Recently in Bible Category

On Sunday, I'm shutting up about homosexuality and the Bible for a year.

There are people who go much farther in depth on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. If you really want to learn about what scholars are saying, there are books, videos, academic papers, and articles on the worldwide web.

But if you have made up your mind already, there's not much I can say to you. Instead, I suggest you take a page from Jesus' ministry:

Jesus ate with people who were considered unclean sinners. If you want to follow Jesus, have dinner with a sinner. If you don't think think gay people can be Christians, ask one to lunch. Rather than quoting scripture at us, get to know us, and let us get to know you. Who knows? Maybe your example of piety will convict us of our sin. Of course, it's also possible that you will find we are not the sinners you think we are.

Are you willing to risk it? I am.

If you're gay and Christian, join me on my year of being out and not defending homosexuality.

If you're Christian and think homosexuality is a sin, join me in a year of meeting each other where we are.

Jesus said:

"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." - John 13:34-35, NRSV

I love you, too.

On Sunday, I'm shutting up about homosexuality and the Bible for a year. So this is a series of comments to get this out of my system. I  this post: Jesus.















Yep.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality.

On Sunday, I'm shutting up about homosexuality and the Bible for a year. So this is a series of comments to get this out of my system.

Romans 1:26-27

Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

With regard to women "exchanged natural for unnatural". This is the single place that could possibly be lesbianism, but it doesn't actually say that. In fact, it's not very specific at all.

With regard to men, it does say that men were consumed with passion for one another, and committed shameless acts. The acts are not specified. Is it mere lust? Or committed relationships?

These are also the consequences of idolatry - people who turned from God to worshiping idols. But what of people who are believers and who follow the words of Jesus, and are in committed same-sex relationships?

It's also important to recognize that this is a letter from an apostle to a church. It's not prophecy. It's not the red-letter words of Jesus.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers--none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Male prostitutes, sodomites. We know Paul didn't say "sodomites" because that word was invented in the late 14th century. What did he really say? These words are translated from the Greek word arsenokoites.What does arsenokoites really mean? It's hard to say. It can be translated a lot of ways, including rape or incest. The same word gets used in 1 Timothy 1:9-10.

Most people read the translations rather than the Greek, and receive the translator's understanding of the words. Most people have already been taught that homosexuality is against God's law. We don't always realize the biases that we and others bring to the text.

On Sunday, I'm shutting up about homosexuality and the Bible for a year. So this is a series of comments to get this out of my system.

This is going to be really short.

Leviticus is the law of the Levites, the priestly tribe of Israel. The law covers food, worship, sex, and a lot about when women are unclean and have to be set apart from others (during and after their periods, after childbirth, etc.)

Yes, it says that man shall not lie with man as with a woman. What does that mean? Is it about male dominance over females and that men shouldn't be that way with other men? Is it about the victors raping those they defeated in battle? Is it about consensual sex?

If you're going to make Leviticus your guide to life, be sure to read the rest of it. Pay attention to the dietary restrictions, and the fabric blends. When you have those down, come and talk to me about how a committed relationship between two people of the same sex is what Leviticus is talking about, and that it applies to contemporary Christian believers.

On Sunday, I'm shutting up about homosexuality and the Bible for a year. So if Easter begins my year-long fast, I better get my fat-Tuesday on now.

First, Sodomy:

There are a whole lot of words that get tied to stuff in the Bible even though the connection is tenuous at best. Look up "Onanism". A lot of people use this as a synonym for masturbation, but look up Genesis 38 and read what Onan was supposed to have done - used the withdrawal method to avoid giving his brother's widow a child. How does that turn into masturbation? Onan's seed spilled on the ground. At some point, someone probably misunderstood what Onan had done wrong. The sin was that he disobeyed God by refusing to give his brother's widow a child, but someone probably thought the sin was spilling his seed on the ground. Next thing you know, it's any ejaculation outside of a vagina, and then it's masturbation.

So we have sodomy. These days, sodomy most often means homosexuality, but not so long ago it meant non-vaginal intercourse between a man and either a woman or another man. This included fellatio and anal sex. Go back farther, and it's a connection to Sodom being a hotbed of sexual sin. But where in the Bible does it actually say that?

A lot of people point to Genesis 19 where the men (or people, depending on translation) of the town come to Lot's place and demand that he bring out the strangers so they may "know" the men. Of course, "know" means "have sex with", right?

Well, maybe.

I have not painstakingly gone through the Bible and looked at every example of sexual congress, but I have seen three common ways of describing sex: know, enter into, and lie with. The cases of "know" with which I am familiar are about consensual sex within marriage. "Enter into" usually means the same. "Lie with" shows up in places like Deuteronomy 22: "the man seizes her and lies with her" - usually meaning rape or prostitution.

I don't think the townspeople wanted to be married to the strangers.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes know just means know. In the chapter prior to the altercation with Lot, the phrase "I know him" (using the same Hebrew word, yada) appears. It's actually part of the same story. Another example of homosexuality?

You decide.

Here, in Genesis 18:19, it is God speaking about Abraham. (Your translation may use chosen or some other word, but most translations use know, because the Hebrew word is yada.) If you're going to say "know" always means sex - even just in this story, then you're saying God has sex with Abraham. I don't think you want to say that.

In Ezekiel 16:46-50, Ezekiel is speaking for God (see 16:1. "The word of the Lord came to me:"). He's comparing Jerusalem to Samaria and Sodom. We especially want to look at 16:49-50 (from the New Revised Standard Version):

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Look at that list of sins:

• Pride
• Did not aid poor and needy despite excess of food and prosperous ease
• Haughtiness
• Did abominable things before me

"aHA!" some people will say. "Abominations! That's the homosexuality!"

Could be.

Or they could be worshiping idols (Deuteronomy 7:25, Deuteronomy 13:14). Or engaging in temple prostitution (I Kings 14:24). Or using dishonest weights in commerce ((Deuteronomy 25:13-19, Proverbs 11:1)). Or any of a number of other things called abomination (Hebrew to'ebah).

Yes, Jude 1:7 mentions fornication and strange flesh, but does that mean homosexuality? Or sex with people outside one's tribe? Or prostitutes?

I'm not saying it's impossible for Sodom to be about homosexuality. I just don't find the arguments very persuasive.

This will be a bit of a rant.

I understand deconstruction of text.

I also understand the impulse toward non-hierarchical, non-androcentric language.

I still don't like replacing kingdom with kingdom.

Note: Though I prefer inclusive language, I will be using male language in the first few paragraphs to remain close to traditional language.

First of all, kindom is a made up word. I'm not completely opposed to neologisms, but this is a factor in my distaste for its usage, when considered with the other issues.

Second, it is "close" to kingdom in spelling and sound, which implies that it is a reasonable substitute.

Third, the connotation of kindom (can there be a denotation yet?) is completely different from the word it replaces, kingdom. Stating that "yours is the kingdom" portrays the Father as sovereign; "yours is the kindom" portrays the Father as a person related to us. The theology is not indefensible: we are called "sons of God." It is hard, however, to defend the interpretation as exegetical: there is a distinct difference in meaning.

There are plenty of ways we could slightly alter words to make them fit our theology. We might drop the "i" from Savior because we savor our redemption. And isn't Heaven a haven for us, or maybe Jesus will heave us there? We might think Father is too androcentric and choose to call the one who holds our fate by the name Fater. (I get extra points for the neologism on Fater.)

What may begin as well-intentioned reframing in inclusive, non-hierarchical language may appear to be sloppy interpretation, and for some it discredits the message.

"So, Cindi," you may ask, "what would you do?"

When we reframe an idea, we should be deliberate and obvious about it. Consider this rendering of the Lord's Prayer:

Our Creator, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy dominion come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the dominion and the power and the glory for ever.

I first heard this in a self-help group, and later at a church. Father is deliberately replaced with Creator: there is no implication that it is the same word, and Creator has a meaning that is at least close to the older, traditional idea of Father as source of life (modern science notwithstanding). Dominion keeps God as sovereign, but removes the androcentricity. No one would ever confuse dominion as a spelling variation of the word kingdom (though the syllable dom has the same etymology).

Purists may say "you're changing the words!" and they would be right. Then we can have a discussion about why the word choices are important.

Another approach is to reframe the prayer entirely, as Jim Cotter did in Prayer at Night (this  version is often referred to as the "New Zealand" version):

Life-Giver, Pain-Bearer, Love-Maker.
Source of all that is and that shall be.

Father and Mother of us all,
Loving God, in whom is heaven:
The hallowing of your name echo through the universe!
The way of your justice be followed by all peoples of the world!
Your heavenly will be done by all created beings!
Your commonwealth of peace and freedom sustain our hope and come on earth.

With the bread we need for today, feed us.
In the hurts we absorb from one another, forgive us.
In times of temptation and test, strengthen us.
From trials too great to endure, spare us.
From the grip of all that is evil, free us.

For you reign in the glory of the power that is love, now and forever. Amen.

Would anyone take this rendering as anything but an intentional reframing? It's clearly a new interpretation of the text.

The elements of the original prayer can be found, with Our Father expanded to Life-Giver, Pain-Bearer, Love-Maker./ Source of all that is and that shall be./Father and Mother of us all,/Loving God and kingdom rendered as reign.

There are many ways to change the emphasis or focus of a prayer. We can be explicit about the changes we make, or we can make subtle changes and hope no one objects.

When we veer from well-known texts, let us be intentional about what we are doing and why we are doing it. Kindom may be clever, but, at least to this hearer, comes off as more of a linguistic trick than as a deliberate expression of Biblical hermeneutics.

Of course Mary is an ancestor of Jesus. In mammals, live birth makes maternal parentage easy to establish. Matthew 1:16 proclaims:

and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah. [NRSV]

After a genealogy that has four women with social stigma attached, Mary would finally be free of trouble, right?

Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. [Matthew 1:18-19, NRSV]

OK, maybe not.

Perhaps these women - Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, "the wife of Uriah" (Bathsheba), Mary - are named because they are named in the stories of the men in the genealogy. If that is so, why not mention Abraham's wife Sarah, or Isaac's wife Rebekah, both of whom are prominently mentioned?

Maybe it's because these are women who make bold choices, but the same applies to Sarah and Rebekah as well. Even today, most Christians know the names of these women, and they're mentioned in stories in Sunday School.

To be honest, I don't know why Matthew, which is likely written for a Jewish community outside Palestine, chooses these women for a mention.

I do note that they would all be considered tainted by sexual sin. Accepting payment from your father-in-law for sex (Tamar), actively being a sex worker (Tamar), being part of a tribe begun by father-daughter incest (Ruth), being raped (the wife of Uriah, named Bathsheba), and being pregnant by someone other than your husband (Mary) are all generally reasons to be considered unclean and unworthy. Of course, most of these events carried less stigma for the men involved.

Whatever the reason for their inclusion, these women have an honored place in Matthew. Maybe we can also find an honored place for other women who have been called names like whore, slut, or bitch. Maybe we can look past the accusations about behavior and instead see the potential in all women.

And maybe those of us who have been told that we are less-than can look at the genealogy in Matthew and find women with whom we can identify, women of honor.

In the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel according to Matthew, Bathsheba is in the line of Jesus. Well, almost certainly Bathsheba, though the gospel says "the wife of Uriah".

In II Samuel 11 is the story of King David's rape of Bathsheba. He sees her bathing, has her brought to him, rapes her. She becomes pregnant so, to cover up his sin, David sends for her husband Uriah. He tries various things to get Uriah to go home to Bathsheba (in hopes he will have sex with her and think the child is his), but Uriah is more concerned with the troops he commands. Plan B is David sending Uriah into more dangerous battle in which he will certainly be killed. (He is.) David takes Bathsheba as a wife, and their firstborn son dies.

After David's death, Bathsheba arranges for her son Solomon to be king.

David is a celebrated king, but also a rapist and murderer. The victim of his rape is one of the five women mentioned as an ancestor of Jesus. Why is that?

Naomi had two sons, who married women from Moab. Naomi's husband and sons died, and she told her daughters-in-law, Orpah (after whom Oprah is named) and Ruth to go back to their people. Ruth, however, pledged to stay with Naomi and her people and god, and eventually married Boaz, a kinsman of Naomi's.

What the genealogy of Jesus and the book of Ruth do not tell us is where the people of Moab come from, and why they're shunned. For that, we have to look to Genesis 19:30-38 (The following is from the New Revised Standard version):

Now Lot went up out of Zoar and settled in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; so he lived in a cave with his two daughters. ³¹And the firstborn said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. ³²Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father." ³³So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. ³⁴On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, "Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father." ³⁵So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. ³⁶Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. ³⁷The firstborn bore a son, and named him Moab; he is the ancestor of the Moabites to this day. ³⁸The younger also bore a son and named him Ben-ammi; he is the ancestor of the Ammonites to this day.

Jesus' genealogy includes Moab, whose dad and maternal grandfather are the same man: Lot. The story above, by the way, happens immediately after the flight from Sodom.

Along with the list of men in Jesus' genealogy, why is Ruth among the five notable women?

According to Joshua chapter 2, Rahab was a prostitute in the city of Jericho. She sheltered two spies from the people of Israel, then bargained for a promise that she and her family be saved when the town was taken by the Israelites.

Like Tamar, this story is over a woman who ordinarily might not have been well regarded by her people, nor by the Israelites. She is also a woman who makes bold choices. It is interesting to ponder why she is one of the five women in Jesus named in the genealogy of Jesus.