it away; it is better for you to lose one part of your body than for the whole of it to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand is your undoing, cut it off and fling it away; it is better for you to lose one part of your body than for the whole of it to go to hell.
"They [the Hebrews] were told, "A man who divorces his wife must give her a note of dismissal." But what I tell you is this: If a man divorces his wife for any cause other than unchastity he inolves her in adultery; and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Matthew, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 8.
Pretty unequivocal, I'd say. Which takes us back to Leviticus.
Leviticus prescribed death for certain sins, including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) adultery. We don't have any sayings of Jesus about other sins---presumably the issue just didn't come up----but we can see how he dealt with adulterers (i.e., the sinners, rather than the sin).
2. Jesus and the adulterous women.
Both scenes involve adulterous women. I'm very fond of both Biblical gals. The scenes give a picture of Jesus actually interacting with individuals other than the disciples. They provide some local color. They also show Jesus blithely violating some of the most closely held precepts of his community and freely associating with people he should not have been talking to.
In John is the charming scene where, while passing through Samaria, land of the despised Samaritans, he becomes 'tired after his journey' and sits down by a well to take a breather while the disciples go into the town of Sychar to buy food. The dialogue is from the text of the New English Bible. The interpolations are my own.
Along comes a Samaritan woman to draw water from the well. "Jesus said to her, "Give me a drink." Now--not knowing him from Adam (heh)--- I'd have said, "Magic word!?", but she said (according to my text) "What! You, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a Samaritan woman? Jews and Samaritans...do not use vessels in common (or 'are not on familiar terms with Samaritans)."
"Jesus answered her, "If only you knew what God gives, and who it is that is asking you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."
"Sir," the woman said, "you have no bucket and this well is deep. How can you give me 'living water'? Are you a greater man than Jacob our ancestor, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, he and his sons, and his cattle too?""
I like to think that she said it flirtatiously, taking the whole thing as a first century attempt to chat her up. Come on, it totally works as a double entendre. No? If you know better, don't tell me; I enjoy my personal vision too much.
Jesus said, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water that I shall give him will never suffer thirst any more. The water that I shall give him will be an inner spring always welling up for eternal life."
"Sir," said the woman, "give me that water, and then I shall not be thirsty, nor come all this way to draw.""
Again, I like to think that she said it with wink and a coy smile. Because, as we see in the next line, she was that sort.
Anyway, Jesus is having none of it. He says, "Go home, call your husband and come back."
In my private imagining of this scene, she still doesn't get it. "I have no husband," she simpers.
I like to imagine that he said the next part with a slight smile and in a mild tone; we know he liked women and got on well with them. "You are right," he agrees, "in saying that you have no husband, for, although have had five husbands, the man with whom you are now living is not your husband; you told me the truth there." Note that he simply states the facts without sanctimonious moralizing.
Stunned, the woman says, "You are a prophet!" In my version of this conversation, she says the next thing because she's shaken and to divert the discussion to him. "Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you Jews say that the temple where God should be worshipped is in Jerusalem." I sometimes read it as a half-hearted, i.e., "Oh, what do you know about right and wrong; you think God should be worshipped in Jerusalem!" You know, to cover her own chagrin. I picture her turning away rather indignantly and picking up her jar to leave.
But then Jesus says something that surprises her even more---or so I imagine; Jews, as noted, seem to have thought the Samaritans no better than dogs---and she probably wasn't used to discussing theology with strange men, particularly Jewish ones.
Believe me, the time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship without knowing what you worship, while we worship what we know. It is from the Jews that salvation comes. but the time approaches, incdeed it is already here, when those who are real worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. Such are the worshippers whom the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.
The woman answers---I think with a slight defensive edge?--- "I know that Messiah is coming. When he comes he will tell us everything." (Again, emphasis mine!)
And Jesus says, "I am he, who am speaking to you now."
At this juncture the disciples arrive, considerably astonished to find him talking with a woman, and a Samaritan woman at that. But they knew better than to object. The text says, "none of them said, 'What do you want?' or, 'Why are you talking with her?' [emphasis mine].
But they are not as astonished as this unnamed woman. The woman puts down her water-jar and goes straight back to the town where she tells everyone she has met the Messiah. The townspeople come out to greet Jesus and---the text tells us---because of the woman's testimony: 'He told me everything I ever did.'
And according to the text---because OF COURSE these men wouldn't have wanted to give ultimate credit for a revelation to a WOMAN-- many more became believers "because of what they heard from his own lips." They told the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard him ourselves; and we know that this is in truth the savior of the World." He stayed two days---two days!---with them. [It may have become the basis for a later attack by the priests and scribes. Subsequently, his opponents challenge him by asking, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan....?" John Chapter 8, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 123.]
But my favorite Jesus-meets-the-public story is the one about the woman caught in adultery. According to the New English Bible, this story actually appears in different places in various versions of this Gospel and not at all in others. Sigh. I choose to believe it happened because of the very specific details that John---of whom I am otherwise not overly fond, despite the Gnostic overtones, because of the pervasive anti-Semitism---is always so good about providing. The Gospel of John is full of strange details and local color. For example:
Here's the NEB version of the woman taken in adultery, based on the 'best Greek texts.'
Jesus shows up in the temple and sits down to teach a crowd of his followers. Some of the lawyers and pharisees bring a woman to him.
Making her stand out in the middle, they said to him, "Master, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. In the Law Moses has laid down that such women are to be stoned. What do you say about it?"
They put the question as a test, hoping to frame a charge against her.
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the ground (a wonderful detail). When they continued to press their question he sat up straight. "That one of you who is faultless shall throw the first stone."
[The subsequent text makes it clear that he then stoops down and starts scratching on the ground again---which is the part I like best.]
When they heard what he said, one by one they went away, the eldest first; and Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing there.
Jesus again sits up. He says to the woman, "Where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
She says, "No one, sir."
Jesus said, "Nor do I condemn you. You may go; do not sin again."
New English Bible at 143 (1971 ed.)
I love to imagine the lawyers and priests slowly laying down their self-righteousness and walking away.
One of my friends who reads Greek says that the original text actually ought to read, "That one among you who is without that sin [adultery] shall cast the first stone." Which would be even better.
Without looking at what it all meant, let's consider what he actually did. In the story of the Samaritan woman at the well, let the woman know that he knew the story, but other than his summary of the facts, the Gospel doesn't show him rebuking her personally, even though she's a MAJOR sexual sinner. Furthermore---knowing all that and knowing she's a Samaritan----he asks her to let him have a drink of water. (The gospel doesn't tell us whether he ever got that drink or whether this was just a conversational ice-breaker.) It does provide us with an example of how Jesus dealt with actual sexual sinners; and it shows that he considered such a person to be a worthy instrument for spreading the word to her people.
In the story of the woman taken in adultery, he doesn't rebuke anyone directly; the lawyers and priests take care of that for themselves. All he says to the woman is "Don't do it again." Note the absence of pontificating, bloviating, or humiliating.
3. Are adulterers less sinful than homosexuals?
Some of the most annoyingly sanctimonious Christianists of my acquaintance are divorced. We know Jesus's general position on the question of adultery and that he defined it broadly.
We know that after stating his position, he continued to be gentle in his handling of individual sinners (aside from the priests and lawyers, that is---to them he was almost unfailingly rude.)
Knowing what we know about his dealings with these adulterours women, what can we learn about those we believe----on the strength of ancient Jewish law we don't otherwise follow----to be sexual sinners?
To know what Jesus requires, surely you have to look at what he did. Those he attacked were PRECISEY those who set them up as the godly vessels of righteousness, who prayed loudly and publicly, and who presumed to judge and punish sin in the name of the Lord.
I CANNOT understand how there is even a SCRAP of an argument based on Christianity for excluding homosexuals, denying them civil rights, or otherwise treating them as sinners of a different class than ordinary sinners (including heart-lusters and adulterers).
I have NEVER heard a credible argument produced in support of this position. I believe that it is grounded in misanthropy and a basic hatred of humanity and the impulses to which it is subject. It is clear that in the time of Leviticus there were men disposed to have sex with other men; otherwise, no law would have been needed. That law is unambiguously phrased, at least from the standpoint of any Christian prepared to rely on Leviticus.
But I will not accept Leviticus as a rational basis for the mistreatment of homosexuals (including the denial of their civil rights) by anyone who doesn't follow its OTHER many requirements, including those relating to nasty-looking skin lesions that may or may not be leprous or for cleaning up after a little horizontal jogging or for dealing with the byproducts of mentruation. E.g., the laws of purifications and atonement:
When a man has emitted semen, he shall bathe is whole body in water and be unclean till evening. Every piece of clothing or skin on which there is any semen shall be washed and remain unclean till evening. This applies also to the woman with whom a man has had intercourse; they shall both bathe themselves in water and remain unclean till evening.
When a woman has a discharge of blood, her impurity shall last for seven days; anyone who touches her shall be unclean till evening. Everything on which she sits or lies during her impurity shall be unclean. Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his clothes, bathe in water and remain unclean till evening. If he is on the bed or seat where she is sitting, by touching it he shall become unclean till evening. If a man goes so far as to have intercourse with her [note that this is subsequently forbidden, as noted above] and any of her discharge gets on to him, then he shall be unclean for seven days, and every bed on which he lies down shall be unclean.
When a woman has a prolonged discharge of blood not at the time of her menstruation, or when her discharge continues beyond the period of menstruation, her impurity shall last all the time of her discharge; she shall be unclean as during the period of her menstruation. Any bed on which she lies during the time of her discharge shall be like that which she used during menstruation, and everything on which she sits shall be uncloean as in her menstrual uncleanness. Every person who touches them shall be unclean; he shall wash his clothes, bathe in water and remain unclean till evening. If she is cleansed from her discharge she shall reckon seven days and after that she shall be ritually clean.
Leviticus, chapter 15, New English Bible (1971 ed.) at 126-27.
I won't listen to a word from anyone who does not follow THIS requirement as well:
You shall rise in the presence of grey hairs, give honour to the aged, and fear your God.
Leviticus, Chapter 19, NEB (1971 ed) at 132.
Or THIS one:
You shall revere, every man of you, his mother and his father. Leviticus, Chapter 19, NEB (1971 ed) at 130-31,
I'm not seeing a lot of rigorous adherence to the less sexy of the commandments or the law among conventional so-called Christians.
And until I do, I am not listening to or BELIEVING a WORD about the binding force of ancient Jewish law or Leviticus on contemporary Christians. Yes, I know he said that he didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, but---judging by other things he said and did----he didn't mean by that what Christianists wish for him to mean either.
Also, yes: I know he said that the devil can quote scripture for his own purposes; but since the other side quote Scripture with far greater assurance, how do they know he wasn't speaking about them? They seem to think that affirming their belief is sufficient to ensure their righteousness, but as I recall he was VERY clear that those who say "I believe, I believe" aren't truly part of the posse unless they also understand what he meant and behave accordingly. It is quite, quite clear that the people he identified as most UNrighteous were those who were absolutely certain that they were the most righteous. They were, in fact, the wealthy and law-abiding people who assumed that as long as they were following all the rules, they were okay. But he clearly wanted no part of those who flaunted their orthodoxy, superior righteousness, and knowledge of the law.
"The letter kills; the spirit gives life. You will love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind; and you will love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and all the Prophets."
Christians hellbent on judging and oppressing their neighbors would do well to consider Christ's broader message. It's not the business of a Christian to determine the worth/righteousness of another human being. If he wasn't clear about everything he said, he was absolutely clear about that.
I realize that many people who had adulterous fun, divorced, are happily remarried and have been faithful to their spouses ever sense believe that they are excused because Christ has redeemed and forgiven their sins, whereas practicing homosexuals can't be forgiven as long as they carry on being homosexuals. But should our formerly adulterous-not-continent fellow Christians feel quite so smugly superior? Are any of us really in a position to judge---or reform---the sins of our fellow Christians?
I think not.
Here endeth the Heretic's epistle.
Comments