This is the debate about homosexuality in a nutshell:
SIDE ONE - The Bible is clearly against homosexual behavior. God loves the sinner but hates the sin.
1. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because it had become so homosexual.
2. Leviticus 18 and 20 are clear moral laws forbidding homosexuality, calling it an abomination and condemning it by demanding the death penalty.
3. Jude emphasizes that Sodom was destroyed because of homosexuality (which he calls "going after other flesh").
4. There are lists of sins in the New Testament that keep people from the kingdom of God and even send them to hell, one sin mentioned in those lists is homosexual behavior.
5. Romans chapter one clearly reveals homosexuality as the most obvious result of sin that begins with idolatry.
SIDE TWO - The Bible is not against normal homosexual behavior, but against homosexual rape or using homosexuality for worship of other gods.
1. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is violence against the visitor, not homosexuality. Ezekiel is the only writer in the Bible who clearly names the sin of Sodom, and he does not say homosexuality, but says the sin is economic injustice and lack of care for the poor.
2. Leviticus 18 and 20 are against temple prostitution and not against normal homosexual behavior. Secondly, the Law is not for us today - we cannot pick and choose what verses we want to use from the Law, or else sex with one's wife during her time of the month would be an abomination, and children who are too rebellious should be killed. These and other laws are laws that most Christians do not care to resurrect, so why do we want to make a big deal about one law in Leviticus 18 and 20?
3. When Jude talks about Sodom and "going after other flesh," he is getting his information from books he quoted - one being the Book of Enoch, where angels have sex with women. "Going after other flesh" is not homosexuality, but trying to have sex with angels.
4. When it comes to the lists found in Paul's writings and in Revelation, the New Testament translators have mistranslated the words in question, assuming from their own prejudices that the words refer to homosexual practices. In reality the words are closer in meaning to temple prostitutes, or any type of sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) that goes too far.
5. Romans 1 is set in the context of idolatry, so the type of homosexual behavior addressed is temple prostitution which is wrong. Regular homosexual behavior is not in question. Even if Paul were speaking about regular homosexual practices, the bottom line is it is against nature. Well, he also said that nature teaches us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, and that a woman's glory is her hair. What was natural to Paul is cultural and not universal.
6. Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In fact, when he talked about Sodom and Gomorrah, he used the story as an illustration to emphasize the wrath of God against villages that rejected him or his disciples. This illustration emphasizes the evils of inhospitality. From this the conclusion is confirmed that Sodom's sin was not homosexuality, but poor treatment of visitors.
MY CONCLUSIONS
1. I looked at Sodom and Gomorrah and how the story was interpreted by other writers in the Bible. None of them focused on homosexuality, but on the sins of their own day. For example, although Isaiah used the story to emphasize the seriousness of God's wrath, Isaiah ignored Sodom and Gomorrah's intent to violently rape 2 men, and focused on the economic injustices of his day. It was those economic injustices that result in the wrath of God-a Sodom and Gomorrah, fire and brimstone wrath of God.
Ezekiel was the only one to mention the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah - economic injustice and carelessness of the upper classes.
As I studied Sodom and Gomorrah's legacy, I learned that there were plenty of other sins far worse than those of Sodom and Gomorrah's - sins such as breaking the covenant that God had with his people, idolatry, rejecting the Gospel or rejecting Christ.
2. I believe that Leviticus 18 and 20 were not only temple prostitution, but any type of homosexual behavior. However, that being said, I am concerned with the fact that too many Christians cherry pick Old Testament moral laws. Because we are under a new covenant, and because the Old Testament Laws are so chosen, I do not hold Leviticus as the ultimate authority on the matter. I do believe that Christians must be led by scripture (primarily the New Testament) and by the Spirit of God.
3. Having studied the book of Enoch and seeing how much it influenced some of the biblical writers, I am quite sure that "other flesh" in Jude was referring to men seeking sex with angels.
4. I am left undecided about word studies in the New Testament. Without a doubt I believe that we have read our own biases (both sides) into words that are ambiguous. The ambiguity comes from this large gap we have between culture and time. We don't know what nuances some words took on when they were used among the common people of the day.
5. I think Romans 1 speaks against any type of homosexual behavior as well as other sins in a list of sins that result from idolatry. I think Paul emphasized homosexuality because the type practiced in his day (that included having sex with 12 year old boys) was the most obvious of sins in his day. The list of sins that Paul includes with homosexuality in chapter one include sins that we think almost nothing about, such as gossip, disobience to parents, and quarreling.
I believe:
1. The Bible says that a homosexual act is a sin.
2. There are many sins that are worse than homosexual practices.
3. Some of those bigger sins, such as economic injustice, are ignored or even justified by many in today's Christian communities (contrary to scripture.
I believe:
1. Among openly gays, there are some awesome people and some jerks. Its like every other grouping of humans.
2. Even though Paul says homosexuality is against nature, there are many who grow up with feelings for the same sex. For some people, these feelings are taught or learned, and some are born with attraction for the same sex. I cannot prove this, but neither can it be proved otherwise.
I believe:
1. Some of the people who will have the biggest struggles are those who have strong feelings for members of the same sex, whether or not it was learned or from birth.
2. Many who struggle with homosexuality the most; hate it the most, and preach against it the most.
I believe:
1. This issue will not disappear or calm down, but will have to be discussed in more and more churches and denominations. Divorce was not accepted in churches in the past, but now seems quite commonly accepted. I am not saying that it will ever be accepted practice in the churches, but I do wonder, as more and more people in the churches and in our families are discovered to be gay, will we see more acceptance of homosexuality?
2. As Christians, we will have to ask ourselves deeper questions about why we have chosen homosexuality as the ultimate of sins and have ignored larger and more lethal sins that are clearly stated in the bible.
Finally, I believe:
1. As I learn more from scripture and ancient times, I may just change my mind in some areas of this study.
2. I have tried to be fair with both sides of this issue, but probably have erred on one side or another in my attempt to discover, not what I think about this, but what the Bible says about homosexuality. The opinions I have mentioned are my flawed attempt to understand what the Bible does say.
If I had written the Bible:
1. If it were up to me, I would condone and accept homosexuality as normal human passion that is not a sin.
2. Homosexual relationships should be like hetersexual relationships where sex is confined to a vow of committment such as marriage in the Christian churches.
3. All rape of any type would be forbidden.
4. Temple prostitution would be outlawed.
But then, I didn't write the Bible, so its not up to me.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Homosexuality in Romans 1
ROMANS ONE
In Romans chapter one, Paul borrows an argument from the apocryphal book of Wisdom chapters 13-14. In Romans 1, Paul uncovers the root of Gentile sin which is idolatry, thereby carrying with it the wrath of God. In Romans chapter one, the wrath of God is presently revealed (not in the future) by 3 acts of God: Three times God "gives people over to" something human - desires, passions, and reprobate minds. Ultimately we see God's wrath in the immoral actions of the very same people that God created. The fact that people go so far into sin is an outward sign that God has given up / given them over to their own sins.
Paul wrote a step by step account of how idolatry resulted in a list of evils which reveal God's wrath, of which, one seems to be emphasized a bit more than the rest. And that is homosexuality.
Some of the arguments in defence of homosexuality are as follows:
1. When Paul wrote that God gave the idol worshippers over to uncleanness, he was talking about an event that took place long before Roman times, so he was not talking about Roman homosexuality.
This argument does not hold any water, because even though Paul was talking about the beginning of times, he saw God's judgment on the sins of his day. In fact, he was pointing to those sins and claiming that those sins - the list of sins he mentioned in chapter one - all of those sins have their roots in idolatry.
2. Paul defines homosexuality as unnatural. He did the same when he said that it was unnatural for a man to have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).
3. The particular homosexuality that Paul was referring to was temple prostitution, because in Romans 1, the entire context is saturated in idolatry. The focus of Romans 1 is idolatry, so any mention of homosexuality is related to idolatry and not regular homosexuality.
It is true that Paul saw idolatry as the beginning of all types of sins, including some sort of homosexuality that was practiced in his day, but he began this entire argument by pointing out that God's wrath was already seen in the sins that permeated his society - in all types of sins. A summary of Romans 1 would be like this:
I. We can see the wrath of God at work today, in that 3 times God gave the Gentiles over to their own evil passions and poor excuses:
A. Even though God revealed Himself through nature, the Gentiles worshipped idols and not God, so God gave them over to their lusts.
B. The Gentiles did not worship God, but worshipped things made by God, so God gave them over to vile affections (EX: women lusting after women, and men lusting after men - which is against nature).
C. The Gentiles abandoned the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a twisted mind, doing things that shouldn't be done, such as: greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, gossip, backstabbing, hating God, insolence, pride, and boastfulness, inventing new ways of sinning, disobying parents. breaking promises, being heartless, and having no mercy.
CONCLUSION
In the end I feel like every side takes advantage of the fact that we are not 100% clear about the ancient biblical worldviews, cultures and settings. There is enough ambiguity for anybody to argue that their position is the correct one.
Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that Paul believed that homosexuality (the type practiced in his day, if not all types) was against the natural order of creation, and that it was one of many sins that demonstrated that God had given the Gentile world over to its own desires. However, because homosexuality is highlighted in Romans 1, I believe that Paul viewed homosexuality as the most visible or most obvious of the of sins of his day - not necessarily the worst of sins. The fact that Paul mentions homosexuality more clearly than other sins on his list may reflect the worldview of Paul's audience.
In Romans chapter one, Paul borrows an argument from the apocryphal book of Wisdom chapters 13-14. In Romans 1, Paul uncovers the root of Gentile sin which is idolatry, thereby carrying with it the wrath of God. In Romans chapter one, the wrath of God is presently revealed (not in the future) by 3 acts of God: Three times God "gives people over to" something human - desires, passions, and reprobate minds. Ultimately we see God's wrath in the immoral actions of the very same people that God created. The fact that people go so far into sin is an outward sign that God has given up / given them over to their own sins.
Paul wrote a step by step account of how idolatry resulted in a list of evils which reveal God's wrath, of which, one seems to be emphasized a bit more than the rest. And that is homosexuality.
Some of the arguments in defence of homosexuality are as follows:
1. When Paul wrote that God gave the idol worshippers over to uncleanness, he was talking about an event that took place long before Roman times, so he was not talking about Roman homosexuality.
This argument does not hold any water, because even though Paul was talking about the beginning of times, he saw God's judgment on the sins of his day. In fact, he was pointing to those sins and claiming that those sins - the list of sins he mentioned in chapter one - all of those sins have their roots in idolatry.
2. Paul defines homosexuality as unnatural. He did the same when he said that it was unnatural for a man to have long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14).
3. The particular homosexuality that Paul was referring to was temple prostitution, because in Romans 1, the entire context is saturated in idolatry. The focus of Romans 1 is idolatry, so any mention of homosexuality is related to idolatry and not regular homosexuality.
It is true that Paul saw idolatry as the beginning of all types of sins, including some sort of homosexuality that was practiced in his day, but he began this entire argument by pointing out that God's wrath was already seen in the sins that permeated his society - in all types of sins. A summary of Romans 1 would be like this:
I. We can see the wrath of God at work today, in that 3 times God gave the Gentiles over to their own evil passions and poor excuses:
A. Even though God revealed Himself through nature, the Gentiles worshipped idols and not God, so God gave them over to their lusts.
B. The Gentiles did not worship God, but worshipped things made by God, so God gave them over to vile affections (EX: women lusting after women, and men lusting after men - which is against nature).
C. The Gentiles abandoned the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a twisted mind, doing things that shouldn't be done, such as: greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, gossip, backstabbing, hating God, insolence, pride, and boastfulness, inventing new ways of sinning, disobying parents. breaking promises, being heartless, and having no mercy.
CONCLUSION
In the end I feel like every side takes advantage of the fact that we are not 100% clear about the ancient biblical worldviews, cultures and settings. There is enough ambiguity for anybody to argue that their position is the correct one.
Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that Paul believed that homosexuality (the type practiced in his day, if not all types) was against the natural order of creation, and that it was one of many sins that demonstrated that God had given the Gentile world over to its own desires. However, because homosexuality is highlighted in Romans 1, I believe that Paul viewed homosexuality as the most visible or most obvious of the of sins of his day - not necessarily the worst of sins. The fact that Paul mentions homosexuality more clearly than other sins on his list may reflect the worldview of Paul's audience.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
The New Testament and Homosexual Word Studies
The biggest problem we have with the homosexual debate is getting to the root of some of the words that were used in the New Testament that translate into different sexual practices. Part of the problem is that we don't always have the best understanding of what certain words meant to people in Bible days, and part of the problem is that the values and customs of the Greek/Roman ways are not the same as what we have today. Therefore, it is important for us to study the meanings of the words that the Bible uses that some translators claim is homosexuality.
Fair warning: Even with the best studies at our disposal, there are still questions unanswered about the precise meanings of some of the words we are dealing with.
ANCIENT CUSTOMS
The following are quick facts about homosexuality in the ancient times. If you want more information there is plenty on the internet and in books that lean one way or another in the debate.
1. Homosexuality was either in vogue or despised, depending upon the era. In other words, it was not constant; during one decade it may be unpopular, but a decade later it may be accepted.
2. Although we don't know much about the lower classes, when homosexuality was in vogue, we know that it was popular among the upper classes.
3. There were two types of male homosexuals - the male (the dominant) and the female who was considered soft, effeminant and deemed to be like a woman.
4. Not all soft and effeminate men were homosexual, but all of them were generally looked down on in society.
5. Wealthy mentors oftentimes took on young boys (under 12 was not considered good) to teach them about life and to receive erotic love. When the boy grew a full set of hair (beard and etc.) he was no longer the recipient of this sex.
6. Wealthy men also took young teenage slave boys as recipients of their sexual desires.
7. Homosexuality was not considered "a way of life" as it is thought of today in the 21st Century.
NEW TESTAMENT WORD STUDIES
The following words are oftentimes associated with homosexuality.
1. Pornos - Those who practice pornos will not inherit the kingom of God; so if they are Christians who practice pornos, they are to be shunned. In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the word to describe the behavior of a man who lived with his father's wife. He asked the Corinthians to shun the man until he repented; which he did.
2. Malakos - The meaning is "effeminate" - the Greek culture emphasized the importance of men living up to man like qualities. Many did not like qualities relating to women such as listening to too much music. Although some have suggested that malakos is a homosexual partner that plays the woman (the receiver), others have pointed out that malakos was not used anywhere else in any other greek literature as a word for homosexual.
3. Arsenkoites - Paul is the first person ever to use this word which literally translates as follows:
"Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse, and "arsen", simply means "male". Both koitai and arseno were used side by side in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (in the LXX/Greek translation which was used in the First Century). And I have already looked into Leviticus and concluded that some sort of homosexual behavior was being condemned (whether temple prostitution or regular). It is possible that Paul combined the two words from Leviticus to create a new word that had never been used before.
People have translated arsenkoites as either a man who has a lot of loose sex with women, a man who takes on a young boy or girl for his pleasures (as has been discussed) or a homosexual.
CONCLUSIONS
From a purely grammatical point of view, there is ambiguity with these words. We don't know enough about the 1st Century culture (both Greek and Roman) to be able to develop clear conclusions or exact definitions for them.
There is just enough ambiguity in these words to leave us with several possible definitions, so anybody can read into them what they want it to say. I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will say that the words are very clear; but that's only because their own pro or anti homosexual world views are blocking other possibilities.
Until now, there has been a lot of ambiguity with the words in both Old and New Testament that we translate homosexual, whoremonger, sodomite, and so on.
And in studying how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was viewed by other writers in the Bible, it became obvious that the writers in the Bible were usually more concerned with the sins of their own day and age than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, so homosexuality was never clearly mentioned (although it is clear that some sort of abomination was mentioned - probably the intended violent rape that was homosexual in nature). Maybe Romans 1 will give us more clarification.
Fair warning: Even with the best studies at our disposal, there are still questions unanswered about the precise meanings of some of the words we are dealing with.
ANCIENT CUSTOMS
The following are quick facts about homosexuality in the ancient times. If you want more information there is plenty on the internet and in books that lean one way or another in the debate.
1. Homosexuality was either in vogue or despised, depending upon the era. In other words, it was not constant; during one decade it may be unpopular, but a decade later it may be accepted.
2. Although we don't know much about the lower classes, when homosexuality was in vogue, we know that it was popular among the upper classes.
3. There were two types of male homosexuals - the male (the dominant) and the female who was considered soft, effeminant and deemed to be like a woman.
4. Not all soft and effeminate men were homosexual, but all of them were generally looked down on in society.
5. Wealthy mentors oftentimes took on young boys (under 12 was not considered good) to teach them about life and to receive erotic love. When the boy grew a full set of hair (beard and etc.) he was no longer the recipient of this sex.
6. Wealthy men also took young teenage slave boys as recipients of their sexual desires.
7. Homosexuality was not considered "a way of life" as it is thought of today in the 21st Century.
NEW TESTAMENT WORD STUDIES
The following words are oftentimes associated with homosexuality.
1. Pornos - Those who practice pornos will not inherit the kingom of God; so if they are Christians who practice pornos, they are to be shunned. In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses the word to describe the behavior of a man who lived with his father's wife. He asked the Corinthians to shun the man until he repented; which he did.
2. Malakos - The meaning is "effeminate" - the Greek culture emphasized the importance of men living up to man like qualities. Many did not like qualities relating to women such as listening to too much music. Although some have suggested that malakos is a homosexual partner that plays the woman (the receiver), others have pointed out that malakos was not used anywhere else in any other greek literature as a word for homosexual.
3. Arsenkoites - Paul is the first person ever to use this word which literally translates as follows:
"Koites" generally denotes licentious sexual activities, and corresponds to the active person in intercourse, and "arsen", simply means "male". Both koitai and arseno were used side by side in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (in the LXX/Greek translation which was used in the First Century). And I have already looked into Leviticus and concluded that some sort of homosexual behavior was being condemned (whether temple prostitution or regular). It is possible that Paul combined the two words from Leviticus to create a new word that had never been used before.
People have translated arsenkoites as either a man who has a lot of loose sex with women, a man who takes on a young boy or girl for his pleasures (as has been discussed) or a homosexual.
CONCLUSIONS
From a purely grammatical point of view, there is ambiguity with these words. We don't know enough about the 1st Century culture (both Greek and Roman) to be able to develop clear conclusions or exact definitions for them.
There is just enough ambiguity in these words to leave us with several possible definitions, so anybody can read into them what they want it to say. I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will say that the words are very clear; but that's only because their own pro or anti homosexual world views are blocking other possibilities.
Until now, there has been a lot of ambiguity with the words in both Old and New Testament that we translate homosexual, whoremonger, sodomite, and so on.
And in studying how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was viewed by other writers in the Bible, it became obvious that the writers in the Bible were usually more concerned with the sins of their own day and age than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, so homosexuality was never clearly mentioned (although it is clear that some sort of abomination was mentioned - probably the intended violent rape that was homosexual in nature). Maybe Romans 1 will give us more clarification.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Old Testament and Homosexuality - Conclusions
1. There is no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexual rape as well as temple prostitution of any kind (heterosexual or homosexual).
2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was later used in Israel, not as a lesson against homosexuality, but as a lesson of God's judgment that can and will be used against his own people for sins of their own time; which were mostly idolatry, economic injustice, and breaking God's covenant. Those sins affected the nation to the point of total Sodom and Gomrrah like destruction. This rule continued into the New Testament.
3. The word sodomite is not found in the original Hebrew, but rather was a KJV translation of an elusive practice (possibly a temple prostitute).
4. The only clear statemtent against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18 and 20. Although these seem to be clear, there is still some debate as to whether or not Leviticus was speaking about temple prostitution. There is also a debate about how much we should allow a moral Law from the Old Testament to hold authority over us today.
MY THOUGHTS
When I teach I may have students from other countries. Some are convinced there is no hint of homosexuality in their homeland. I disagree with them telling them that it is there, but it is hidden, kept in the closet because of cultural rejection.
I believe that this was the same for Israel. There were eras when homosexuality was had gone to extremes (such as during the time of the judges when "everybody did what was right in their own sights"), but there were eras when it was unpopular and hidden, and therefore ignored by the prophets who focused on the blatent sins of their own day.
As I looked to how the New Testament dealt with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter and Jude), I came to the conclusion that those writers, like the prophets, focused on the types of sins that were practiced in the groups that were recruiting from the Christians. And even though some of those sins were sexual in nature, it is not certain they were homosexual.
As Christianity burst out of its Jewish roots, it faced a Roman style of homosexuality and responded (as we will see more in the New Testament studies).
2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was later used in Israel, not as a lesson against homosexuality, but as a lesson of God's judgment that can and will be used against his own people for sins of their own time; which were mostly idolatry, economic injustice, and breaking God's covenant. Those sins affected the nation to the point of total Sodom and Gomrrah like destruction. This rule continued into the New Testament.
3. The word sodomite is not found in the original Hebrew, but rather was a KJV translation of an elusive practice (possibly a temple prostitute).
4. The only clear statemtent against homosexuality is found in Leviticus 18 and 20. Although these seem to be clear, there is still some debate as to whether or not Leviticus was speaking about temple prostitution. There is also a debate about how much we should allow a moral Law from the Old Testament to hold authority over us today.
MY THOUGHTS
When I teach I may have students from other countries. Some are convinced there is no hint of homosexuality in their homeland. I disagree with them telling them that it is there, but it is hidden, kept in the closet because of cultural rejection.
I believe that this was the same for Israel. There were eras when homosexuality was had gone to extremes (such as during the time of the judges when "everybody did what was right in their own sights"), but there were eras when it was unpopular and hidden, and therefore ignored by the prophets who focused on the blatent sins of their own day.
As I looked to how the New Testament dealt with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter and Jude), I came to the conclusion that those writers, like the prophets, focused on the types of sins that were practiced in the groups that were recruiting from the Christians. And even though some of those sins were sexual in nature, it is not certain they were homosexual.
As Christianity burst out of its Jewish roots, it faced a Roman style of homosexuality and responded (as we will see more in the New Testament studies).
Monday, September 12, 2011
Who are the Sodomites?
The Old Testament Hebrew word for Sodomite is qadesh. One would expect that the word "sodomite" would have its roots in the story of Sodom. One would expect that the evil behavior of those who lived in Sodom would define who a sodomite was.
Interestingly, as one studies this issue, one finds that the Hebrew word had nothing to do with Sodom. In reality, the word sodomite came from the King James Version translation of the word qadesh which means "holy, separated," and that suggests the person worked in a temple of some sort.
But once again, as with other scripture, this one faces different possibilities. In all likelihood, qadesh was a man or a woman who prostituted himself/herself at a local temple for the idols' sake. There were women who prostituted themselves at the temple (for the religious pleasure of men) and men who did the same (for the women, although some think it was for the men as well).
In different versions of the English Bibles, the word qadesh has been translated:
1. Ritual harlot
2. Sodomite
3. Cult prostitute
4. Shrine prostitute
5. Temple prostitute
6. Whoremonger
7. Perverted person
8. Male or female shrine prostitute
9. Male shrine prostitute
10. Male cult prostitute
11. Unclean
12. Immoral living
13. Defiled
Interestingly, as one studies this issue, one finds that the Hebrew word had nothing to do with Sodom. In reality, the word sodomite came from the King James Version translation of the word qadesh which means "holy, separated," and that suggests the person worked in a temple of some sort.
But once again, as with other scripture, this one faces different possibilities. In all likelihood, qadesh was a man or a woman who prostituted himself/herself at a local temple for the idols' sake. There were women who prostituted themselves at the temple (for the religious pleasure of men) and men who did the same (for the women, although some think it was for the men as well).
In different versions of the English Bibles, the word qadesh has been translated:
1. Ritual harlot
2. Sodomite
3. Cult prostitute
4. Shrine prostitute
5. Temple prostitute
6. Whoremonger
7. Perverted person
8. Male or female shrine prostitute
9. Male shrine prostitute
10. Male cult prostitute
11. Unclean
12. Immoral living
13. Defiled
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Homosexuality and Moses' Law
I recently heard the argument that the same Law of Moses that outlawed homosexuality, outlawed shrimp; therefore the law about homosexuality is no longer valid. Then again, there are Fundamentalist Christians who hold up signs saying "God hates gays (Leviticus 20:13)." So when I think about the debate going on in our decade, I think about these two sides, and I realize that I need to dig into the scriptures on my own in order to get to the bottom of the issue.
I already looked at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and discovered that the most of the writers of the Bible who used that story for illustration, did so by ignoring the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and focused on the sins of their day. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah served as a warning, not against homosexuality, but against the sins of neglecting the poor, idolatry, out-of-control sexual passions of any type, recruiting people away from the church, rejecting the gospel, and so on.
In this blog I am going to look into what the Law of Moses said about homosexuality and compare it to other sins that were sexual or moral in nature. I am not concerned with what the Bible says about shrimp, because as we shall see, for many Christian theologians (those who study the bible), as far as the Law and its authority over us is concerned, rules about shrimp are unrelated to homosexuality.
CHRISTIANS AND THE LAW OF MOSES
There are different views about the Law of Moses and how it relates to Christians today. On the one hand we have Christians who believe that it is completely abolished in Christ and therefore has no hold on us whatsoever. Other Christians try to follow certain Laws they consider binding upon us (Church of God with Garner Ted Armstrong, Senenth Day Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, and a few others).
A very popular view (the Calvinist view) claims the Law is broken down into three categories:
1. Civil Law - These were judicial laws that were binding only for Israel and only as long as Israel continued to be a nation.
2. Ceremonial Law - These were holidays, sacrifices and the like which were abolished in Christ because they were symbolic rites directing us to Christ. Once Jesus fulfilled their purposes, they were no longer in effect.
3. Moral Law - Because moral laws reflect the nature of God, they are still in effect for us today.
This is the way John Calvin broke down the Law of Moses. Many Christians who are not Calvinist unconsciously follow the rule that says moral laws apply to us, but others can be ignored.
It is this Calvinist point of view that most often claims that Leviticus' rules against homosexuality are still in effect for us today, and some would go so far as to say that homosexuality should be a capital offense.
Looking up the two most used passages from the Law of Moses, I decided to place them in their contexts, by showing other sins that were likewise called abominations or else fall under the judgment of death. For simplicity, I have left them in their original male centered language; but the laws applied to both men and women.
LEVITICUS 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
The Immediate Context
Leviticus 18 is a list of abominations whose roots come out of Egypt. The intention of the Law was to separate Israel from the common practices of the land in which they lived and from which they came. The following is a list of abominations (from chapter 18) that were outlawed:
1. Having sex with (uncovering the nakedness of) relatives:
a. Dad or mom.
b. Step mom.
c. Sister, step-sister, half-sister.
d. Grand-daughter.
e. Uncle or aunt.
f. Daughter-in-law.
g. Mother and daughter.
2. Having sex with certain non-relatives:
a. Two sisters.
b. Any woman having her period or shortly after.
c. Someone else's wife.
d. Other men (homosexuality).
e. An animal.
3. Sexual offerings and offspring dedicated to Moloch.
LEVITICUS 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The Immediate Context
There are several acts that call for the death sentence in Leviticus 20:
1. Offering your children to Molech (there is debate as to whether or not this refers to human sacrifice).
2. Cursing parents.
3. Sex with someone else's wife.
4. Sex with step-mom.
5. Sex with daughter-in-law.
6. Sex with mother and daughter.
7. Sex with the same gender (homosexuality).
8. Sex with an animal.
9. Any psychic or fortune teller.
There are other crimes in Leviticus 20 that say the offender will be cut off from God's people and from God. This may be another way to call for the death penalty, or it may be a lesser form of punishment.
1. Those who visit psychics, mediums, etc.
2. Sex with a sister or half-sister.
3. Sex with a woman having her period or shortly after.
And other punishments are given to those who do the following:
1. Having sex with an aunt.
2. Having sex with a sister-in-law.
Even though the Law of Moses calls for death penalty in certain cases and shunning in other cases, we rarely see punishment carried out in the Bible.
Some crimes deserving death that are not already mentioned:
1. Hitting parents (Ex. 21:15).
2. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).
3. Cursing father or mother (Ex 21:17).
4. If one owns an animal that kills or injures someone; if that person does not destroy the animal, and if that animal kills somebody (Exodus 21:28-29).
5. Worship of other gods/goddesses (Ex. 22:20).
6. Working on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2).
7. False prophesying (Deut. 13:1-10).
8. Rape if the woman already belongs to someone else (Deut. 22:25). If a woman is not already engaged or married, the one who rapes her must pay the dowry and marry her, unless the father objects - its that or the girl who was violated remained unwanted by any other pursuer (Deut. 22:28-29).
Even some of the most conservative Christians may struggle with one or two of these. In fact, many conservative Christians work on the Sabbath, and few, if any would give their daughter over to a man who raped her.
This leaves us with questions for debate: The same moral Law of Moses that forbade homosexuality forbade having sex with one's wife during her time of the month (although this may or may not have called for the death penalty); however, that same Law did call for the death sentence for a child who got too hard to handle.
On the other hand, the Law of Moses did condemn many practices that no society would accept, such as murder, kidnapping, and so on.
Finally, some have suggested that homosexuality that is condemned in Leviticus was temple prostitution. I do not see this in the context of Leviticus, although I do see it in the term "sodomy."
Looking into a culture over 2,500 years ago is very difficult. We don't have a lot of writings from that time, and what we do have was written by the elite. We don't have the thoughts and habits of the vast majority of the culture and the times. So we piece together bit by bit with the little we do have. As a result every side can take advantage of the situation and state what they want about these passages.
For example, interpretations of Leviticus 18 and 20 vary from these being laws against temple prostitution to laws against any type of homosexual behavior. Unfortunately, I don't have a great answer for either side. The best I can say is this: On the surface of things, it appears that Moses' Law was against any type of homosexual behavior; and I do emphasize - "on the surface of things."
Even if the Law of Moses forbade any form of homosexuality, one argument still remains: Is this a moral law for us today (like you shall not murder)? Or is it like some of the other moral laws that that we can ignore? Laws like the abomination of having sex with your wife during and shortly after her time of the month. Or sending my disobedient teenager to the pit to be stoned by the church?
I already looked at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and discovered that the most of the writers of the Bible who used that story for illustration, did so by ignoring the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and focused on the sins of their day. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah served as a warning, not against homosexuality, but against the sins of neglecting the poor, idolatry, out-of-control sexual passions of any type, recruiting people away from the church, rejecting the gospel, and so on.
In this blog I am going to look into what the Law of Moses said about homosexuality and compare it to other sins that were sexual or moral in nature. I am not concerned with what the Bible says about shrimp, because as we shall see, for many Christian theologians (those who study the bible), as far as the Law and its authority over us is concerned, rules about shrimp are unrelated to homosexuality.
CHRISTIANS AND THE LAW OF MOSES
There are different views about the Law of Moses and how it relates to Christians today. On the one hand we have Christians who believe that it is completely abolished in Christ and therefore has no hold on us whatsoever. Other Christians try to follow certain Laws they consider binding upon us (Church of God with Garner Ted Armstrong, Senenth Day Baptist, Seventh Day Adventist, and a few others).
A very popular view (the Calvinist view) claims the Law is broken down into three categories:
1. Civil Law - These were judicial laws that were binding only for Israel and only as long as Israel continued to be a nation.
2. Ceremonial Law - These were holidays, sacrifices and the like which were abolished in Christ because they were symbolic rites directing us to Christ. Once Jesus fulfilled their purposes, they were no longer in effect.
3. Moral Law - Because moral laws reflect the nature of God, they are still in effect for us today.
This is the way John Calvin broke down the Law of Moses. Many Christians who are not Calvinist unconsciously follow the rule that says moral laws apply to us, but others can be ignored.
It is this Calvinist point of view that most often claims that Leviticus' rules against homosexuality are still in effect for us today, and some would go so far as to say that homosexuality should be a capital offense.
Looking up the two most used passages from the Law of Moses, I decided to place them in their contexts, by showing other sins that were likewise called abominations or else fall under the judgment of death. For simplicity, I have left them in their original male centered language; but the laws applied to both men and women.
LEVITICUS 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
The Immediate Context
Leviticus 18 is a list of abominations whose roots come out of Egypt. The intention of the Law was to separate Israel from the common practices of the land in which they lived and from which they came. The following is a list of abominations (from chapter 18) that were outlawed:
1. Having sex with (uncovering the nakedness of) relatives:
a. Dad or mom.
b. Step mom.
c. Sister, step-sister, half-sister.
d. Grand-daughter.
e. Uncle or aunt.
f. Daughter-in-law.
g. Mother and daughter.
2. Having sex with certain non-relatives:
a. Two sisters.
b. Any woman having her period or shortly after.
c. Someone else's wife.
d. Other men (homosexuality).
e. An animal.
3. Sexual offerings and offspring dedicated to Moloch.
LEVITICUS 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
The Immediate Context
There are several acts that call for the death sentence in Leviticus 20:
1. Offering your children to Molech (there is debate as to whether or not this refers to human sacrifice).
2. Cursing parents.
3. Sex with someone else's wife.
4. Sex with step-mom.
5. Sex with daughter-in-law.
6. Sex with mother and daughter.
7. Sex with the same gender (homosexuality).
8. Sex with an animal.
9. Any psychic or fortune teller.
There are other crimes in Leviticus 20 that say the offender will be cut off from God's people and from God. This may be another way to call for the death penalty, or it may be a lesser form of punishment.
1. Those who visit psychics, mediums, etc.
2. Sex with a sister or half-sister.
3. Sex with a woman having her period or shortly after.
And other punishments are given to those who do the following:
1. Having sex with an aunt.
2. Having sex with a sister-in-law.
Even though the Law of Moses calls for death penalty in certain cases and shunning in other cases, we rarely see punishment carried out in the Bible.
Some crimes deserving death that are not already mentioned:
1. Hitting parents (Ex. 21:15).
2. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).
3. Cursing father or mother (Ex 21:17).
4. If one owns an animal that kills or injures someone; if that person does not destroy the animal, and if that animal kills somebody (Exodus 21:28-29).
5. Worship of other gods/goddesses (Ex. 22:20).
6. Working on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:2).
7. False prophesying (Deut. 13:1-10).
8. Rape if the woman already belongs to someone else (Deut. 22:25). If a woman is not already engaged or married, the one who rapes her must pay the dowry and marry her, unless the father objects - its that or the girl who was violated remained unwanted by any other pursuer (Deut. 22:28-29).
Even some of the most conservative Christians may struggle with one or two of these. In fact, many conservative Christians work on the Sabbath, and few, if any would give their daughter over to a man who raped her.
This leaves us with questions for debate: The same moral Law of Moses that forbade homosexuality forbade having sex with one's wife during her time of the month (although this may or may not have called for the death penalty); however, that same Law did call for the death sentence for a child who got too hard to handle.
On the other hand, the Law of Moses did condemn many practices that no society would accept, such as murder, kidnapping, and so on.
Finally, some have suggested that homosexuality that is condemned in Leviticus was temple prostitution. I do not see this in the context of Leviticus, although I do see it in the term "sodomy."
Looking into a culture over 2,500 years ago is very difficult. We don't have a lot of writings from that time, and what we do have was written by the elite. We don't have the thoughts and habits of the vast majority of the culture and the times. So we piece together bit by bit with the little we do have. As a result every side can take advantage of the situation and state what they want about these passages.
For example, interpretations of Leviticus 18 and 20 vary from these being laws against temple prostitution to laws against any type of homosexual behavior. Unfortunately, I don't have a great answer for either side. The best I can say is this: On the surface of things, it appears that Moses' Law was against any type of homosexual behavior; and I do emphasize - "on the surface of things."
Even if the Law of Moses forbade any form of homosexuality, one argument still remains: Is this a moral law for us today (like you shall not murder)? Or is it like some of the other moral laws that that we can ignore? Laws like the abomination of having sex with your wife during and shortly after her time of the month. Or sending my disobedient teenager to the pit to be stoned by the church?
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Sodom and Gomorrah - New Testament Beliefs
As I studied what the Old Testament I learned that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was a story that never lost its popularity or its power to illustrate that God could and would destroy a city or nation for whatever sin there might be. I also learned that throughout the Old Testament, when Bible writers used Sodom and Gomorrah as examples, they did not focus on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, but on the sins of their own days.
Only Ezekiel directed his attention to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah; and those sins were not gleaned from the Sodom and Gomorrah story we find in Genesis, but rather, Ezekiel read the sins of his time (economic and social injustice) into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I suppose some would say that through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Ezekiel knew something about Sodom and Gomorrah that wasn't in Genesis.
Finally, I learned that according to Ezekiel there are worse sins than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. And this brings us to the New Testament.
JESUS - SINS WORSE THAN SODOM AND GOMORRAH'S
In the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke, like the Old Testament, Jesus assumes his audience knows the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He does not explain the story or tell it again, but rather, he drops their names like everybody knows everything about them - the sins and the total and permanent annihilation of the city.
Jesus used the story of the two cities in two ways: to illustrate greater judgment for those who reject the Gospel and to illustrate that Jerusalem would be destroyed for rejecting him.
Rejecting the Gospel
When Jesus sent out his disciples on a short missions trip to preach, teach and heal; he told them that if a city or town did not receive them, it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12).
Rejection of the Good News about Jesus is a sin worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah's.
Rejecting Jesus
When Jesus had finished his ministry in the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida, he pronounced woes that judgment would be worse for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 11:23-24). They were doomed because they had seen so many works of Jesus, but still rejected him.
First of all in Jesus' teachings, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were never spelled out; instead, the story of Sodom served to illustrate that God destroyed nations for sin - the focus was not on Sodom's sin, but on the wrath of God - that God can and will destroy a city or nation for sin - whatever sin that may be.
Secondly, for Jesus, there was a sin far worse than anything that Sodom and Gomorrah did. And that was for a city to see the miracles that Jesus did and reject him. And in the same way, if a city rejected one of his messengers, its fate was worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
JUDE AND 2 PETER - TWO VERSIONS OF THE SAME SERMON
If you read through 2 Peter 2 and Jude you will notice that they both follow the same outline.
1. There are people coming into your group that are bad (I believe they were political recruiters).
2. They will be punished by God.
3. They talk big about things they don't really understand.
4. They will be judged.
My take on this is that there were two versions of the same sermon. Most of the ancient world relied on memory, passing down stories, and proverbs and sayings, more than on reading. This is because most people did not read. So a good sermon may have been passed on like a good story. People just repeated it to others.
I think 2 Peter 2 and Jude are like that. Even though there are some differences between them, they both have the same outline and both use some of the same illustrations to emphasize their points. One of those illustrations is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
2 PETER
The issues Peter wrote about were the same as Jude's, but Jude went further into the issues than Peter did. I will start with this verse from 2 Peter.
Later, God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people (2 Peter 2:6).
Peter used the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the same way that the Old Testament writers and Jesus did. They used the story to emphasize God's certain judgment on those who boldly sin. Both Peter and Jude used the story in the same way.
Sodom and Gomorrah became the ultimate example of God's wrath on any city whose sins have maxed out. And Peter used it in his sermon alongside of other wrath of God judgments which included angels who were dispelled from heaven and then from the earth in Noah's day by a flood.
The sin that Peter and Jude were warning against was the sin of deception and falling away. Deceivers were leading Christians away from the purity of the gospel to look for freedom elsewhere. I believe the people who Peter and Jude were warning against were actually political rebels who hoped to overthrow the Roman legions. These rebels were recruiting Christians into their ranks. Jude and 2 Peter were written during a time of a powerful political upheaval and the streets were filled with the feeling of rebellion and the hopes of becoming politically free. And in their world and their times, being politically free would mean spiritual freedom.
When Peter and Jude used Sodom and Gomorrah as illustrations in their sermons, they were thinking more of their own times and troubles, more than the time of Sodom and Gomorrah. Peter and Jude looked at their own time and pointed out that political recruitment from the group was threatening the church.
JUDE
Jude is the first Bible writer to talk about the sexually immoral sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe the reason he focused on sexual immorality is because he saw sexual immorality in his own day among those who were recruiting from the churches. Those who were recruiting were sexually immoral but not necessarily homosexual. Other Bible writers who used the Sodom and Gomorrah illustration were faced with other sins that needed to be addressed (such as breaking the covenant, economic injustice, and so on), and so they addressed those sins.
...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 1:7).
This is one of the most debated scriptures. For the first time in the Bible, and for the only time, the Sodom and Gomorrah's sins of sexual immorality are clearly mentioned, so it is important to look at this as closely as possible.
Jude wrote in Koine Greek - a common language in NT times. The word he used that we translate sexual immorality is "ekporneuō" which is not used anywhere else in the New Testament but in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), "ekporneuō" is best defined "to prostitute oneself out." As far as I can tell, Jude is saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were completely giving themselves over to whatever sexual passions they had.
This still leaves us with the question: Was the evil passion of Sodom and Gomorrah homosexuality? Or was it homosexual rape? After all, the one sin that was mentioned in the first destruction in Genesis (the flood) was violence.
"Going after strange flesh" is the next issue that is debated. Literally the Bible says "going after other flesh." The debate for this expression can be summed up as follows:
1. "Going after strange flesh" refers to homosexuality. In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul argues that homosexuality dishonors the body and is against nature, so it seems likely that the term "strange flesh" means homosexuality.
In Jude 1:8, Jude tells us that the recruiters "defiled their flesh," which sounds very much like the language Paul uses when he talks about homosexuality when he says it dishonors the body. But if this is the case, why didn't Peter mention this in 2 Peter 2? If this was a defining sin of the recruiters, why does Peter ignore it? Peter mentions that the group has eyes filled with adultery; could "defiling the flesh" refer to adultery?
2. The second side says that "going after strange flesh" is trying to have sex with angels. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah knew that there were two angels visiting their city and wanted to have sex with them so much that they were willing to take them by force. They may have wanted to obtain some kind of mystic transference of powers or knowledge through intercourse (as in some ancient thought), or they may have simply wanted to experience a whole new type of sex - sex with angels.
This side of the debate needs quite a lot of explanation, because most people of the 21st Century are unfamiliar with it. The reason most don't know about it is because Jude quoted from and leaned on the ideas from two books that were never included in the Bible; the Assumption of Moses (of which we have only some portions of the book) and Enoch (which we have in its entirety from Ethiopian translations).
The Book of Enoch was written by at least five different people all claiming to be Enoch, the man who lived seven generations down from Adam (who according to the Book of Enoch walked with the angels [elohim - which can be interpreted "angels" or "God" - the Book of Enoch translates it as "angels"], received revelations from the angels, and wrote those revelations down). In reality, the books were written by at least five authors (as mentioned) from around 300 B.C. to A.D. 100. Jude quoted from the first of those five books, which means that he had access to at least one of the five sections that now make up the Book of Enoch.
In that same section of the book of Enoch from which Jude quoted, there is mention of powerful angels, called Watchers, who were given the task (by God) of overseeing the world; but they misused their authority by teaching men how to war (and other stuff) and teaching women about makeup (and other bad things). In other words, they taught us progress. These same Watchers lusted after women and had sex with them, thus producing giants as offspring who terrorized the earth. According to Enoch, these Watchers were the "sons of god" who had sex with "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6:2.
The point is this: In Enoch's view, Genesis assumed the possibility of intermingling of the species (angels with humans), and when the men of Sodom and Gomorrah saw angels in their city, they somehow knew that the men were heavenly beings and wanted to have sex with them because they were "other flesh."
Last words on Enoch: There is discussion and disagreement about whether or not Jude believed that the Book of Enoch was inspired by God (like the rest of the Old Testament). But whatever the case may be, it is obvious Jude believed it was written by the Enoch of the Bible (7th generation from Adam). It is also obvious that Jude believed the account accurately recorded what happened before and during the flood, including the Watchers, their sexual adventures, and the giants that resulted.
SOME OF THE LISTED SINS OF THE RECRUITERS
According to Peter the group that was recruiting had sins that included:
Following the corrupt desires and passions
Despising authority
Slandering the glorious ones (political and spiritual principalities and powers)
Being bold and arrogant
Speaking evil of that which they did not understand
Openly rioting
Reveling in their own pleasures
Eyes focusing on adultery
Greedy
Leaving the right way
Compare this list to Jude's:
Defiling the flesh
Rejecting authority
Slandering the glorious ones
Speaking evil of that which they did not understand
Walking after their own desires and passions
Murmuring and complaining
Speaking boastfully
Showing favoritism
Separating from the group
What is common to both groups and what seems to stand out are these:
Uncontrolled Passions
Lusting, coveting, wanting, desiring, defiling the flesh, reveling
Rejection of authority
Speaking evil, slandering, murmuring, complaining, speaking arrogantly, speaking evil of things they didn't understand
REVELATION
The last place in the New Testament that refers to Sodom (and not Gomorrah) is Revelation 11:8 where Jerusalem is called Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was crucified.
CONCLUSIONS
The New Testament like the Old Testament uses the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as illustrations and warnings to emphasize that God can and will destroy a people, a city, or nation for its sins.
Each writer focuses on the sins of his particular time. Most of the writers throughout the Bible are unconcerned with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, because for them the story is not about what Sodom and Gomorrah did, but what God did to them because of sin. Any type of sin gone out of control could have the same result.
The writers who mentioned the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, mentioned their sins because their own day was steeped in sexual sin - however, the type of sexual sin was left vague.
One last word about those cities, I believe that the writer of Genesis viewed the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were the epitome of evil and each Bible writer after was more concerned about the sins prevalent in their own day.
Only Ezekiel directed his attention to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah; and those sins were not gleaned from the Sodom and Gomorrah story we find in Genesis, but rather, Ezekiel read the sins of his time (economic and social injustice) into the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I suppose some would say that through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Ezekiel knew something about Sodom and Gomorrah that wasn't in Genesis.
Finally, I learned that according to Ezekiel there are worse sins than those of Sodom and Gomorrah. And this brings us to the New Testament.
JESUS - SINS WORSE THAN SODOM AND GOMORRAH'S
In the books of Matthew, Mark and Luke, like the Old Testament, Jesus assumes his audience knows the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He does not explain the story or tell it again, but rather, he drops their names like everybody knows everything about them - the sins and the total and permanent annihilation of the city.
Jesus used the story of the two cities in two ways: to illustrate greater judgment for those who reject the Gospel and to illustrate that Jerusalem would be destroyed for rejecting him.
Rejecting the Gospel
When Jesus sent out his disciples on a short missions trip to preach, teach and heal; he told them that if a city or town did not receive them, it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12).
Rejection of the Good News about Jesus is a sin worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah's.
Rejecting Jesus
When Jesus had finished his ministry in the cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida, he pronounced woes that judgment would be worse for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 11:23-24). They were doomed because they had seen so many works of Jesus, but still rejected him.
First of all in Jesus' teachings, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were never spelled out; instead, the story of Sodom served to illustrate that God destroyed nations for sin - the focus was not on Sodom's sin, but on the wrath of God - that God can and will destroy a city or nation for sin - whatever sin that may be.
Secondly, for Jesus, there was a sin far worse than anything that Sodom and Gomorrah did. And that was for a city to see the miracles that Jesus did and reject him. And in the same way, if a city rejected one of his messengers, its fate was worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.
JUDE AND 2 PETER - TWO VERSIONS OF THE SAME SERMON
If you read through 2 Peter 2 and Jude you will notice that they both follow the same outline.
1. There are people coming into your group that are bad (I believe they were political recruiters).
2. They will be punished by God.
3. They talk big about things they don't really understand.
4. They will be judged.
My take on this is that there were two versions of the same sermon. Most of the ancient world relied on memory, passing down stories, and proverbs and sayings, more than on reading. This is because most people did not read. So a good sermon may have been passed on like a good story. People just repeated it to others.
I think 2 Peter 2 and Jude are like that. Even though there are some differences between them, they both have the same outline and both use some of the same illustrations to emphasize their points. One of those illustrations is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
2 PETER
The issues Peter wrote about were the same as Jude's, but Jude went further into the issues than Peter did. I will start with this verse from 2 Peter.
Later, God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and turned them into heaps of ashes. He made them an example of what will happen to ungodly people (2 Peter 2:6).
Peter used the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the same way that the Old Testament writers and Jesus did. They used the story to emphasize God's certain judgment on those who boldly sin. Both Peter and Jude used the story in the same way.
Sodom and Gomorrah became the ultimate example of God's wrath on any city whose sins have maxed out. And Peter used it in his sermon alongside of other wrath of God judgments which included angels who were dispelled from heaven and then from the earth in Noah's day by a flood.
The sin that Peter and Jude were warning against was the sin of deception and falling away. Deceivers were leading Christians away from the purity of the gospel to look for freedom elsewhere. I believe the people who Peter and Jude were warning against were actually political rebels who hoped to overthrow the Roman legions. These rebels were recruiting Christians into their ranks. Jude and 2 Peter were written during a time of a powerful political upheaval and the streets were filled with the feeling of rebellion and the hopes of becoming politically free. And in their world and their times, being politically free would mean spiritual freedom.
When Peter and Jude used Sodom and Gomorrah as illustrations in their sermons, they were thinking more of their own times and troubles, more than the time of Sodom and Gomorrah. Peter and Jude looked at their own time and pointed out that political recruitment from the group was threatening the church.
JUDE
Jude is the first Bible writer to talk about the sexually immoral sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe the reason he focused on sexual immorality is because he saw sexual immorality in his own day among those who were recruiting from the churches. Those who were recruiting were sexually immoral but not necessarily homosexual. Other Bible writers who used the Sodom and Gomorrah illustration were faced with other sins that needed to be addressed (such as breaking the covenant, economic injustice, and so on), and so they addressed those sins.
...as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire (Jude 1:7).
This is one of the most debated scriptures. For the first time in the Bible, and for the only time, the Sodom and Gomorrah's sins of sexual immorality are clearly mentioned, so it is important to look at this as closely as possible.
Jude wrote in Koine Greek - a common language in NT times. The word he used that we translate sexual immorality is "ekporneuō" which is not used anywhere else in the New Testament but in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), "ekporneuō" is best defined "to prostitute oneself out." As far as I can tell, Jude is saying that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were completely giving themselves over to whatever sexual passions they had.
This still leaves us with the question: Was the evil passion of Sodom and Gomorrah homosexuality? Or was it homosexual rape? After all, the one sin that was mentioned in the first destruction in Genesis (the flood) was violence.
"Going after strange flesh" is the next issue that is debated. Literally the Bible says "going after other flesh." The debate for this expression can be summed up as follows:
1. "Going after strange flesh" refers to homosexuality. In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul argues that homosexuality dishonors the body and is against nature, so it seems likely that the term "strange flesh" means homosexuality.
In Jude 1:8, Jude tells us that the recruiters "defiled their flesh," which sounds very much like the language Paul uses when he talks about homosexuality when he says it dishonors the body. But if this is the case, why didn't Peter mention this in 2 Peter 2? If this was a defining sin of the recruiters, why does Peter ignore it? Peter mentions that the group has eyes filled with adultery; could "defiling the flesh" refer to adultery?
2. The second side says that "going after strange flesh" is trying to have sex with angels. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah knew that there were two angels visiting their city and wanted to have sex with them so much that they were willing to take them by force. They may have wanted to obtain some kind of mystic transference of powers or knowledge through intercourse (as in some ancient thought), or they may have simply wanted to experience a whole new type of sex - sex with angels.
This side of the debate needs quite a lot of explanation, because most people of the 21st Century are unfamiliar with it. The reason most don't know about it is because Jude quoted from and leaned on the ideas from two books that were never included in the Bible; the Assumption of Moses (of which we have only some portions of the book) and Enoch (which we have in its entirety from Ethiopian translations).
The Book of Enoch was written by at least five different people all claiming to be Enoch, the man who lived seven generations down from Adam (who according to the Book of Enoch walked with the angels [elohim - which can be interpreted "angels" or "God" - the Book of Enoch translates it as "angels"], received revelations from the angels, and wrote those revelations down). In reality, the books were written by at least five authors (as mentioned) from around 300 B.C. to A.D. 100. Jude quoted from the first of those five books, which means that he had access to at least one of the five sections that now make up the Book of Enoch.
In that same section of the book of Enoch from which Jude quoted, there is mention of powerful angels, called Watchers, who were given the task (by God) of overseeing the world; but they misused their authority by teaching men how to war (and other stuff) and teaching women about makeup (and other bad things). In other words, they taught us progress. These same Watchers lusted after women and had sex with them, thus producing giants as offspring who terrorized the earth. According to Enoch, these Watchers were the "sons of god" who had sex with "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6:2.
The point is this: In Enoch's view, Genesis assumed the possibility of intermingling of the species (angels with humans), and when the men of Sodom and Gomorrah saw angels in their city, they somehow knew that the men were heavenly beings and wanted to have sex with them because they were "other flesh."
Last words on Enoch: There is discussion and disagreement about whether or not Jude believed that the Book of Enoch was inspired by God (like the rest of the Old Testament). But whatever the case may be, it is obvious Jude believed it was written by the Enoch of the Bible (7th generation from Adam). It is also obvious that Jude believed the account accurately recorded what happened before and during the flood, including the Watchers, their sexual adventures, and the giants that resulted.
SOME OF THE LISTED SINS OF THE RECRUITERS
According to Peter the group that was recruiting had sins that included:
Following the corrupt desires and passions
Despising authority
Slandering the glorious ones (political and spiritual principalities and powers)
Being bold and arrogant
Speaking evil of that which they did not understand
Openly rioting
Reveling in their own pleasures
Eyes focusing on adultery
Greedy
Leaving the right way
Compare this list to Jude's:
Defiling the flesh
Rejecting authority
Slandering the glorious ones
Speaking evil of that which they did not understand
Walking after their own desires and passions
Murmuring and complaining
Speaking boastfully
Showing favoritism
Separating from the group
What is common to both groups and what seems to stand out are these:
Uncontrolled Passions
Lusting, coveting, wanting, desiring, defiling the flesh, reveling
Rejection of authority
Speaking evil, slandering, murmuring, complaining, speaking arrogantly, speaking evil of things they didn't understand
REVELATION
The last place in the New Testament that refers to Sodom (and not Gomorrah) is Revelation 11:8 where Jerusalem is called Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was crucified.
CONCLUSIONS
The New Testament like the Old Testament uses the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as illustrations and warnings to emphasize that God can and will destroy a people, a city, or nation for its sins.
Each writer focuses on the sins of his particular time. Most of the writers throughout the Bible are unconcerned with the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, because for them the story is not about what Sodom and Gomorrah did, but what God did to them because of sin. Any type of sin gone out of control could have the same result.
The writers who mentioned the sexual sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, mentioned their sins because their own day was steeped in sexual sin - however, the type of sexual sin was left vague.
One last word about those cities, I believe that the writer of Genesis viewed the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were the epitome of evil and each Bible writer after was more concerned about the sins prevalent in their own day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)