Reb Jeff
  • Blog
  • About
  • Favorites
  • Resources
    • Counting of the Omer
  • Wedding Officiation
  • Contact Me
  • Temple Sinai

A Biblical Train Wreck

9/7/2015

 
Picture
I hate to point this out, but Kim Davis' arguments about refusing to issue marriage licenses in Rowan County, Kentucky, are not just legal nonsense. They also are a biblical train wreck.

Davis is, of course, the county clerk who has refused to obey a court order – one upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court – to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That defiance has put her in jail for contempt of court. It also has made her the most famous county clerk in America, and that is reason enough for me not to write about her. She and her offensive claims about religious persecution have gotten her far more publicity than she deserves. I hate to add more fuel to a controversy that already has exceeded its fifteen minutes of fame.

I also hate to write about Davis because, in my opinion, the very lunacy of her legal claims is actually a good thing for the future of marriage equality. The outrageous nature of her argument – that she has a constitutional right to ignore and defy the rulings of the Supreme Court – only goes to show that marriage discrimination is on its last legs. If Kim Davis is the symbolic leader of the rebellion to keep gay and lesbian couples from marrying, it is a rebellion that is looking increasingly like a fringe movement of the willfully ignorant and the intellectually dishonest.

But I can't help myself. I have to write about Kim Davis because there is such a glaringly obvious contradiction in her understanding and interpretation of the Bible. I am such a consummate nerd of biblical study that it pains me not to point it out.

In her defense, Davis published a statement that says, in part, "I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience."

I'm going to put aside for the moment the idea that there can be any religious justification for public officials to refuse to carry out the duties of their offices. More on that later.

I have written in the past about the so-called "biblical definition of marriage." Suffice to say, if God has a definition of marriage, God has never published it. There is no single, clear definition of marriage to be found anywhere in the Bible. Any biblical support for Davis to justify her refusal to do her job must be based on her interpretation of the Bible. The Bible does have a few things to say about sex between people of the same sex and about marriage, but not all of them will support the choices that Davis has made in her job and in her life.

Davis, I am sure, will rest her case largely upon Leviticus 18:22, which states: "Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman. it is an abomination." This is not the only biblical verse that deals with male-male sexuality, but it is one of the clearest. The Hebrew Bible does not like the idea of men having sex with men. It is not clear whether the verse is talking about consensual sex between men who love each other, or if it is talking about rape. There are no examples of the former in the Bible, but there are examples of the latter (see Genesis 19:5-6.) It is entirely possible that Leviticus 18 is talking mainly about rape, not consensual sex.

Some will note that Leviticus 18 is a prohibition against sexuality, not against marriage. That is true, but marriage is mostly equated with sex in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, there really is no verb "to marry" in Biblical Hebrew and there is no noun that just means "wife." The idiom for marriage is "to take." A wife, in the Hebrew Bible is a woman who has been acquired as a possession. When the Bible says, "He took her to be his woman" it means both, "He married her" and, "He had sex with her." From a biblical perspective, sex is marriage and marriage is sex. Some sex is permitted, and, thus, marriage is permitted. Some sex is prohibited and, thus, marriage is prohibited.

The word "abomination" used in Leviticus 18 about sex between two men sounds pretty strong – definitely not something that God wants people to do. However, this is not the only place in the Bible that talks about "abominations." In fact, the Bible uses the exact same word (to'eivah in Hebrew) in the book of Deuteronomy to talk specifically about marriage. Here is a fairly literal translation of the passage:

When a man takes a woman and masters her, but she does not find grace in his eyes because he finds something obnoxious about her, he writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her away from his house. She leaves his house and goes to become another man's. But if the other man hates her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her away from his house – or, if the last man who took her as his woman dies – then the first husband who sent her away cannot take her again to be his woman after she has been made ritually impure — for that is an abomination before Adonai. You shall not bring sin upon the land that Adonai your God is giving to you as a possession. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)
 
Any honest reading of the Bible would suggest that if a marriage between two men is prohibited, then the remarriage of a divorced couple after the woman has been married to someone else must also be prohibited. The first prohibition is based on an interpretation of Leviticus – one that says that they cannot have sex with each other even if they are in a consensual relationship, and that the prohibition against sex implies a prohibition against marriage. The second prohibition requires much less interpretation, as it is clearly spelled out in Deuteronomy in precise, legal language. The prohibition in Leviticus is tangentially related to marriage; the prohibition in Deuteronomy is directly fixed on marriage.

I want to make clear that this is not my interpretation of the Bible and it is not my understanding of what Judaism teaches. But Kim Davis reads the Bible rather differently than I do. She claims to read the Bible as giving clear and certain teaching for the present day about a definition of marriage. My belief is that the definition of marriage has changed greatly over the centuries and that we should feel fortunate not to live in a time in which the Bible's rules about polygamy, captive brides and women being required to marry their rapists still apply.

I respect those who have a greater sense of certainty than I do about what the Bible decrees about marriage, but I do ask them to apply those standards consistently. Kim Davis does not.

One might assume that Kim Davis, who refuses to "violate a central teaching of Scripture…regarding marriage," would refuse to issue marriage licenses to couples who want to get remarried after their divorce even after the woman was subsequently married to someone else. After all, such a marriage is clearly and directly prohibited in the Bible. It is an "abomination." Maybe Davis did refuse to issue such marriage licenses. I don't know.

However, I do know that she would have a pretty hard time explaining her refusal to the couple who wanted to get remarried, because she was in exactly the same situation herself. Davis has been married to Joe Davis since 2009. It is her fourth marriage. Joe Davis was also her second husband, from 1996 to 2006. In between her marriages to Joe Davis, she was married to Thomas McIntryre in 2007. Kim Davis' lawyer says that she is "a completely different person" today than she was in 2011 because she now "loves the Lord." Her conversion, however, did not include the rejection of her marriage which is a clear violation of a biblical law, an ongoing and current "abomination" according to a literal reading of Deuteronomy.

Is it fair for me to use Kim Davis' personal life as an argument against her? After all, people can make mistakes, change, and be forgiven. How long can we hold a person's past against him or her? Should not Jewish and Christian ideals allow us to forgive past mistakes? Yes, absolutely. 

However, it is Kim Davis who has not repaired her past mistakes according to her own stated fidelity to the "teachings of Scripture regarding marriage." She is still married and enjoying the benefits of marriage to a man who is biblically prohibited to her according to her own strict standards. It is Kim Davis who has intruded into the personal lives of others by denying them their constitutional rights to benefit from civil marriage. I think that opens the possibility that we look at how she applies her principles to herself.

Here is our biblical train wreck, and it is becoming all too common in our times. Many so-called "biblical literalists" and fundamentalists like Kim Davis grant themselves the authority to apply their interpretation of the Bible to other people's lives. Even worse, people like Kim Davis are using Scripture as a weapon against others without applying it equally to themselves. That is not what either Judaism or Christianity teaches. Both religions guide us to be scrupulous in applying high standards to ourselves and to be compassionate and loving to others. Kim Davis has done the opposite.  

Just to make matters worse, Davis, her lawyers and supporters have thrown on top of this noisome heap of hypocrisy the charge that Davis is being persecuted for her religious beliefs. No less a figure than Senator Ted Cruz has charged, "Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America."

No, Senator Cruz. Davis is in jail for disobeying a court order. If she wants to conduct herself according to a religious standard in her own life – even a hypocritical standard – that is her right and she is welcome to it. But she does not have the right to use her elected office to impose that standard on others. Religious persecution is when the government prevents you from practicing your religion, not when the government stops you from forcing others to adhere to your religion. Claiming religious persecution, in this case, is offensive to the many people in the world today and throughout history who have been been denied basic rights of faith and religious practice.

We are a country in which public officials perform their duties according to the law, not according to their ecclesiastical whim. If there is no way for Davis to execute the duties of her office within the confines of her conscience, she should resign. 

Bad legal arguments and bad biblical interpretation are the double sign of those who want to cling to a discriminatory past – a past that is now sputtering to its oblivion in much the same way as biblical arguments in favor of slavery sputtered out in the 19th century, and biblical arguments against interracial marriage sputtered out in the 20th. I remain hopeful that this train wreck is a sign that the debate over marriage equality is coming to an end.


Other Posts on This Topic:
Searching for How the Bible Defines Marriage
What Does the Bible Say about Marriage? What Should We Say?

Mike Comins
9/8/2015 03:25:54 pm

Beautiful piece, Jeff. Yashar Koach

Peggy
9/8/2015 09:35:07 pm

So interesting! Thank you!

Dee Schwam
9/9/2015 03:27:03 am

Wonderful!

Joanne Santangelo link
9/9/2015 03:13:31 pm

This is the most intelligent thing I have see in print regarding this ignorant woman. Thank you for writing this piece.

Sally Guiney
9/9/2015 05:14:13 pm

Eloquent and true. Thank you!

Robert Orenstein
9/9/2015 06:01:10 pm

Beautifully written and on point. And you did so without labeling her as anything besides misguided. Well done. Now let's see what happens as more "misguided" people rise up and put a strain on our legal system. I'm not sure anyone wants to see 100,000 misguided Christians thrust into the American penal system.

Mickey Davis link
9/9/2015 06:45:23 pm

Scott Shaw
9/10/2015 07:46:59 am

It's so good to read logical, calm, rebuttals to the pseudo-Christian crap that is trotted out as fact.

Cousin
9/10/2015 11:18:37 am

I think we would all do well, myself included, to study the laws of the land, including and most importantly, the Supreme Court's authority. They are not responsible to make or reinterpret or overrule already standing laws. They are only to uphold the law.

arlin
9/10/2015 06:23:58 pm

It ought to be pointed out, in response to the absurd claim that this person is being persecuted, that in the private sector there was a perfectly clear remedy for Kim Davis's situation under current law and practice: she should have sought a religious accommodation, exempting her from giving licenses to gay couples. Her employer would then determine whether her responsibility could be discharged by other clerks in her office. If the employer can accommodate her without unduly burdening her co-workers, then the employer is obliged to make a religious accommodation. For instance, here is the story of a Muslim stewardess who didn't want to serve alcohol, and asked for an exemption, which she was granted (initially, at least):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/08/muslim-flight-attendant-suspended-for-refusing-to-serve-alcohol-files-federal-complaint/

The situation might be different for Kim Davis who was working in the public sector and probably swore some kind of oath to uphold the law rather than to apply it selectively.

But Kim Davis did not ask for an exemption for herself. Her concern was not so much to keep herself from sinning, but to prevent others from engaging in a practice that she believed was sinful. She prevented licenses from being issues and instructed other clerks not to issue the license. She tried to take the law into her own hands.

Scott
9/14/2015 09:17:55 am

Nice argument, BUT, if you claim the Leviticus passage is talking about rape, then you are also implying a man raping a woman is justifiable.

Rabbi Jeff link
9/14/2015 02:07:45 pm

The Bible definitely has a different opinion about men raping women than does our society. Deuteronomy 22 says:

"If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her."

Deuteronomy isn't exactly justifying the rape of women. Clearly the text disapproves of it, but it is considered almost inevitable. The text brings some sanctions against men who rape women because it wishes to discourage it and it wishes to have a way to deal with the consequences (which, of course, include pregnancy).

There is little regard for the woman. Because "sex equals marriage," the text assumes that they must be married and the father of the girl must be compensated for the loss of a marriageable daughter. The rapist can never divorce her under a principle that seems similar to a policy of "you broke it, you bought it. No getting out of it."

It is not that man-man rape is unjustifiable and man-woman rape is justified. They are both abhorred, but to different degrees and with difference remedies.


Comments are closed.

    Welcome

    This blog is about living a joyful Jewish life and bringing joy to synagogues and the Jewish community. Join the conversation by commenting on posts and sharing your experiences. For more on the topic, read the First Post.
    "Like" Reb Jeff on FB

    RSS Feed

    Enter your email address to subscribe to Reb Jeff posts by email

    Follow Reb Jeff's Tweets

    Recent Posts

    Purim & COVID-19
    ​The Honor of Heaven
    Chasing Our Own Tails
    Drilling Under Your Seat
    Change the World
    Self-Righteousness
    Where We Came From
    What We Must Believe
    ​Is Passover 7 or 8 Days?Origin Story
    Va'eira: Leadership​

    Jeff's Favorites

    • First Post
    • Searching for How the Bible Defines Marriage 
    • The Difference between God and Religion
    • In the Beginning of What?
    • Rape, Abortion and Judaism
    • Ten Thoughts about Being a Rabbi
    • Temple Dues and Don'ts
    • A Pesach Lesson from Yoga
    • The Purpose of the Torah

    Torah Portions

    Genesis
    Bereshit
    Noach
    Lech Lecha
    Vayera
    Chayei Sarah
    Toledot
    Vayetze
    Vayishlach
    Vayeshev
    Miketz
    Vayigash
    Vayechi

    Exodus
    Shemot
    Va'eira
    Bo
    Beshalach
    Yitro
    Mishpatim
    Terumah
    Tetzaveh
    Ki Tisa
    Vayakhel
    Pekudei

    Leviticus
    Vayikra
    Tzav
    Shemini
    Tazria
    Metzora
    Acharei Mot
    Kedoshim
    Emor
    Behar
    Bechukotai

    Numbers
    Bamidbar
    Naso
    Beha'alotecha
    Shelach
    Korach
    Chukat
    Balak
    Pinchas
    Matot
    Masei

    Deuteronomy
    Devarim
    Va'etchanan
    Ekev
    Re'eh
    Shoftim
    Ki Tetze
    Ki Tavo
    Nitzavim
    Vayelech
    Ha'azinu
    Vezot Haberachah

    Holidays
    Shabbat
    Rosh Chodesh
    Pesach/Passover
    Omer Period
    Yom HaShoah
    Yom HaZikaron
    Yom Ha'atzma'ut
    Pesach Sheini
    Lag B'Omer
    Yom Yerushalayim
    Shavuot
    Fast of Tammuz
    Tisha B'Av
    Tu B'Av
    Rosh Hashanah
    Days of Awe
    Yom Kippur
    Sukkot
    Hoshanah Rabbah
    Shmini Atzeret/
    Simchat Torah
    Chanukah
    Tu BiShvat
    Adar (Joy Increases!)
    Purim

    Archives

    November 2022
    September 2022
    May 2022
    January 2022
    September 2021
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011

    Loading
    Jewish Bloggers
    Powered By Ringsurf
    Picture