Marriage and Homosexuality in Judaism and Christianity An Objective Return to Scripture. Dr. Robert Zaslavsky. I. Introduction

Transcription

1 Marriage and Homosexuality in Judaism and Christianity An Objective Return to Scripture Dr. Robert Zaslavsky I. Introduction The current spate of defenses of monogamous heterosexual marriage provoked by antipathy toward homosexual marriage is full of passionate irrationality, historical ignorance, and Biblical misinformation. The discussion manifests what too many public discussions now do: a deficiency in historical and religious education in our society, a special case of the general deficiency in cultural literacy. The passionate irrationality expresses itself as profound uneasiness toward samegender sexuality and a refusal to accept homosexual marriage (even as civil marriage). Some have gone so far as to declare that homosexual marriage poses a threat to monogamous heterosexual marriage, although what precisely that threat is, is never specified, nor is there any acknowledgement that monogamous heterosexual marriage is threatened more by causes internal to itself (adultery, spousal abuse, incompatibility) than by causes external to it. Others rant about a societal homosexual "agenda," but if one asks them to list its items, they have no answer beyond the nebulous threat, nor is there any awareness that the societal agenda of any given homosexual human is no different from the societal agenda of any given heterosexual human, with the possible exception of the legitimization of homosexual civil marriage. This irrationality, like the anger and fear that fuel it, is vague, free-floating, and all pervasive. Consequently, historical inaccuracies and Biblical phantoms are passed off, perhaps unconsciously, as if they are eternal truisms. Historically, it is certain that among humans, at all times and in all places, there has been a more or less invisible minority of homosexuals. And while some societies (e.g., ancient Athens) have enacted laws against homosexuality, such laws have not been enforced except for reasons, usually political, having nothing to do with sexual orientation. This perennial homosexual presence in human society argues against any attempt to pigeonhole homosexuality as a lifestyle choice and argues for a view of homosexuality as innate. Of course, there may be choice involved in deciding whether to obey the dictates of one's nature or to suppress them and "pass" for straight. Jesus said, "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb" (Matthew 19:12, King James Translation). In the view of Jesus, the category "eunuch" includes those born non-heterosexual or non-sexual, those seduced into such a state, and those who choose such a state in order better to serve the Lord. Such an enlightened historical perspective would be derided among today's anti-homosexual crusaders. Biblically, the situation is complex. In neither the Jewish Bible nor the Christian Bible is there a formal definition of marriage. The difference in tone and spirit between the Jewish Bible (the TaNaKh, or what Christians call the Old Testament) and the Christian Bible (the New Testament, or what Jews call the Christian Bible) is profoundly significant for understanding their respective attitudes toward sexuality. 1

2 II. The Old Testament In the Old Testament, one can infer a definition of marriage: the union of a man and one or more women (polygyny). There are solid Judaic reasons for this implicitly demanded preference. In the Old Testament, one sees the uniqueness of Judaism as a religion, the uniqueness of the Jews as a religious community. That uniqueness is grounded in the chosenness of the Jews as a people. Judaism is the only religion that is constituted as a non-universal religion. This is already indicated by the fact that Adam is placed one could say, sequestered in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2: 15): And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Indeed, while Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel (and later Seth) are dwelling uniquely in the Garden (a God-selected and God-protected island in the midst of the world), a world population is flourishing outside the Garden, a world into which Cain enters when he is expelled from the Garden and takes a wife from among those outside in what is called the Land of Nod, east of Eden (Genesis 4: 16). The defining event of Judaism is the exodus, led by Moses, out of bondage in Egypt. That event was adumbrated by the sojourn of Abraham and Sarah in Egypt (Genesis 12: 10-20): 10: And there was a famine in the land [i. e., Haran]: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land. 11: And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: 12: therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. 13: Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee. 14: And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair. 15: The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house. 16: And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels. 17: And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife. 18: And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife? 19: Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way. 20: And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had. 2

3 Before Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, there were, strictly speaking, no Jews on earth. The Israelites who escaped from Egypt became the chosen people, a people around whom a very distinct boundary had been drawn, a polis whose laws were made by God and promulgated by Moses and his successors and whose existence is guaranteed in the covenant with the patriarchs. Since the Jewish people is a polis, its God is an avenging God, a wrathful God, whose source is in the fierce love of one's own that permeates the Jews. From the very beginning of their constitution as a people, the Israelites are placed in their separateness into a world that is hostile to them. That world threatens the integrity of the people in two ways: (1) it is a temptation toward assimilation as an escape from the rigors that God demands of the Jews as Jews; (2) it constitutes a political threat that seeks either to enslave or to destroy the Jews. The extreme precariousness of the socio-political condition of the Jews eventuates in a stance of great militancy. In addition, that socio-political precariousness requires that the prime directive, as it were, of the Jewish people be to perpetuate the people. This explains why Jews regard the injunction to be fruitful and multiply as the first of their 613 commandments. It also explains why homosexuality is considered an abomination (Leviticus 18:22): Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. After all, the crime for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed was the crime of homosexuality. Indeed, any behavior that contravenes the imperative to procreate is forbidden scripturally to Jews. Therefore, Jews as Jews should be inalterably opposed not only to homosexuality, but also to abortion and any form of contraception. Indeed, any sex act that cannot lead to procreation is forbidden to Jews: Onan was slain by the Lord for an act of coitus interruptus (Genesis 38: 6-10): 6: And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. 7: And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8: And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9: And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10: And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. The fear of the mortality (or potential annihilation) of the people is so severe that even incest, in certain circumstances, can be justified. That would seem to be the hidden message in the story of Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19: 30-38). When Lot's daughters believe that they and their father are the last persons on earth, they decide to have sex with him so "that we may preserve seed of our father" (Genesis 19: 34). This act of incest goes unpunished. That suggests that if the choice is between incest and the dissolution of the people, then and only then is incest justified. Even when incest is formally prohibited (Leviticus 18: 1-18), in the scrupulously detailed list of instances of forbidden incest, father-daughter incest is conspicuously absent. This may also explain why the punishment for the rape of a virgin is so light: the man must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and marry her (Deuteronomy 22: 28-29). In other words, one cannot punish too severely any act that may eventuate in a child 3

4 who can be added to the people. The presence of polygyny and the absence of polyandry in the Old Testament also exemplify this. The reasoning would be that one man may impregnate many women simultaneously, but a woman may only be impregnated by one man at a time. Polygyny, then, maximizes the people's childbearing potential. Furthermore, among the Jews, one finds a powerful iconoclasm in the literal sense of the term. In other words, for the purity of the love of one's own to abide and to play its role in the inordinately difficult task of the preservation of the people and its traditions, there must be a concomitant suppression of the love of the beautiful. Therefore, the Jewish God is a non-visible God. In addition, there are strong prohibitions against the making of images and a condemnation of any pursuit of the beautiful as such. The injunction against graven images is directed not only against false idols but also against any work of autonomous art (poetry, novels, paintings, and sculpture). The danger of autonomous art is that it seduces those who behold its words or visual images away from the guarded insularity of the people. This injunction explains the failure the Scripturally demanded failure of the Jewish people until rather late in its history, namely when a sufficient degree of political stability had been achieved for some segments of the people to become assimilated, to produce secular (because assimilated to some degree) artists. The God of the Jews, then, is a non-anthropomorphic bodiless god. The root of this Judaic conception of God is the love of one's own, a theological patriotism that requires that Jews as Jews eschew all non-procreative sexual acts, most massively homosexuality. III. The New Testament In the New Testament, on the other hand, one finds a universal religion, a religion that transcends all political boundaries, a religion whose tenets extol the principles of beauty and conciliation and peace. The community to which the Christian religion is addressed is, in principle, the entire human race. Paul refers to "us, whom [God] hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles" (Romans 9: 24). Later, Paul says (Romans 10: 12-13): 12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13: For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Since the human race is immortal in a way in which a delimited segment of the human race is not, there is no problem of perpetuation as such. This means that all the Jewish teachings on sexuality are nullified in the new dispensation of Christ. Therefore, for Christians, scripturally, there can be no programmatic objection to homosexuality, abortion, or contraception. These are in no way inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus. Indeed even if it is not mandated scripturally, and even if it did not become mandated institutionally until the twelfth century the very existence of a celibate clergy indicates that for Christianity, life is not the highest good. Any attempt on the part of Christians to say that it is represents a misguided attempt to fuse a New Testament theology with an Old Testament morality, a fusion that can only produce an indefensibly oxymoronic monstrosity. 4

5 Furthermore, New Testament theology entails no absolute preference for marriage and/or procreation. On the contrary, marriage and procreation are presented as optional, as one possible lifestyle among others, and those who are capable of doing so are urged to become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19: 12): For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. The teaching of Jesus supercedes the teaching of Moses: while "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law," Jesus presents "the righteousness which is of faith" (Romans 10: 5-6). In short, the teaching of the New Testament sees the teaching of the Old Testament as a kind of stepladder that humans have used to climb to a new perspective, and once they make the climb, they must discard the stepladder because they will never again descend to the lower level. In addition, the fearful obedience to the militant Lord and the Lord's commandments of the Old Testament is replaced by a loving embrace of the pacifist message of the proclaimed Messiah. Indeed, the 613 commandments of the Old Testament are replaced by only two commandments: (1) love God completely; (2) love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22: 36-40): 36: Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37: Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38: This is the first and great commandment. 39: And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. By "all the law and the prophets," Jesus means the entire Jewish Bible. Therefore, the two Christian commandments, which can be fused into the one word "love," replace everything that is said in the Old Testament The love that is glorified here is what the ancient Greeks would have called the love of the beautiful. Therefore, the Christian God is a beautiful god, Christ, whose source is in the gentle love of the beautiful that permeates Jesus's speeches. In principle, the New Testament religion neither looks for nor needs any specific socio-political milieu, and it eventuates in a teaching of extreme pacifism. In addition, Christ must submit meekly to his own crucifixion, a submission that is meant to be a paradigm for all humans. In other words, for the purity of the love of the beautiful to abide, there must be a concomitant suppression of the love of one's own that makes the Jews what they are. It is no accident that the Christian God must become visible as an idealized beautiful human. This is why one finds a great tradition of Christian art from its very beginning, a tradition that owes its inspiration to an anthropomorphic incarnated God. Under the aegis of such a God, art is a powerful means for leading individual humans beyond the insularity of their selves and social/political milieus to a transcendent universal reality that is open to all humans as humans. However, if the root of the Christian conception of God is the love of the beautiful, what is the origin of the Christian militancy of the Middle Ages, for example? When Christianity rather early in its history became Christendom, a distinct socio-political entity, i. e., when Christianity discovered that although it was in principle universal, it was in actuality bounded, the Scripturally suppressed love of one's own emerged with, 5

6 one could almost say, a vengeance. This is a circumstantial distortion of the essence of Scriptural Christianity, a kind of temporal/historical excrescence, and it should not be taken as determinative of the life of Christians at any time or in any place. IV. Conclusion The analysis that I have presented here is meant to be a first step of an attempt to clear away the misunderstanding that pervades the current discourse about homosexual marriage in particular. One final distinction is required to round out the discussion, namely the distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. The difference between the two should not be blurred. In the United States, no one who wants to marry is required by law to enter into a religious marriage, but all are required to enter into a civil marriage. Civil marriage, not the mere sop of civil union, should be available to all consenting adults. No individual's religious or personally idiosyncratic beliefs should be an obstacle to that. If there is a religion that disapproves of homosexual marriage, it is free in a society like ours that enshrines a rigid separation between church and state to withhold religious marriage from homosexuals. However, no religion should be able to impose its views on the population at large. Religions, even the most intolerant in matters of sexuality, are able to abide religious differences in private behaviors like prayer and diet. The same privilege should be extended to sexuality. As I have tried to show, an unprejudicial reading of the New Testament should put Christians in the vanguard of any movement to allow at least civil homosexual marriage. In addition, even though Jews as Jews are Scripturally forbidden from engaging in any homosexual union, it is perfectly acceptable for Jews to support the privilege of civil marriage for non-jewish homosexuals. Civil marriage, then, is a right that should be granted to everyone who is a societally designated adult, regardless of sexual orientation. 6