sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-05-21 03:29 pm
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-05-21 03:29 pm
On the evolution of sexual morality in Jewish and Christian thought
1. The Sexual Code in the Old Testament
The first commandment given to humankind in the Old Testament is, “Be fruitful and multiply.” All sexual prohibitions in the Old Testament can be traced back to this commandment. That is, it was seen as everyone’s sacred duty to reproduce as much as they possibly could. The Old Testament was the product of a pastoral society which had a very high rate of infant mortality.
This society also had an overriding sense of collective duty that is difficult to understand in modern contexts. The commandments of “the Lord” as given in the oldest parts of the Old Testament might be understood as the commands of a ruling conscience governing the Israelite nation, whose morality was primarily focused on the way every action contributed to the collective prosperity, and on the ways actions taken by the nation’s king contributed to the betterment of the kingdom. A man’s prosperity was measured in terms of his successful application of the Lord’s rules, and was thus seen as a sign of the Lord’s approval.
We can see that the sexual code of the Old Testament is aimed at maximizing the reproductive contribution of every person in the nation. The right to marry is given to those men who can materially support a wife and children; those men who can support more than one wife are encouraged to do so. By the time every person is of reproductive age, he or she is already married. Incestuous relations were forbidden because of genetic problems associated with inbreeding.
In line with this analysis, we see that any action that was perceived to be in any way a reduction of one’s reproductive contribution was forbidden. Specifically, many prohibitions regard male conduct; for example, all of Leviticus, chapter 18, is addressed to males. In areas like masturbation or homosexual conduct, attention is paid only to men’s conduct specifically, because such acts by males represent a loss of semen, whereas there is no corresponding loss if women commit such acts. Marital intercourse was restricted to that portion of the menstrual cycle when a female is most likely to conceive.
There are also rules against adultery, non-marital fornication, and prostitution, as these may lead to reproductive confusion or waste of reproductive capacity. Children are generally seen as signs of a man’s prosperity, and so there are rules which exist so that it is clear which man is the father of which child. There exist rules regarding female virginity, but not male virginity, for this reason; if a female who is not a virgin when given to her husband bears a child, it may be unclear who is the father.
2. Christian Views as a Stoic-Influenced Response to a Changing Environment
The urban and cosmopolitan environment in which Christianity was born required an entirely different view towards sexual conduct. In the urban environment, children are not necessarily an economic boon, but may in fact be an economic burden. It is in the Hellenistic and Roman civilizations where we first see an emphasis on monogamy. It is also in this society wherein we first see the idea that sexual abstinence is a sacred practice. (By the rules of the Old Testament, sexual abstinence can be described as a kind of sexual perversion.)
The Christians developed an entirely different sexual rationale. The Christian scheme viewed each person as an individual, rather than a subject of a kingdom. They introduced accordingly a novel idea of salvation, influenced by Stoic philosophy. In the old view, salvation was a national matter -- the Lord’s rebuke or blessing was generally bestowed on the nation as a whole, rather than on each individual. In the new view, salvation was described as a spiritual relationship between God and each individual. Salvation thus did not depend on what nation one came from -- as Paul wrote, “In Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek.”
3. The Permissiveness of Jesus
Jesus demonstrated, in the famous Sermon on the Mount, that orthopraxis (doing what the law tells you to do) is not the key to salvation; salvation, instead, is a spiritual, personal, private matter. Jesus laid out a course of personal spiritual improvement now called theosis, or the process of becoming divinely pure. In this scheme, each person is seen as a work in progress; and so people are to be forgiven of their transgressions rather than shunned or persecuted for them. A transgression is seen now as a mistake, part of an ongoing process of learning, not an unforgivable error.
Correspondingly, early Christian views of sexual morality reflect an unprecedented sense of forgiveness towards sexual transgression. In John 8:3-11, Jesus was confronted by a crowd bearing an accused adulteress, demanding that in accord with the old laws she be stoned to death. Instead of agreeing that she should be put to death, he reminded them that all people have their own history of transgressions, and in light of that none of us has the right to judge one another. He then told the woman, “Now don’t do it again” -- hardly a harsh rebuke! Before that, in John 4:7-26, he offered the “waters of life” to a Samaritan woman even though he was aware of her sexual transgressions. The very fact that he, a Jew, was conversing with her was occasion for shock; but this episode demonstrates well the cosmopolitan attitudes of the early Christians.
4. The Restrictiveness of Paul
Paul introduced a scheme of sexual morality quite different from the one presented in John’s Gospel. Paul clearly believed that Christians should prefer total sexual abstinence. See for example I Corinthians 7:1-9, wherein he described marriage as a sexual concession for those unable to abstain.
Many of Paul’s arguments and views make it seem likely that he belonged to a Jewish sect similar to that which wrote the sectarian scrolls found at Qumran. His sexual views, like his views on predestination and spiritual elitism, fit this pattern. But there is a begrudging acceptance even in Paul’s writings.
In Paul’s view, salvation is offered by Christ even to those who, in the stricter views of his own sect, should not receive it. This attitude permeates Paul’s work but is nowhere clearer than in his views on sex. An important passage on this can be found in I Corinthians, chapter 6. In this passage he brought to bear views which conflicted with his, (given here in quotes) and gave his responses:
[I Corinthians 6:9] “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Do not be deceived! “Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
[10] thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
[11] But this is what some of you used to be! But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Paul demonstrated the paradox inherent in the assertion given here in quotes: if “wrongdoers” cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how is it that many who are within the congregation at Corinth came to be Christians? After all, Paul wrote elsewhere (in his letter to the Roman congregation) that all of us are wrongdoers.
Lest he be seen as too permissive, Paul then, in keeping with his style, anticipated objections to this position and responded to them immediately.
[12] “All things are lawful for me.” But not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me.” But I will not be dominated by anything.
[13] “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food.” But God will destroy both one and the other.
Paul then gave his rationale for sexual abstinence among Christians: the body belongs to the Lord (a reflection of the older view described above) and is (literally) a piece of the body of Christ. Sexual misconduct among Christians was thus in his view an act of blasphemy. Paul was unconcerned with people’s sexual conduct before joining the church and did not view it as something which excludes someone from the offer of salvation. He did, however, see joining the church as the first step in joining a spiritual elite, which meant that one has practical responsibilities -- not as a matter of divine law, but as a matter of avoiding discord.
5. The Context of the Sexual Debate Within the Church
History tells us that disdain towards sex won out, but the debates within the early church show that rules regarding sexual conduct were a matter of serious disagreement, particularly in the Second Century. The Valentinian school, for example, sided with the sexually permissive attitude of John’s Gospel, and offered to reconcile this view with Paul by interpreting his anti-sexual views in entirely symbolic or figurative ways. Other schools groups insisted on total abstinence, and the views depicted in texts such as “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” praise sexual abstinence to an almost absurd degree.
One final point -- those groups within the church likely to be sexually permissive tended also to be those which were open to equal or nearly-equal participation by women. This is especially true of the Valentinian and certain other (certainly not all!) Gnostic schools. Disdain for sexual acts in early Christian texts is often expressed hand-in-hand with mistrust of women, in places using the imagery of Eve, Delilah, or Jezebel to depict women as temptresses whose primary purpose seems to be to lead men spiritually astray. In contrast, the Gnostic myth showed Eve as a bringer of wisdom and liberation.
Recommended reading: Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
crossposting to my journal and crossposting to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
challenging_god
The first commandment given to humankind in the Old Testament is, “Be fruitful and multiply.” All sexual prohibitions in the Old Testament can be traced back to this commandment. That is, it was seen as everyone’s sacred duty to reproduce as much as they possibly could. The Old Testament was the product of a pastoral society which had a very high rate of infant mortality.
This society also had an overriding sense of collective duty that is difficult to understand in modern contexts. The commandments of “the Lord” as given in the oldest parts of the Old Testament might be understood as the commands of a ruling conscience governing the Israelite nation, whose morality was primarily focused on the way every action contributed to the collective prosperity, and on the ways actions taken by the nation’s king contributed to the betterment of the kingdom. A man’s prosperity was measured in terms of his successful application of the Lord’s rules, and was thus seen as a sign of the Lord’s approval.
We can see that the sexual code of the Old Testament is aimed at maximizing the reproductive contribution of every person in the nation. The right to marry is given to those men who can materially support a wife and children; those men who can support more than one wife are encouraged to do so. By the time every person is of reproductive age, he or she is already married. Incestuous relations were forbidden because of genetic problems associated with inbreeding.
In line with this analysis, we see that any action that was perceived to be in any way a reduction of one’s reproductive contribution was forbidden. Specifically, many prohibitions regard male conduct; for example, all of Leviticus, chapter 18, is addressed to males. In areas like masturbation or homosexual conduct, attention is paid only to men’s conduct specifically, because such acts by males represent a loss of semen, whereas there is no corresponding loss if women commit such acts. Marital intercourse was restricted to that portion of the menstrual cycle when a female is most likely to conceive.
There are also rules against adultery, non-marital fornication, and prostitution, as these may lead to reproductive confusion or waste of reproductive capacity. Children are generally seen as signs of a man’s prosperity, and so there are rules which exist so that it is clear which man is the father of which child. There exist rules regarding female virginity, but not male virginity, for this reason; if a female who is not a virgin when given to her husband bears a child, it may be unclear who is the father.
2. Christian Views as a Stoic-Influenced Response to a Changing Environment
The urban and cosmopolitan environment in which Christianity was born required an entirely different view towards sexual conduct. In the urban environment, children are not necessarily an economic boon, but may in fact be an economic burden. It is in the Hellenistic and Roman civilizations where we first see an emphasis on monogamy. It is also in this society wherein we first see the idea that sexual abstinence is a sacred practice. (By the rules of the Old Testament, sexual abstinence can be described as a kind of sexual perversion.)
The Christians developed an entirely different sexual rationale. The Christian scheme viewed each person as an individual, rather than a subject of a kingdom. They introduced accordingly a novel idea of salvation, influenced by Stoic philosophy. In the old view, salvation was a national matter -- the Lord’s rebuke or blessing was generally bestowed on the nation as a whole, rather than on each individual. In the new view, salvation was described as a spiritual relationship between God and each individual. Salvation thus did not depend on what nation one came from -- as Paul wrote, “In Christ there is no longer Jew nor Greek.”
3. The Permissiveness of Jesus
Jesus demonstrated, in the famous Sermon on the Mount, that orthopraxis (doing what the law tells you to do) is not the key to salvation; salvation, instead, is a spiritual, personal, private matter. Jesus laid out a course of personal spiritual improvement now called theosis, or the process of becoming divinely pure. In this scheme, each person is seen as a work in progress; and so people are to be forgiven of their transgressions rather than shunned or persecuted for them. A transgression is seen now as a mistake, part of an ongoing process of learning, not an unforgivable error.
Correspondingly, early Christian views of sexual morality reflect an unprecedented sense of forgiveness towards sexual transgression. In John 8:3-11, Jesus was confronted by a crowd bearing an accused adulteress, demanding that in accord with the old laws she be stoned to death. Instead of agreeing that she should be put to death, he reminded them that all people have their own history of transgressions, and in light of that none of us has the right to judge one another. He then told the woman, “Now don’t do it again” -- hardly a harsh rebuke! Before that, in John 4:7-26, he offered the “waters of life” to a Samaritan woman even though he was aware of her sexual transgressions. The very fact that he, a Jew, was conversing with her was occasion for shock; but this episode demonstrates well the cosmopolitan attitudes of the early Christians.
4. The Restrictiveness of Paul
Paul introduced a scheme of sexual morality quite different from the one presented in John’s Gospel. Paul clearly believed that Christians should prefer total sexual abstinence. See for example I Corinthians 7:1-9, wherein he described marriage as a sexual concession for those unable to abstain.
Many of Paul’s arguments and views make it seem likely that he belonged to a Jewish sect similar to that which wrote the sectarian scrolls found at Qumran. His sexual views, like his views on predestination and spiritual elitism, fit this pattern. But there is a begrudging acceptance even in Paul’s writings.
In Paul’s view, salvation is offered by Christ even to those who, in the stricter views of his own sect, should not receive it. This attitude permeates Paul’s work but is nowhere clearer than in his views on sex. An important passage on this can be found in I Corinthians, chapter 6. In this passage he brought to bear views which conflicted with his, (given here in quotes) and gave his responses:
[I Corinthians 6:9] “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” Do not be deceived! “Fornicators, idolators, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
[10] thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers -- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
[11] But this is what some of you used to be! But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Paul demonstrated the paradox inherent in the assertion given here in quotes: if “wrongdoers” cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how is it that many who are within the congregation at Corinth came to be Christians? After all, Paul wrote elsewhere (in his letter to the Roman congregation) that all of us are wrongdoers.
Lest he be seen as too permissive, Paul then, in keeping with his style, anticipated objections to this position and responded to them immediately.
[12] “All things are lawful for me.” But not all things are beneficial. “All things are lawful for me.” But I will not be dominated by anything.
[13] “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food.” But God will destroy both one and the other.
Paul then gave his rationale for sexual abstinence among Christians: the body belongs to the Lord (a reflection of the older view described above) and is (literally) a piece of the body of Christ. Sexual misconduct among Christians was thus in his view an act of blasphemy. Paul was unconcerned with people’s sexual conduct before joining the church and did not view it as something which excludes someone from the offer of salvation. He did, however, see joining the church as the first step in joining a spiritual elite, which meant that one has practical responsibilities -- not as a matter of divine law, but as a matter of avoiding discord.
5. The Context of the Sexual Debate Within the Church
History tells us that disdain towards sex won out, but the debates within the early church show that rules regarding sexual conduct were a matter of serious disagreement, particularly in the Second Century. The Valentinian school, for example, sided with the sexually permissive attitude of John’s Gospel, and offered to reconcile this view with Paul by interpreting his anti-sexual views in entirely symbolic or figurative ways. Other schools groups insisted on total abstinence, and the views depicted in texts such as “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” praise sexual abstinence to an almost absurd degree.
One final point -- those groups within the church likely to be sexually permissive tended also to be those which were open to equal or nearly-equal participation by women. This is especially true of the Valentinian and certain other (certainly not all!) Gnostic schools. Disdain for sexual acts in early Christian texts is often expressed hand-in-hand with mistrust of women, in places using the imagery of Eve, Delilah, or Jezebel to depict women as temptresses whose primary purpose seems to be to lead men spiritually astray. In contrast, the Gnostic myth showed Eve as a bringer of wisdom and liberation.
Recommended reading: Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent
crossposting to my journal and crossposting to
challenging_god
no subject
(from Chapter 6, subsection 2 and 3)
"2. So also my mother brought to certain oratories, erected in the memory of the saints, offerings of porridge, bread, and wine--as had been her custom in Africa--and she was forbidden to do so by the doorkeeper [ostiarius]. And as soon as she learned that it was the bishop who had forbidden it, she acquiesced so devoutly and obediently that I myself marveled how readily she could bring herself to turn critic of her own customs, rather than question his prohibition. For winebibbing had not taken possession of her spirit, nor did the love of wine stimulate her to hate the truth, as it does too many, both male and female, who turn as sick at a hymn to sobriety as drunkards do at a draught of water. When she had brought her basket with the festive gifts, which she would taste first herself and give the rest away, she would never allow herself more than one little cup of wine, diluted according to her own temperate palate, which she would taste out of courtesy. And, if there were many oratories of departed saints that ought to be honored in the same way, she still carried around with her the same little cup, to be used everywhere. This became not only very much watered but also quite tepid with carrying it about. She would distribute it by small sips to those around, for she sought to stimulate their devotion, not pleasure.
But as soon as she found that this custom was forbidden by that famous preacher and most pious prelate, even to those who would use it in moderation, lest thereby it might be an occasion of gluttony for those who were already drunken (and also because these funereal memorials were very much like some of the superstitious practices of the pagans), she most willingly abstained from it. And, in place of a basket filled with fruits of the earth, she had learned to bring to the oratories of the martyrs a heart full of purer petitions, and to give all that she could to the poor--so that the Communion of the Lord's body might be rightly celebrated in those places where, after the example of his Passion, the martyrs had been sacrificed and crowned. But yet it seems to me, O Lord my God--and my heart thinks of it this way in thy sight--that my mother would probably not have given way so easily to the rejection of this custom if it had been forbidden by another, whom she did not love as she did Ambrose. For, out of her concern for my salvation, she loved him most dearly; and he loved her truly, on account of her faithful religious life, in which she frequented the church with good works, "fervent in spirit."[153] Thus he would, when he saw me, often burst forth into praise of her, congratulating me that I had such a mother--little knowing what a son she had in me, who was still a skeptic in all these matters and who could not conceive that the way of life could be found out. "
--
A lot of people would recognize the practices' roots, I think.
An article on Saint ancestor worship in early Christianity and its later ban:
(found via Google, and the article in question is in a paper called "The Lion"..)
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:QA_YRW-yMycJ:www.westernorthodox.com/stmark/lion/lion2004-03+laetitiae+practice&hl=en
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Oh, not from Augustine, actually, but from another North African Christian source -- an invocation which calls on the Holy Spirit to breathe upon an offering of honey.)
no subject
Now, you know I'd been looking for someone to do the bread part for a while... but the honey bit was new to me :)
no subject
no subject
(Heh, at first I typed "how pubically?" That too, LOL...)
no subject
no subject
It does sound like a sympathetic sort of communion -- the sort that gave the bishops of the early church apopleptic fits.
I also think avoidance of pleasures like wine must be linked to avoidance of sex and mistrust of women. Something I need to explore a lot more closely. This matter had my attention of late. See for example these two entries:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/376423.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/389460.html
no subject
If you look at the roots of anti-drug propaganda, including alcohol prohibition (before the "leads to crime" and "generally unhealthy" issues were seized upon) it largely revolves around the idea that intoxicants will lead women into lustfullness and wantoness (and more specifically that it would lead white women into lustful and wanton relations with men of other races).
As regards your number # 3, Miss Sophia...
In addition to that, there's the fact that the Roman centurion who was rewarded with the accolade, "Never have I seen greater faith among the Jews," when Christ acceded to his request to cure his "body-slave," was actually requesting that his minion or catamite or something like that be cured, because such slave boys were required by Roman LAW and custom to be at the disposition of their masters for sexual satisfactions. And even if THIS Roman warrior was not "living in sin" with his catamite, all the people standing around Christ and him would have ASSUMED that to be the case--the custom and practice being that widespread among the slaveowners of the Graeco-Roman world. Apart from these two possible incidences of actual contact with homosexuality, however, the notion that Jesus would never have been confronted by homosexual behaviour in a country occupied by Romans is preposterous. Homosexuality among Romans and their Greek servants and secretaries would have stared Him in the face, and, if he'd wanted to denounce it, the occasions would have been ample.
Re: As regards your number # 3, Miss Sophia...
no subject
The times during which Christianity became widespread and accepted in the West- the very times the tenants of the modern Church were defined- were war-torn and plagued with enough disease and famine that some of the older attitudes regarding reproductive necessity would have come back into vogue.
no subject
no subject
Additionally, according to some of the stricter defintions of what makes a person Jewish, the quality of being Jewish is passed stricly through the female. Thus the children of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish father are Jewish, but the children of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman are not. The shift of Chrisitianity to an individual rather than a group form of salvation created a tightening of sexual controls among peoples who wanted to keep some sort of national or racial definition.
(I am not saying this is a good thing. I am just saying that the evolution of sexual morality as practiced and enforced by society lies more in the interaction of the political enviornment with the gospels and teachings than within the actual teachings themselves)
no subject
I hope you don't mind if I ask a few questions.
You say that male masturbation is forbidden as being a waste of seed, but I do not recall anything in the Law of Moses, or elsewhere, which explicitly forbids it. Have I missed something? Or do you refer to the general uncleaness resulting from the emission of semen?
A friend of mine (
Do you mind if I refer to this entry in my own journal?