Christianity

Stephen Hunt

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351951760
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Christentum

For two millennia Christianity has embraced fairly consistent views of human sexuality. Today, there exist more varied outlooks on the subject. This volume on Christianity in the The Library of Essays on Sexuality and Religion series overviews the contrasting Christian perceptions of sexuality. Part 1 includes a number of previously published articles that are theological in nature and present biblical interpretations of sexuality. Here, several Christian voices are permitted to speak from their varied perspectives, both conservative and liberal. Part 2 features contributions focusing on the Christian tradition of celibacy and asceticism. Part 3 surveys scholarly work emphasising the relationship between sexuality, gender and patriarchy. Part 4 offers academic interpretations of Christian expressions of sexuality through the mediums of worship, ritual and the sacraments. The final part peruses contemporary contestations of conventional Christian views. This is undertaken by presenting articles examining views of gay sexuality, assisted human reproduction and priestly celibacy.

Part I
Theology and
Biblical Interpretation

[1]
The Bible and Sexuality II

Raymond F. Collins

University of Louvain

Louvain, Belgium

The New Testament

Given the abundance of Old Testament material dealing with human sexuality, it appears somewhat surprising that the New Testament does not treat of human sexuality at such great lengths. This relative silence owes principally to two factors. First of all, the world of the New Testament authors is almost without exception, the world of the Old Testament. The traditions contained in the Old Testament are the word of God for the New Testament authors just as they are for Jesus Himself. Thus there was no need for New Testament authors to repeat mechanically the laws of the Torah.¹ A second, and perhaps more significant, reason is that the New Testament authors shared with the Old Testament the basic view that human sexuality is a secular reality. Sexuality is simply one aspect of human existence for which man is responsible. As such human sexuality does not need specific religious valorization, neither through some form of cultic sexual ekstasis nor by means of a rigid asceticism. The former valorization would take human sexuality from the realm of the human, the latter would deny to human sexuality the goodness of its createdness. Thus the New Testament authors treat of human sexuality with a frankness and a matter-of-factness that it would be good for our aphrodisiac and overly-sexually-conscious society to emulate.

Jesus: His Context

It is, however, apropos to note that the world into which Jesus of Nazareth was born was a world whose sexual attitudes and norms were formed not only by the written law, but also by the oral tradition handed down by the scribes of the various Jewish sects. Although our documentation is relatively late or apparently peripheral to “mainstream Judaism”, we do possess sufficient documentation to be able to determine somewhat more specifically the understanding of human sexuality in Palestine during the time of Jesus. Four points might serve as touchstones to illustrate that attitude, viz., the notion of the Yetzer ha-ra, ideas about marriage, the attitude toward women, and laws dealing with sexual matters. A brief word or two about each of these factors determinative of the attitude of the first century Jew toward human sexuality might be useful.

Yetzer ha-ra (evil inclination)

According to contemporary Jewish anthropology, each man was considered to have been born with the Yetzer ha-ra, the evil inclination. This impulse urges the adult man to all sorts of sin, especially sins of a sexual nature. The Yetzer ha-ra also prompts self-preservation and procreation in a man. Thus it can be mastered and put to good use. Thus some rabbis declare that the Yetzer ha-ra is good, indeed, very good, since without it there would be neither procreation nor marriage, and the human race would cease. Thus, “as R. Samuel ben Nahman observes: ‘And behold it was very good.’ This is the evil impulse! Is then the evil impulse good? Yet, were it not for the evil impulse no man would build a house, nor marry a wife, nor beget children nor engage in trade.”²

Marriage

Secondly, marriage was the ordinary way of life among the Jewish people of Palestine. Only among the ascetic Essenes did celibacy appear to have any value. Among other Jews it was often presumed that the celibate life was a life of sin. Indeed, it was a violation of the Law: “No man may abstain from keeping the Law ‘Be fruitful and multiply’, unless he already has children: according to the School of Shammai, two sons; according to the School of Hillel, a son and a daughter, for it is written, ‘Male and female created He them.’ The duty to be fruitful and multiply falls on the man, but not on the woman. R. Johanan B. Baroka says: Of them both it is written, ‘And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply.’”³ This Mishnaic text clearly indicates that procreation was the predominant value to be sought after in marriage. Many other Mishnaic and Talmudic passages confirm the view that, for the rabbis, procreation was the purpose of marriage.

Attitude toward women

Thirdly, the social and religious inferiority of woman was an accepted reality. Tradition has preserved for us an oft-quoted prayer which bespeaks this inferiority most acutely: “Blessed be Thou for not having made me a Gentile, a woman or an ignoramus”. A theoretical basis for this inequality was found in the Yahwist’s creation narrative; otherwise, woman’s inferiority was ascribed to the sin of Eve.⁴ Thus, we find that women “are said to require perfume, which a man does not require, because they were created from a putrefying bone, whereas man was formed from pure and wholesome earth.”⁵ Nevertheless, not every Jewish tradition accepted the status quo of the woman’s inferiority as a situation which ought to exist. Thus a Talmudic saying proclaims the basic equality of man and woman before God: “The compassion of God is not as the compassion of men. The compassion of men extends to men more than to women, but not thus is the compassion of God. His compassion extends equally to all”.⁶ A clear affirmation of the social inferiority of women is to be found in the fact that, whereas Jewish men could divorce their wives for cause, Jewish women were not permitted to do so.⁷ That some rabbis considered the instruction of women in the Torah to be something less than a waste of time is further confirmation of the disadvantaged position of women.

Sexual Laws

Within the thus stratified Jewish society, the oral Law complemented the prescriptions of the Bible with respect to human sexuality. Much of this oral tradition has been gathered together in the Mishnah whose division on Eomen (Nashim) includes extensive halakoth relating to marriage and human sexuality. We find a variety of sayings which indicate that cultic purity is a major determinant in the ethos of the time. For example, sexual intercourse with a menstruous woman is enjoined.

Chastity was highly valued in first century Judaism. The Biblical injunction “Thou shalt not commit adultery” was understood to prohibit various immoral sexual activities. The virginity of a bride was highly prized. In this respect, the words of Philo are significant: “We, the descendants of the Hebrews, have excellent customs and laws. Other nations allow their young men of fourteen years of age to go to prostitutes and to other women who sell their bodies. But according to our laws, all hetairas are condemned to die. Until there can be legitimate relations, we do not have intercourse with a woman. Both parties enter marriage as virgins, and for us the purpose of marriage is not pleasure but the propagation of children.”⁸

JESUS: HIS ATTITUDE

Such, in brief, was the dominant attitude towards matters sexual in the milieu of Jesus of Nazareth. Sexual norms were largely derived from the Biblical tradition with particular emphases added by the oral tradition of the rabbis. Thus, there was no need for Jesus of Nazareth to formulate a new or renewed sexual ethic. The silence of theGospels indicates that Jesus gave neither a positive nor a particularly negative value to human sexuality. He accepted it as a reality with respect to which man must exercise responsibility. For the rest, it can be affirmed that Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God (Mk 1:15) somewhat colored His attitudes and teachings with respect to human sexuality.⁹

Marriage and Divorce

If, with Stephen Sapp, we consider Jesus’ teachings about marriage and divorce the prime sources for discerning His understanding of human sexuality,¹⁰ his contention may well be an overstatement of the case, even though the pronouncement story on divorce (Mk 10: 1-12; par Mt 19:1-12) and the narrative of the Jerusalem dispute with the Sadducees on levirate marriage (Mk 12:18-27; par Mt 22:23-33; Lk 20:27-40) as well as the Q logion on divorce preserved as the Matthean third antithesis in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5:32) and as an isolated saying in Luke (Lk 16:18) do offer some evidence of Jesus’ understanding of human sexuality.

A discussion of Jesuanic (sic) logion on divorce, particularly in view of the Matthean modification (Mt 19:9, cf 5:32), would take us far beyond the scope of the present article. Moreover, there is already a vast literature on the topic; for us to attempt to add to it within the present undertaking would serve no useful purpose. However, the pronouncement story is particularly significant for our purposes insofar as it is a reaffirmation of the basic understanding of human sexuality contained in the Yahwistic and Priestly creation narratives. The references to Gen 1:27 (Mk 10:6; Mt 19:4) and Gen 2:24 (Mk 10:7; Mt 19:5) make it clear that the Biblical perspective of the relationship between the sexes is the understanding shared by Jesus and the synoptic tradition. We must particularly note that these Biblical citations are advanced not to further a notion of marriage in which procreation is the primary value, but to advance the idea that faithful relationship in marriage is the demand of the Gospel, as well as that of the Creator. The reinforcement of the demand for faithful committment and personal relationship in marriage would, therefore, seem to be integral to Jesus’ understanding of human sexuality.

Is this consistent with the view expounded in Mt 19:11-12, Matthew’s addendum to the pericope on divorce?¹¹ So often this pair of Matthean verses have been cited in favor of the view that Jesus proposed celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” as a way of life for His disciples. This interpretation, although traditional, is hardly adequate to the text.¹² Both the content and the context of v.12 argue against the traditional interpretation. From the standpoint of content, the logion of Jesus (vv. llb-12) is a response to the disciples’ objection that it is better not to marry. The entire logion, therefore, must be seen as an argument that it is good to marry. Moreover, were “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” to be interpreted as a text proposing celibacy, it would be the sole Gospel logion with this meaning—a fact which renders the authenticity of the logion somewhat suspect. From the standpoint of context, it must be noted that the Matthean addendum is an insert into a pre-Matthean context (cf Mk 10:1-16) on marriage and the family. Moreover, the social context of the times seems to preclude a celibacy-oriented interpretation of the logion. The generally low esteem in which eunuchs were held at the time of Jesus’ ministry makes it highly unlikely that the text proposed celibacy as an ideal mode of discipleship. Were He to have done so, we would expect His singular teaching to be reflected in other Gospel passages.

When these several factors are taken into consideration and attention is paid to the content of the logion, it is clear that what Jesus is saying is that if His disciples cannot live up to the Creator-intended demands of marital fidelity then, and only then, is it better not to marry. Thus, the text reinforces the personal relationship view of marriage, rather than proposes celibacy as a more ideal way of life for the disciples of Jesus.

Levirate Marriage

The Synoptic accounts of the Jerusalem dispute on levirate marriage, of which the Lukan form is the longest (Lk 20:27-40),¹³ add further glimpses into Jesus’ attitude towards marriage and sexuality. The pericope has the form of a scribal dispute which bears upon a hypothetical case, namely that of a widow who has been married seven times in keeping with the Deuteronomic prescriptions on levirate marriage. The tradition has obviously been preserved as an apology for the possibility of resurrection. The logion of Lk 20:38 is the climax of the entire pronouncement story. In passing, however, the passage indicates at least two significant dimensions of Jesus’ understanding of marriage. First of all, there is an acceptance of the then current view on marriage. The language of Lk 20:35, “they neither marry nor are given in marriage”, is an indication that the chattel motif in marriage was still current. Moreover, the mere fact that levirate marriage could serve as the hypothetical¹⁴ subject of rabbinic debate shows that procreation continued to be regarded as the most significant value in marriage. Jesus does not seem to take issue with these elements of the popular understanding of marriage. His purpose is other: to proclaim the possibility and reality of the resurrection. In so doing, however, Jesus proclaims that marriage and the bearing of children are realities of the present order. In a word, He affirms the essential secularity of marriage.¹⁵ Once again, His view is as traditional as that of the Priestly author of Gen 1.

In the passages which we have thus far examined, if only briefly, Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom has prompted an affirmation of the relativity of the secular reality of marriage with respect to the definitive establishment of the kingdom in the resurrection and has included a Gospel demand for marital fidelity. The coming of the kingdom and His announcement of it would seem to be even more important as a determinant factor in Jesus’ attitude towards women. It is true that the Gospels do not explicitly affirm that the kingdom has come for women, as it has for children (Mk 10:13-16), as well as for the poor, the blind, the captives, and the oppressed (Lk 4:18). Yet, it is clear that Jesus has come for those who exist on the margin of society. The justice of the kingdom of God is realized insofar as God’s reign is extended to those who exist on the fringes or beyond the pale of the righteous society. Numerous logia, several parables, and the evangelical descriptions of Jesus’ conduct clearly affirm that Jesus had come for those who were alienated in one way or another.

Jesus’ attitude toward Women

The social situation of first century Palestine in which women were, in fact, the chattel property of their husbands, and the religious situation in which women had but limited access to the temple precincts sufficiently bespeak the fact that women were generally considered inferior to men. In this respect, women were on the fringes of society. They were an alienated group within their homeland. Within this set of circumstances, Jesus’ attitude towards women and His ministry to them is particularly significant.¹⁶ That His ministry to women was a scandal is indicated not only by Simon’s retort, “If this manwere a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Lk 7:39)–a text that clearly indicates that the woman in question is a sinner, most likely a prostitute–but also by the disciples’ amazement that Jesus was talking with a woman (Jn 4:27). His ministry to women was an element of the scandal of the coming of the kingdom.

Much could be written about Jesus’ attitude towards women and His ministry to them. Typically an author might cite Jesus’ cure of the woman with the flow of blood and His raising from the dead the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5:21-43 par.), His friendship with Martha and Mary (Lk 10:38-42),¹⁷ and the women who accompanied and provided for Him (Lk 8:2-3). Still more significant is the testimony of the four-fold Gospel tradition which cites women as the first witnesses to the Resurrection of Jesus (Mt 28:1-10; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-12; Jn 20:1-2, 11-18). The Gospel tradition unanimously affirms that women were the first witnesses to and heralds of the Resurrection of Jesus. Yet, the early credal formula of 1 Cor 15:3-6 omits the mention o...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Series Preface
• Introduction
• Part I THEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
• Part II CELIBACY AND ASCETICISM
• Part III GENDER AND PATRIARCHY
• Part IV WORSHIP, RITUAL AND SACRAMENTS
• Part V CONTESTING HEGEMONY AND ORTHODOXY
• Name Index