OT Lectures, Week 11, Page 1 of 5 Week 11, Lecture 28. Marriage as Analogy for Covenant 1 Primary OT analogy for covenant is political Parity covenant modern example: treaties between great powers Suzerainty covenants modern example: treaty between a great power and a smaller nation (more about "analogy" later) In contemporary Catholic theology, marriage as a covenant is a major theme Vatican II, Code of Canon Law, Catechism of the Catholic Church Many pious young Catholics who work in "marriage preparation" think this idea is "traditional!" Even biblical! Question to Speaker "Can you name a single Father of the Church, medieval theologian, or any theologian before the 20th century who referred to marriage as a covenant?" Answer: "No, I cannot. Marriage as a covenant is a 20th-century phenomenon." A Bit of History Marriage as covenant is not found in the NT. Ephesians calls it a great "mystery / sacrament." That's beautiful! But it is not calling it a "covenant." No Father of the Church ever called marriage a "covenant." No medieval theologian ever referred to marriage as a covenant. No Reformer or Counter-Reformation theologian ever referred to marriage as a covenant. What about the Old Testament? Hosea refers to the relationship with YHWH, long thought of as a covenant, as a marriage He compares his failed marriage to his faithless wife to the YHWH-Israel relationship Later prophets begin to use "spousal imagery" of the YHWH-Israel relationship, in addition to: father-son imagery (Say to Pharaoh: "Israel is my firstborn son") lord-vassal relationship (i.e., the traditional "covenantal" language) redeemer-captive imagery, etc. there are even (rare) examples of maternal imagery ("Can a mother forget her baby...?") Statement by Levine "Here, perhaps the best analogy for covenants is marriage, which is, in fact, a contract between you and your spouse." 2 The important word here is "analogy." Analogy: something similar / something different My leg goes between me and the ground and holds me up. The leg of a chair goes between the ground and holds it up. My leg (like all animal legs) is divided into segments. The leg of a journey is as segment of a journey. Analogy and Faulty Reasoning From these analogies it is not a legitimate conclusion that "chairs are journeys" -- since "both have legs"! 1 Lectures are numbered consecutively throughout the course. So, although this is the first lecture this week, its number reflects its place in the total sequence of lectures. 2 Levine, "Covenant and Law, Part II, The Old Testament, Part II, The Great Courses, The Teaching Company.
OT Lectures, Week 11, Page 2 of 5 My Point God's relationship to Israel is like that of a great king to a vassal, a covenant. God's relationship to Israel is like that of a husband to a wife. It does not follow that: The relationship of husband to wife is a covenant -- or that Israel thought of it that way! Nor does it follow that the relationship between father and son is a "covenant" i.e., on the grounds that both father-son imagery and covenant imagery are both used of the YHWH-Israel relationship. Marriage could be part of a covenant He [King Ptolemy of Egypt] sent envoys to Demetrius the king, saying, "Come, let us make a covenant with each other, and I will give you in marriage my daughter who was Alexander's wife, and you shall reign over your father's kingdom. (1Macc 11:9 RSV) Note that this "covenant" is not between the bride and the groom! It is between the groom and his father-in-law! Malachi 2:14, a passage with translation difficulties. KJV is most literal Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. The point is that, in contrast to a foreign wife, the "wife of the thy youth" is Jewish i.e., she is a member of "your covenant," i.e., part of the same covenant with God that you have! Therefore Malachi is chastising those who divorce their first Jewish wife to marry a foreign wife. Compare NABRE -- not bad, with note! Because the LORD is witness between you and the wife of your youth With whom you have broken faith, though she is your companion, your covenanted wife. 1 Companion.... covenanted wife: the Hebrew word haberet signifies an equal, a partner. This woman, in contrast to the daughter of a foreign god, shares with her husband the same covenant with the Lord. (note to Mal 2:14) Now, Compare the RSV Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. (Mal 2:14 RSV) The first word covenant is not in the Hebrew. RSV was attempted to "clarify" a difficult passage. I suspect bad translations like this are ultimately responsible for the 20th-century notion of "marriage as covenant." Thoughts of a Jewish Feminist on Marriage as Covenant Laura Levitt, "Covenant or Contract? Marriage as Theology," Cross Currents, (Summer 1998) 169-184. The Question: Is "Covenant" a Good Model for Jewish Marriage? Christians have recently begun using "covenant" as a model for marriage. Supposedly this uses more "personal" imagery than the traditional language of "contract." Do we Jews want to get on this bandwagon? Some Jewish authors, e.g., Eugene Borowitz, think so. The Answer: No! The biblical covenant is a suzerainty-vassal covenant. YHWH is the "great king;" Israel is the lowly vassal. Transferring this imagery to marriage is not helpful to those who wish to portray the institution as a union of equals. Summary Theologizing inequalities within marriage is dangerous for Jewish women precisely because it is done in the name of love. Week 11, Lecture 29. Thoughts on Homosexuality from another Jewish Scholar Rabbi Jacob Milgrom 3-Volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible Series (each volume is 600-700 pages long)
OT Lectures, Week 11, Page 3 of 5 Shorter 1-volume version in the Continental Commentary Series. Milgrom's Translation of Lev 18:22 & 20:13 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a woman: it is an abomination. 3 20:13 If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they must be put to death their bloodguilt is upon them. 4 Absolute Prohibition. Contrasts with ANE Law; as well as Hellenistic Law and Roman Law This absolute ban on homosexuality contrasts strikingly with the Hellenistic and Roman world, where homosexuality was sanctioned with those of inferior status, such as slaves, foreigners, and youths. 5 Tiny correction: there is no ban on "homosexuality," but there is a total ban on "homosexual activity." This ban applies only to Israelites! On Yom Kippur, September 25, 1993, my synagogue invited me to explain the afternoon scriptural reading: the list of forbidden sexual liaisons in Leviticus 18. I chose to focus on what is today one of the most frequently quoted passages in the entire Bible: Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination (v. 22). What I said may be both good news and bad news to my Christian friends, depending on their position on gay and lesbian rights: This biblical prohibition is addressed only to Israel. 6 According to Jewish Tradition, some laws apply only to Jews. e.g., not eating pork, observing Passover, reciting the shema daily, having mazzuzot on the doorposts, etc. Milgrom argues the ban on homosexual activities is one of those laws. It applies only to Israelites who are living in Israel -- "and resident aliens" Compliance with this law is a condition for residing in the Holy Land, but not elsewhere (see the closing exhortation, vv. 24 30). 7 Lev 18:24-30. Purpose: So that the land not be defiled "Do not defile yourselves by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you defiled themselves; 25 and the land became defiled, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you shall keep my statutes and my ordinances and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you 27 (for all of these abominations the men of the land did, who were before you, so that the land became defiled); 28 lest the land vomit you out, when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. 29 For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. 30 So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God." (Lev 18:24-30 RSV) When people become "defiled," there are rites to purify them. By contrast, the defilement of the land builds up and up, until the only remedy is to "vomit out" the people! Illustration of his point: Egyptians Exempt! Ezekiel, for example, is familiar with the pentateuchal literature, especially the last chapters of Leviticus, including chap. 18. He is also fully aware of Egypt s sexual appetites (Ezek 16:26), but in the four lengthy chapters describing their crimes and forthcoming punishment (chaps. 29 32), not once does he mention any of the several 3 Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 3A, Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 1515. 4 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1727. 5 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1749. 6 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1786. 7 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1786.
OT Lectures, Week 11, Page 4 of 5 violations of Lev 18, let alone homosexuality. The conclusion is obvious: since the Egyptians do not live in the holy land, their sexual aberrations are not sins against God and, hence, not subject to divine sanctions. 8 Consequence (form Modern Jews) Jewish homosexuals who live in Miami or New York -- anywhere but Israel -- are not subject to God's wrath. Homosexuals -- Jewish & otherwise -- who plan to visit Israel: Behave yourselves while you visit "the Land." Milgrom's Summary Thus from the Bible we can infer the following: Presumably, half of the world s homosexual population, lesbians, are not mentioned. Over ninety-nine percent of the gays, namely non-jews, are not addressed. This leaves the small number of Jewish gays subject to this prohibition. If they are biologically or psychologically incapable of procreation, adoption provides a solution. 9 Milgrom: Personal Note Finally, a personal note. I am not for homosexuality, but I am for homosexuals. I grieve for their plight their pariah status and their discrimination in the workplace and the military. But when the Bible is distorted to make God their enemy, I must speak out to set the record straight. I return to my contention that there is only one deduction to be derived from Lev 18 and 20: The ban on homosexuality is limited to male Jews and inhabitants of the holy land. The basis for the ban, as I have submitted, is the need for procreation, which opposes, in biblical times, the wasting of seed. 10 Geographical Morality What is the symbolism of the holy land? It is the sphere of God as much as his Temple in Jerusalem. In this theology, all those who live in God s extended Temple, the holy land, are accountable to a higher moral and ritual standard. 11 Difficulties? Paul would probably respectfully (or disrespectfully!) disagree. Does this contrast with Levine's understanding of covenant as crossing geographical boundaries? Why This Theology Will Not Work for Christians Christianity, unlike Judaism, gives no special "sanctity" to any geographical location -- the holy land or anywhere else! To be blunt: God is no more "present" in Israel (or Rome, or Lourdes, or Medjugorje) than in Peoria. "Wherever two or three gather" in the name of the Lord Jesus, he is present. Where the Lord Jesus is present, God is present. "Temple Imagery" Rethought Christian theology has thought of the Church (the group of people, not a building!) as the new Temple since NT times. God-in-Christ dwells within the Christian community world-wide. No geographical location is bound to a greater degree of holiness than any other place. Christian moral theologians Are rethinking our tradition In Catholicism, the force of arguments based on "natural law" is being challenged. Progressives point to the analogy of how Christian theology about slavery changed radically after the Enlightenment. Conservatives deny that this example has any relevance. It is probably a century or two too early to know how all of this will turn out. In the mean time, Pope Francis has asked us to show compassion. In this he is similar to Rabbi Milgrom. 8 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1788. 9 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1787 1788. 10 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1789 1790. 11 Milgrom, Leviticus 17 22, 1788.
OT Lectures, Week 11, Page 5 of 5 Week 11, Lecture 30. Thoughts on Covenant & Legal Systems 12 Not delivered orally, due to time. I decided to pass out the notes anyway. Levine: some good points on the difference between modern legal systems & ancient covenants. However, I think she might have missed some modern analogies. Modern analogy to "entering the covenant." Becoming a Citizen involves making a choice. Everyone who lives in the USA is bound by American Law -- they have no choice in this matter It is possible to live here without becoming a citizen -- but not without observing US law. Those who become citizens enter the "American Covenant," so to speak. Conversely, it is possible for US citizens to renounce their citizenship. Americans may emigrate to another country. They may live there many years without renouncing their citizenship. Some countries allow people to maintain "dual citizenship." Others require renunciation of citizenship in one country to obtain citizenship in another. Some US citizens in fact renounce their citizenship to become members of another modern "covenant" community. Is this analogous to Ruth? ("Wherever you go, I will go... Your people will be my people... Your God my God.") This points out that: Remaining a Citizen Is a Choice Most people never seriously consider renouncing their citizenship. Not what William James would call a "live option." However, theoretically, renunciation of citizenship is a possibility for everyone. Most Jews Do Not Enter the Covenant by Choice Males born of Jewish parents are circumcised on the eighth day of their lives. They have no more "choice" about this than Catholic infants have about their own baptism. When they reach age 12 they become a bar mitzvah whether or not they go through a ceremony or not At age 12 they are responsible for keeping the commandments, the mitzvot. Adult converts to Judaism: They make a choice to enter the covenant -- in contrast to circumcised infants. Those born of Jewish parents can make the choice to remain in the covenant or not. For some, leaving the covenant is never a "live option." They live and die in a Jewish ghetto. Christian Choices. Baptism is the entry into the "New Covenant" in the blood of Jesus. Different denominations have different traditions about the proper age for this ritual. For some, who grow up in a "Christian ghetto," leaving the covenant is never a "live option." Such a situation is becoming more and more rare in our "wired world." Most people eventually face the choice to "stay in" or "leave" the covenant. 12 Some of my remarks make reference to A. J. Levine's lecture "Covenant and Law, Part II, lecture 11of a 24-lecture series, The Old Testament, part of "The Great Courses" series. Anyone who wishes a personal copy of Levine's excellent lectures will find them available from The Teaching Company at their web site: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/old-testament.html