The Spirit of the Law
As I’ve discussed here before, strict adherence to the letter of the law can produce odd results. By reducing the Bible to a rulebook, we run the risk of either binding ourselves to all sorts of regulations that have no context in real life other than “God said so,” or of resorting to cherry-picking to weed out those commands that we would rather ignore.
Fortunately we have precedents in church history for placing the spirit of the law ahead of the letter of the law, even when doing so appears (on the surface) to place us in violation of what had previously been accepted as a direct command from God. Remarriage following divorce is the most obvious example of this, but there is another that demonstrates this principle even more clearly. The sin of usury was once strongly and universally condemned by the Christian church (Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike), yet today some Christians aren’t even familiar with the term.
The biblical authors clearly and unambiguously condemn usury (the practice of charging interest on loans) on multiple occasions: Exod. 22:25-27, Lev. 25:35-37, Deut. 23:19-20, Neh. 5:10-11, Psalm 15:5, Prov. 28:8, Isa. 24:1-3, Jer. 15:10, Eze. 18:7-9, Eze. 18:13, Eze. 18:17 and Eze. 22:12 all speak against the practice. Although the New Testament has far less to say on the subject, many theologians have interpreted Luke 6:35 (“lend, expecting nothing in return” – NASB) as a command against usury. With so many references to the practice outside of the Pentateuch, usury cannot be automatically dismissed as a matter of concern only for ancient Israel.
Furthermore, the Bible contains no positive references to usury or those that practice it. Although the idea of collecting interest on a bank deposit is brought up in the parable of the talents (Matt. 25:14-29, Luke 19:11-26), it is at best a neutral statement. Jesus does not condemn the words of his fictional property owner (who is described as a “harsh man”), but neither does he endorse them.
Church leaders and theologians from Augustine and St. John Chrysostom to Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther unanimously and harshly condemned the practice of usury, which remained punishable by excommunication into the early years of the Reformation. The Medieval church did permit Jews to charge interest on loans, since Jews were already regarded by the church as accursed, but no other exceptions were entertained.
So what changed? A few advocates of permitting certain forms of usury rose up from time to time, but they were either ignored or shouted down. Meanwhile, the world was changing. What had worked within the context of a tribal society with an agrarian economy didn’t translate well to the medieval world with its growing cities and rising merchant class. Without the ability to charge interest, there was no incentive to lend money since doing so would result in a net loss to the lender. And with such limited access to loans, only the wealthy could afford the startup costs of new business ventures.
John Calvin was the first theologian to formulate a comprehensive case for lifting the ban on some forms of usury. Among other things, he pointed out the context in which the biblical command was given, namely, helping the poor (Lev. 25:35). The spirit of the Law was not concerned with regulating all forms of commerce, but rather with encouraging compassionate treatment of the poor and prohibiting the wealthy from exploiting the less fortunate for personal gain. It was meant to protect the poor, not to hinder any efforts they might make to rise out of poverty.
In a similar fashion we can uncover the intent of the authors of Leviticus in regard to the command that appears to prohibit all male homosexual conduct. Lev. 18:3 and 20:23 instruct the Israelites not to emulate the behaviors of the surrounding nations, whose religious practices were known to include most of the acts listed in those two chapters.
Within this context we can see why lesbianism was overlooked entirely (it was not practiced in any known temple rituals at the time), and why the command against male-male sex is one of the few Levitical prohibitions not repeated in the book of Deuteronomy (or anywhere else in the Old Testament) unless one counts references to the qadesh, the male “holy ones” who had sex with male patrons as part of certain pagan fertility rituals.
In the New Testament Paul echoes that condemnation of pagan fertility rituals (which were still common in Roman times) when he speaks of the “unnatural” passions that arise out of idolatrous practices in Rom. 1:18-32. Although Paul’s discourse includes an apparent mention of lesbian activity in verse 26, theologians have not always interpreted this verse as a reference to lesbianism. Verse 26 is not at all out of place within the context of the fertility rituals, given that some of those rites involved female priests who dressed up as men to simulate sex with male priests who were dressed as women.
A few scholars have also proposed that the word arsenokoitai, which appears in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 and which Paul apparently coined, was derived from the words used in the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22. If that is the case, then all of the Bible’s references to homosexual behavior (not counting the attempted rape and murder in the Sodom narrative) point specifically to the idolatrous qadesh and those who patronized them.
Equipped with such an understanding, we are freed to examine the issue of committed same-sex relationships from broader biblical principles, as the church has done and continues to do for a variety of issues that were not directly addressed by the authors of the Old and New Testaments – modern commerce, representative government, abortion, biotechnology, and many others. Within such a framework there are numerous principles we can apply to this issue, including marital fidelity, mutual commitment, avoidance of immoral behavior and self-sacrificial love.
Some might object to the comparison of an economic issue (usury) with a matter of sexual morality. Given that the biblical authors spend far more time discussing economic justice than they do addressing sexual ethics, that’s not an unfounded reservation; the modern church has simply reversed the order of importance.
Where the letter of the law demands that our highest devotion be reserved for rules and regulations, the spirit of the law frees us to truly love others by placing people ahead of ideas. As Jesus himself said when confronted by the religious leaders for not adhering to the letter of the law, “the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)
Emily,
While I certainly don’t want to compare homosexuality to such things as muscular dystrophy, the analogy I was using was to illustrate the possible sadochism of God. It seems to me that he asks many men and women to live through circumstance that is heartbreaking, terrible, and seemingly unbearable, and sometimes suffer very alone. I think this idea is even biblical.
I think the ethic of homosexuality ought not to be determined by the sadistic-capability of God. Let’s be straight (no pun intended)-He can be downright unbearable at times. Yet I do truly believe He is a good God in spite of this.
I think God has provided a body, the Church, which should be holding the hands through the suffering. I will easily admit that if homosexuality is indeed “sin”, and is something to struggle against, it is the Church that has the absolute responsibility to be Christ to those suffering. She has failed miserably in this, and it is a point that absolutely must change, as well as the points made originally about oppressing the poor and advocating easy divorce. Yet even this hypocrisy cannot determine our ethic.
I refuse to believe that God would deny humans love of any sort as a divine plan. That’s where you and I will have to differ. The only reason people attracted to the same sex would need to suffer is because they belong to a religion that forces them to suffer.
The eminent Dutch Protestant theologian Harry Kuitert has pointed out that “The Bible is indeed full of commandments, admonitions, instructions for living and dying, often given as coming from God or his prophets and apostles” but that “if we were to do everything that is handed down in the Bible as God’s commandments, we would be bad people with abhorrent deeds. And conversely, we do a whole heap of things that are directly condemned in the Bible.” However, as he observes, “Things can’t be otherwise, for the world which was presupposed by all these commandments is no longer ours.”
Let’s take a look at some of these “divine” commandments and see how they would affect us today.
(1) “You are not to wear a garment made from two kinds of fabric.” (Leviticus 19:19)
Looking at the labels on my clothes, I see that most of my shirts are made from a blend of cotton and polyester, and that all my trousers are made from a blend of polyester, viscose and cotton. I could, of course, give them away to a charity shop, but that might make me instrumental in causing others to disobey Scripture. Would it be better to burn them all?
(2) “The pig must be held unclean…. You must not eat the meat of such animals nor touch their dead bodies; you must hold them unclean.” (Leviticus 11:7-8)
“But anything in sea or river that has not fins or scales, of all the small water creatures and all the living things found there, must be held detestable. … You are not to eat their flesh and you must avoid their carcases.” (Leviticus 11:10-11)
As a teacher, once or twice a week I take a game of football with my pupils. The ball is made of pigskin. Should I refuse to take any more football games? I also notice that my wallet is marked “GENUINE PIGSKIN”. Should I throw it away? Although I’ve never been very keen on the traditional roast pork, I do love bacon, ham and salami, and I’m particularly fond of Newmarket sausages. When I’m in Italy, two of my favourite dishes are spaghetti pescatora and spaghetti alle vongole. Must I give up these foods?
(3) “Yahweh, who has the right to enter your tent, or to live on your holy mountain? The man whose way of life is blameless, who always does what is right, …[who] does not ask interest on loans….” (Psalm 15:1-2, 5 – traditionally referred to as “the Christian Gentleman’s Psalm”)
I have savings accounts with my bank and my building society, which earn interest. Should I close them? For some years now I have been paying into an Additional Voluntary Contributions scheme in order to bump up my pension when I reach retirement. The contributions are invested to earn interest. Should I stop my contributions and cancel the policy?
(4) “A man whose testicles have been crushed or whose male member has been cut off is not to be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
I know a guy who has only one testicle: the other one had to be removed as the result of an unfortunate accident. If he should turn up at our church next Sunday, what is the best way of explaining to him kindly that he is not welcome?
(5) “None of your descendants, in any generation, must come forward to offer the food of his God if he has any infirmity – no man must come near if he has any infirmity such as blindness or lameness….” (Leviticus 21:17-18)
I know a priest who has been blind for the past 25 years or more. I know he is a very good priest, but the Bible is quite clear on the matter. Should I start a campaign to have him drummed out of the priesthood?
(6) “The man who lies with a woman during her monthly periods and uncovers her nakedness: he has laid bare the source of her blood, and she has uncovered the source of her blood: both of them must be outlawed from their people.” (Leviticus 20:18)
Ought I to question married couples about this? If they admit that they have intercourse when the wives are menstruating, should I refuse to have anything more to do with them?
(7) “The man who lies with a man in the same way as with a woman: they have done a hateful thing together; they must die, their blood shall be on their own heads.” (Leviticus 20:13
Should I campaign for a law that gays are to be hanged, shot, guillotined or burnt at the stake? Or would it be better for me to constitute myself God’s executioner, taking a line through the infamous Soho nail bomber?
Oh yes, I know, I know: you can bring up that old chestnut about the Old Testament laws being divided into ceremonial, civil and moral commandments, and say that we are bound only by the moral ones. But that simply won’t do. That distinction is not in the Bible. There are no sub-headings saying “The following are ceremonial laws….”, “The following are civil laws….” or “The following are moral laws…” They are ALL presented as commands of Yahweh, and there is no indication that any of them are to be regarded as optional. On the contrary, it explicitly states in the Mosaic Law:
“I am Yahweh your God. You must keep my laws and my customs …. You must not do ANY of these hateful things …. Yes, anyone who does ONE of these hateful things, WHATEVER it may be, any person doing so must be cut off from his people.” (Leviticus 18:5, 26, 29)
“Keep ALL my laws and customs, put them into practice. I am Yahweh.” (Leviticus 19:37)
“You must keep ALL my laws, ALL my customs, and put them into practice.” (Leviticus 20:22)
“But if you do not listen to me, and do not observe EACH ONE of these commandments, if you refuse my laws and disregard my customs, and break my Covenant by not observing EACH ONE of my commandments, then I will deal in like manner with you. I will inflict terror on you….” (Leviticus 26:14-16)
Yet such a textual criticism provides, at the end, two results. Either a moral standard developed purely out of NT teaching (which, ironically, seems to spend much time “picking and choosing” OT practices on some methodology), or a moral standard developed entirerly on a new frame of reference.
With the first option, we are stuck trying to extrapolate relevant teaching for our culture (which is thousands of years different) on some basis. Scholars, even in NT criticism, tend to use a some methodology, hence where many have drawn the “ceremonial/civil/moral” distinctions. With the second, what would our frame of reference be? The Spirit of God? Other men? Social acceptability? Is there any objective absolute amidst this frame of reference?
William, what would your end result be? If I have been short-sighted in not seeing a possible end-result, what would yours be? You obviously don’t think OT Law is the standard for today, but I’m sure even Kuitert (whom critics consider more an agnostic rather than a Christian theologian) had some standard of biblical criticism.
John,
You asked:
(1) People knew about good and evil long before a single word of the Bible was written. Hence they do not depend on the Bible – or even on belief in God. Even if you’re a complete atheist, you know about good and evil. As Kuitert says, “Morality doesn’t come from the Bible but from the light of nature.”
(2) I don’t agree that the New Testament ‘seems to spend much time “picking and choosing” OT practices on some methodology’, and the theology of St Paul seems directly antithetical to this. If you want a specifically NT basis for morality, Matthew 22:37-40 and Romans 13:8-10 are good places to start – hardly “a new frame of reference”, I might add.
(3) You ask ‘William, what would your end result be?’ as though abandoning the Old Testament Law as a standard for Christian morality were a modern and revolutionary proposal of mine, but it isn’t: the Mosaic Law was long ago jettisoned by mainstream Christianity. Obviously, many actions that are forbidden by it are still regarded as wrong and sinful, but modern Christians would seldom or never think of basing the sinfulness of such actions on the Mosaic Law. In fact, I can recall the Mosaic Law being invoked by Christians of late only with regard to homosexuality. (One used to hear it quoted to condemn Spiritualism, but I haven’t heard it so used recently, presumably because the Spiritualist movement has long been in decline anyway and therefore is no longer of so much concern.) Such appeals to the Mosaic Law are simply special pleading.
(4) The Bible is not a moral rule book, and even those Christians who claim – and themselves no doubt believe – that they simply lift their moral code out of the Bible, manifestly do no such thing, as I think I have shown.
(Incidentally, I quote Harry Kuitert, not because I agree with everything that he says, but because he deals with this issue very clearly and trenchantly.)
In response,
It seems fairly clear to me that though humanity does have a sense of right and wrong, their sense is easily distorted and perverted based on subjective circumstance. I think history vouches for this–man is clearly prone to destroy both himself and his brother. From biblical times to the Holocaust to the current destruction and hatred of modern society, any absolute morality (truly, either from a religious or non-religious viewpoint) is easily subjected to multiple feelings and passions.
And let us not look to nature for morality. Even looking at higher intelligence leaves far too much room for vile things such as incest, cannabalism, and the like.
Ironically, the footnotes to Matthew 22:37-40 seem to indicate that Christ was quoting some Old Testament Law. The same applies with Romans 13. So it appears that there were some principles from the Old Testament that carried through into the New. Indeed, these succinctly summarized the entire Law and Prophets.
Perhaps the Old Testament is so thorough and voluminous because we, as subjective, passionate beings tend to twist the “spirit of the law”, which takes some sense of an absolute standard to keep within. For an analogy, look at Paul’s discourse on the Spirit in 1 Corinithians. He spends much time specifically directing what the work of the Spirit will and will not look like. Why, if these men are “guided by the Spirit”, do they need so much instruction? Because the Spirit is often substituted for by our emotion, passion, and desire.
In the same, though much of the Old Testament (as well as New) is, I feel, culturally-relevant, the basic principles, even the “spirit of the Law” then, contained things which still carry through today. Such as not oppressing the poor or letting your sexuality guide you unchecked (both generalized by loving God and neighbor). The work and study that it takes to sift through cultural and principal issues of both the OT and NT requires wisdom, and to a degree, graciousness. Some professor told me “in those things that the Scriptures are gracious in, be gracious”. And I will easily and quickly confess this has not been the common practice, particularly of fundamental churches.
The Scriptures are certainly no “rule book”. They are the revelation of God’s character. Yet those standards which are contained within are such that we should continue to humbly wrestle with seeing “loving God and neighbor” applied both in past culture and then in current.
Unfortunately John, in most fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical circles its not love that sums up the law, but adhering to their brand of Christianity. That is why for them its important to point out our faults(sins) and by believing as they do (letter of the Law) we can be saved.
I’m thankful that I do not believe it to be so.