Wilderness Style: Leviticus and Sex
January 5, 2010
Part of an ongoing series on Leviticus and Law in Post-Culture War America.
Is sex just for romance?
This is partially because so many of the prevailing concerns of the Priestly community no longer define our culture. It is undeniable that Leviticus betrays the social structures from which it is a product:
“The basic sociological unit in Israel was the ‘father’s house.’ It included three to five generations consisting of fifty to a hundred people living in close proximity.”- Jacob Milgrom, “HarperCollins Study Bible“
Thus Leviticus’ sexual ethic revolves around Progeny. The preocuppations with potential illegitimate offspring in the sex sections of the Holiness Code (18:1-18; 20:10-21) reflect these concerns. These prohibitions do not so much discuss adultery or incest—the great evils of which are presupposed—as the appropriation of heirs. The structure of these sexual laws concern an ancient familial hierarchy we no longer follow.
This shouldn’t mean that these Scriptures are no longer of any use to us but we should be careful when attempting to extract from them any rigid rules that stretch across time and culture.
From the short discussion above, we’ll recognize that two modern and competing visions of sex are equally foreign to the priestly writer:
1) the isolation of sex into ecstatic romantic sexual love between husband and wife as the primary goal2) the isolation of sex into an inconsequential biological event, with personal pleasure or the expression of “love” as the primary goal
These views have been pitched to us as equal and opposite with the idea being that we must choose between one or the other. However, a reflection on Leviticus should reveal this to be a false dichotomy.
Leviticus believes in a world of teeming harmony where the procreative energies of humankind coincide with those of the earth. At the center of this ideal is a theological statement of body and sex. Human physical intimacy is in fact ‘something’ for the priestly community—a designed phenomenon that will neither remain isolated from the other processes of creation, nor innocuous as a matter of arbitrary emotional expression.
In contrast, the modern scientific mind has broken sex down into it’s most elemental and thus observable state: how it affects the individual—a process that Wendell Berry criticizes in his discussion of the body and the earth.
“The division of sexual energy from the function of household and community that it ought both to empower and to grace is analogous to that other modern division between hunger and the earth. When it is no longer allied by proximity and analogy to the nurturing disciplines that bound the household to the cycles of fertility and the seasons, life and death, then sexual love loses its symbolic or ritualistic force, its deepest solemnity and its highest joy. It loses its sense of consequence and responsibility. It becomes “autonomous,” to be valued only for its own sake, therefore frivolous, therefore destructive—even of itself. Those who speak of sex as ‘recreation,’ thinking to claim for it ‘a new place,’ only acknowledge its displacement from Creation.”- Wendell Berry, “The Body and the Earth“
Both the “Traditional View” (an absurd distinction, given how recently it’s been articulated) and the “Secular View” (equally slippery but whatever) suffer from a false presupposition of sex as a primarily individual activity with the former arguing for certain restrictions on who/when etc… and the latter arguing for more license. The fact that this is the chief and most recognizable distinction between these two tumultuous and confusing powerhouses should give us pause!
From the point of view of the Levitical writer, sexual ethics—like all ethics—are discerned within the context of community and creation. In this sense, the condemnations of Canaanite customs (18:19-23; 20:1-6) are integrally connected to the land-focused warnings (18:24-30; 20:22-24). Unholy behavior by humankind—both as a community and as individuals—not only compromises the presence of God amongst his people but risks defiling the land (18:24).
“Given this witness, the exhortations in Leviticus 18 and 20 are freighted with urgent concerns; if they are not heeded, creation itself is jeopardized.”- Samuel E. Balentine, “Leviticus“
Sexual norms and family structures continue to shift in modern culture as they have throughout history. However our communities decide to discern these tangled issues, the testimony of Scripture reminds us that our sexual lives are not lived in a vacuum. Rather, it is a beautiful vision of natural harmony that our most intimate human relationships are designed to image the creator God.
|
||||||||||
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
January 5, 2010 at 10:41
Kick ass essay Reed. I always like it when you quote Wendell Berry, it makes you sound sexy. I especially agree with the connection to consequence and need rather than expression and emotion.
Perhaps it is beyond the scope of where you were wanting to go but I am curious to explore what seems to be a persistent theme of late on this blog, only enhanced by this post, namely, how the hell do we use these books?! You say:
Now I mostly agree with this, but wonder how it cannot but result in more “stawberry picking” and arbitrary appropriations of Torah?
btw – Did you pour that cup?
January 5, 2010 at 11:08
Thanks Tony,
Hermeneutics are difficult for me at the moment so I’m not sure I can provide much more insight than what’s already been said on the blog.
In some sense I feel the goal of interpretation isn’t so much to avoid picking strawberries altogether (something we both know is impossible) as it is to do so honestly in light of tradition and reason.
In regards to Torah, I believe we do need read it differently from other scripture—specifically because tradition looks at it differently. But I’m not sure I know enough to synthesize it right now.
(Yes, I did pour it)
January 5, 2010 at 12:31
Reed,
A couple of responses:
/1/ Tony stole my thunder – I was about to ask the same kind of question as his last. Have you settled on how to apply the Torah? No need to kick a dead horse, though. Your answer to him suffices. However, I tenuously offer a couple of comments in regard to your response. First, I personally wouldn’t know where to go with reading and seeking application from the Torah without understanding how it fit my hermeneutical schema. In fact, that was the disconnect that I had while reading your post – simply, I kept thinking, “this is really thoughtful stuff, but how does he arrange it with the material directly adjacent to it, and how does it fit into a broader OT theology and subsequent biblical theology.” Second, (more of a question really) can we utilize tradition in order to find a consistent method of interpreting and applying OT law?
/2/ I would be interested in hearing from you about the other concern that Scripture has for sex. It has always stuck in my mind (like a splinter, if you please Mr. Morpheus) that much of the OT’s admonition concerning sex (outside of procreative issues) has been concerning Yahweh’s rejection of the Canaanite practice of utilizing sex acts in worship. The LORD seems to be awfully put off by sex entering into the ceremonial.
really, a good post – thanks.
January 5, 2010 at 12:34
Welcome back Shawn! You’ve been a bit absent – and missed
January 5, 2010 at 13:26
Shawn, great questions
1) You’re both right that my hermeneutic is hidden. This is partially because I’m still working through it for myself and partially because the above post is an adapted excerpt from an essay I wrote a few months ago (Tony has it but I can email it to you if you’re interested, Shawn). The whole essay might help explain part of the disconnect you felt—but maybe not.
My goal with the above post was more to explain what this text might’ve meant to the community that produced it—then contrast that worldview with the modern perspective we live in today.
As to the question, “Can we utilize tradition in order to find a consistent method of interpreting and applying OT law?” I have to say yes. Tradition gave us scripture and it continues to affect how we interpret it. The question, however, is which tradition from which time? Does part of interpreting through tradition involve qualification or disagreement? What about other interpretive streams (i.e. how can Rabbinic interpretation feed a Christian’s understanding)? What’s your take? I have to admit I’ve not fully explored the implications of these opinions.
2) Absolutely, if I’d had more space, I might have discussed this. One of the more fascinating stories on this subject is in Numbers 25 where an Israelite man and a Midianite woman are killed by one of Aaron’s grandsons. Most scholars I’ve read understand the “tent” to be none other than the tabernacle. Zimri and Cozbi are engaged in an activity in which it would be possible to impale them both on the same spear (wink, wink).
The scandal of this story isn’t so much that people are having sex (the Puritan notion of sex as necessary evil is no where in the Torah) but rather this is a graphic representation of the greater sin of Israel. What’s at risk to Israel is “yoking with Baal of Peor” which is condemned in the earlier part of the chapter (once again an issue of progeny). To plant your seed with foreign nations—to engage in ritual fertility practices like they do—is to endanger the future of God’s elected people.
January 5, 2010 at 14:15
Reed,
I really like the agrarian sensibility of this post. I am reading a book you might appreciate called Scripture, Culture and Agriculture by Ellen F. Davis that argues that in order to understand the concerns of the biblical writers one must focus on their agrarian worldview. She claims agrarianism is the lens through which we should read the OT. Very good stuff. Still need to think on it some more…
January 5, 2010 at 14:32
James
It looks like an incredible book. I’ve actually read a few excerpts and I’m waiting for Luther’s copy to return to the library. One of my OT profs studied under Davis and suggested it to our class.
January 5, 2010 at 16:07
Tony,
Thanks! – I tend to go “off the grid” during the Holidays. It helps with sanity and such. :0)
Reed,
“The question, however, is which tradition from which time? Does part of interpreting through tradition involve qualification or disagreement? What about other interpretive streams (i.e. how can Rabbinic interpretation feed a Christian’s understanding)? What’s your take? I have to admit I’ve not fully explored the implications of these opinions.”
Well, I am glad you picked up on my tongue-in-cheek intent here. Indeed, which one? In fact, I think there are so many traditions out there that I begin to wonder if it matters. Then, I remember all of the crazy things I have heard said/taught/justified and I think, “NO, we need to fix this.”
The best I can offer right now (without “getting into it”) is to summarize the “safest” option I have heard – the one I teach my students. Hermeneutically, we accept that Christ’s life and teachings are the fulfillment of the Law that he promised. So, if Christ repeats it or expounds upon it (or if the Apostles repeat/expound it), then we are bound to it. If the New Testament does not mention it, then it is null since we are under a new covenant in Christ.
Thoughts?