Homosexuality and Slavery in the Bible -- Sightings
*******************************
Sightings 7/13/09
Homosexuality and Slavery in the Bible
-- Martin E. Marty
Annually I write the report on "Protestantism" for World Book and other yearbooks. For a dozen or score of years now, the lead story always has to be about churches tearing themselves apart in lose-lose battles over the blessing of gay marriages and ordination of homosexuals, et cetera. One could wish it were otherwise, so that more churches could get back or ahead to more gospel and more mission. There are, or may be, good reasons other than biblical ones to support or oppose issues on this subject. But citing the Bible in church conventions trumps other approaches -- we are, after all, talking about Protestants! -- and such citing leads to stalemates. On this subject, the five inches of type in my desk Bible (I measured them) get used to oppose any movement on this front. It’s "the Bible says" versus "the Levitical laws, the other 600-plus of which no one pays any attention to, speak to a different culture, with different understandings."
Is it possible to bring newer understandings forward without a) disdaining, b) relativizing, c) picking-and-choosing texts to one’s taste, or d) ignoring the Scriptures? Has not the church, almost universally, changed its teaching ("grown in understanding") on subjects? It certainly changed and "grew" when its various bodies for the first time supported religious liberty in civil orders two and three centuries ago. But many believe the best case is on slavery. The South's preachers and theologians, virtually unanimously, gave biblically-based arguments for the enslavement of humans by humans, and often opposed their release.
Mention that and you get a quick reply: "The Bible nowhere commands slavery, and it does forbid same-sex relations." One has to stretch to support the "nowhere commands" argument, since its divinely-inspired authors did something worse: They took slavery for granted and, without criticizing it, often appropriated its existence and norms for making other points. A review by Jennifer Knust of two new books in the July Journal of Religion indicates how that was done. Some quickly chosen excerpts: "Ancient Christian writings rarely challenge the abusive, exploitative, and gruesome mechanisms of first-century chattel slavery. ‘Slaves, obey your masters.’" "The Christian Bible has played an important role in legitimating slave systems," including in North America. Author J. Albert Harrill finds that Christian discourse participated in and promoted an ideology that belittled slaves and naturalized slaveholding. He "highlights the ways in which contemporary moral debates both shape and inform biblical criticism." On this subject "the New Testament cannot be viewed as a book of morals."
Everyone, including presumably New Testament authors, knew that domestic slaves, according to author Jennifer A. Glancy, had "the obligation to tend to the master’s physical body and sexual needs." Even Jesus’ "parabolic slaves are beaten, flogged, cut to pieces, seized, imprisoned, handed over to torturers, and assigned to eternal death in order to teach theological lessons." All taken for granted. The parables "reinforced the violent power relations that sustained ancient slavery." Arguments based on analogy, including this one, do not "prove" much of anything. They can, however, be instructive when the history of cultures, from the biblical settings to our own, is neglected, or when simply saying "the Bible says" shows unmindfulness of creative possibilities -- and can harm individuals, lead to schisms, and hamper future witness.
References:
Glancy, Jennifer A. Slavery in Early Christianity (Oxford, 2002).
Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions (Fortress, 2005).
----------
In July’s Religion and Culture Web Forum, “Flowers in the Dark: African American Consciousness, Laughter, and Resistance in Toni Morrison’s Beloved,” ethicist Jacqueline Bussie of Capital University pursues the question of why, in so many accounts, people in oppressive situations of suffering respond with laughter. Focusing on the example of Toni Morrison’s slavery-era novel, Bussie, in an excerpt from her Trinity Prize-winning book The Laughter of the Oppressed, explores the complexities of the human condition and points toward a more nuanced understanding of ethics. Invited responses will be posted later in the month from Joseph Winters, Cooper Harriss, John Howell, and Zhange Ni.
http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/
----------
Comments
This difficulty can be overcome by using the biblical “no-harm test” i.e. asking whether the topic (homosexuality or slavery) causes harm. This test is based on Romans 13:9-10, summarized as “If you love (act for the welfare of) your neighbor, including not harming your neighbor, you then fulfill (meet all the requirements of) the Old Testament commandments”.
Your neighbor is any person you come into contact with. In a sexual relations context, “your neighbor” means the person you are having sex with and any third party, e.g. the partner of that person. Of course, you also should not harm yourself.
The no-harm test is supported by the Golden Rule, i.e. “Treat people the same way you want them to treat you” (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). If you do this, you will not harm others.
It would appear that homosexuality passes the no-harm test in circumstances where no harm is caused to the participants. Obviously, the system of slavery fails the no-harm test.
What is the significance of all this? I would suggest that the Bible’s prohibition on sex between men (homosexual activity) does not apply to men today when the sexual activity causes no harm. Also, the prohibition does not apply to men today because it applied only to the ancient Israelite and Greek-Roman cultures of Bible times. Reasons supporting these conclusions are given on www.gaysandslaves.com.
Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind…"
The problem is with the word "mankind" in this sentence. The original ancient Hebrew word did not refer to males in general … it very specifically referred only to male victims of pederasty. The proper 21st Century English translation is more accurately and understandably, "Do not rape male slaves…" That is exactly what the ancient Hebrews understood it to mean. Nothing more.
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death…"
Again, the same problem exists with the improper translation into the English word "mankind," but there's a bit more involved here. At the time Leviticus was written, anything (and everything!) that endangered the tribes was a capital crime, punishable by death. Failure to procreate (that is, to provide the society with needed additional "manpower") was seen by rabbis – who were themselves required to marry – as a serious endangerment to the tribes. The death sentence was called for on that sociological basis, rather than on a sexual basis.
The Bible was not originally written in English, and it doesn’t “clearly condemn” homosexuality (at least, not as we define the term today). In the original manuscripts, every single word that referenced same-gender sexual activity (“malokoi,” “pornoi,” “arsenokoitai’” etc … every word, without exception!) applied only to pederasty … sexual slavery, and in particular young male sexual slavery. That is precisely what the original audience who read or heard the first teaching/preaching actually understood.
But the original biblical manuscripts do not in any way address – they have not one single word about – the issue that we 21st Century denizens NOW call “homosexuality” (a conscious, consensual relationship between two adults). During the era in which the Bible was first set down into written form, there was no such thing for scripture TO address … because prior to that era, the last known society that condoned formal same-sex adult relationships was the ancient Greek city of Sparta (whose motivations were primarily military), and that particular Spartan society had disappeared from the face of the earth more than 600 years before the Bible was reduced to organized writing.
Obviously, the antiquated 16th Century English into which the old manuscripts were translated is not much help. And Saint Paul, who wrote the New Testament references to sex, had a guilt-ridden attitude that certainly didn't clear the waters, either. In fact, both Paul (a Roman-citizen, and Jewish Pharisee, who aggressively persecuted early Christians – before becoming one himself) and Saint Peter absolutely hated women specifically and sex in general. Paul’s “best” advice to males was to willfully ignore God’s specific intentions – a stance that, on ANY subject, is remarkably dangerous! He advised men to only marry if lustful thoughts (which Paul ridiculously insisted were sufficient, by themselves, to completely override salvation, and which he claimed would result in banishment straight to hell) could not be avoided in any other manner. In other words, he instructed men to marry only as a desperate “last resort,” which is definitely not what God intended. There’s a reason humans have lustful thoughts, in the first place. God designed us that way! (Think carefully about that). Hopefully, humanity has progressed past that bigoted, hate-filled and guilt-ridden outlook of Paul's era (after all, we've had two millennia in which to do so).
Notice clearly that I did not say the Bible actually condones or actively promotes homosexuality… I merely deny that the Bible specifically condemns it by name. Actually, the Bible – like Jesus Himself – is simply but completely silent on that specific matter.
However, the original Hebrew word carried no such meaning, and it absolutely did NOT refer to homosexuality.
The original word simply meant unacceptible for entry into the Temple (and of course, NO sexual activity of any kind was allowed inside the Temple itself).
Even an otherwise perfectly- healthy sheep with just a dark patch of wool was an "abomination."
A healthy pigeon with a single mis-shapen feather was also an "abomination."
Your conclusion that homosexuality was singled out as the reason for Sodom's destruction is quite a stretch (and totally unwarranted, at that).