Students of the Bible(?)
To study the Bible does not make one a Christian. To claim oneself as Christian does not make one a student of the Bible. It has taken me several years to come to this seemingly obvious and simple conclusion. Perhaps I have known this all along, but was reluctant to admit it. Now, though, times are a changin' and with decisions concerning the Confederate Flag and the ruling on homosexual marriage, I find that people who have been quoting the Bible with the most ferocity don't seem to want to study it and those who have studied it don't seem to be making ferocious comments. That isn't always the case, but it does seem to be true more often than not.
With regard to the issue of homosexuality in the Bible, there are roughly 7 passages that speak (directly or indirectly) to the issue of homosexuality. I recently heard a person quote one that I had not before included into that list. It was from Judges 19:22 which reads, "As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, 'Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.'"
Is this a condemnation of homosexuality? No. It is a description of homosexual behavior? That gets tricky because the argument hinges on the word "know" which is euphemistic of sexual activity in certain instances in the Bible (such as Adam knew Eve and she bore a son etc.). Other times, however (as Freud might say), know simply means know. In Genesis, God speaks to the angels and, speaking about Abraham, says that Abraham is one He has known. Does this imply some sexual relationship between God and Abraham? Of course not. However misleading footnotes such as the one found in the RSV for Genesis 19:5 which reads, "Know refers to sexual relations." True, but not always. In the cases when it does mean sexual activity, one has to read carefully and, perhaps more importantly, refer to Hebrew scholars from which the words emerged originally.
What strikes me as odd, though, is the fact that in quoting Judges 19, the person failed to notice how this parallels the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. A stranger comes to a town with two names, is offered hospitality and shelter, and the men of the town come to do something to him. Rape? Perhaps. Assault? Certainly.
Of course the Judges story has a far worse ending to it than the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the point is not so much what the men do, but that this reflects upon the Benjaminites. The same is true for the story of Lot and his daughters who have children by their father through an incestuous plot. Why tell this kind of story? Because it is true? Maybe, but it could also be there to discredit the descendants of Lot - much the same way the Gospel of John seems to discredit Thomas (doubting), which would thereby call into question the community of faith in Egypt that called Thomas their founder.
That's a whole other issue, though.
Or to hear people claim that the mark placed on Cain by God is that God made him black which somehow justifies slavery, racism, or oppression. While the text offers no further explanation on what it means by "mark" - I have heard everything from epilepsy to turning him red to some mark on his forehead - people seem to overlook the fact that God has to mark Cain, purportedly the third human being in creation, from being set upon and harmed for the murder of Abel. Set upon by whom? Well, from the townsfolk living in the town of Nod located east of Eden to which Cain takes refuge (don't believe me? Read Genesis 4:15-16).
My point here is that there are many other things going on in the Bible. To say that the Judges passage is against homosexuality is to overlook its context, story, plot, and parallel with Genesis. It is also to pick out a passage and remove its original context in an attempt to make it say what one needs it to say in order to make a point.
Who cares? Students of the Bible should.
With regard to the issue of homosexuality in the Bible, there are roughly 7 passages that speak (directly or indirectly) to the issue of homosexuality. I recently heard a person quote one that I had not before included into that list. It was from Judges 19:22 which reads, "As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, 'Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.'"
Is this a condemnation of homosexuality? No. It is a description of homosexual behavior? That gets tricky because the argument hinges on the word "know" which is euphemistic of sexual activity in certain instances in the Bible (such as Adam knew Eve and she bore a son etc.). Other times, however (as Freud might say), know simply means know. In Genesis, God speaks to the angels and, speaking about Abraham, says that Abraham is one He has known. Does this imply some sexual relationship between God and Abraham? Of course not. However misleading footnotes such as the one found in the RSV for Genesis 19:5 which reads, "Know refers to sexual relations." True, but not always. In the cases when it does mean sexual activity, one has to read carefully and, perhaps more importantly, refer to Hebrew scholars from which the words emerged originally.
What strikes me as odd, though, is the fact that in quoting Judges 19, the person failed to notice how this parallels the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. A stranger comes to a town with two names, is offered hospitality and shelter, and the men of the town come to do something to him. Rape? Perhaps. Assault? Certainly.
Of course the Judges story has a far worse ending to it than the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah and the point is not so much what the men do, but that this reflects upon the Benjaminites. The same is true for the story of Lot and his daughters who have children by their father through an incestuous plot. Why tell this kind of story? Because it is true? Maybe, but it could also be there to discredit the descendants of Lot - much the same way the Gospel of John seems to discredit Thomas (doubting), which would thereby call into question the community of faith in Egypt that called Thomas their founder.
That's a whole other issue, though.
Or to hear people claim that the mark placed on Cain by God is that God made him black which somehow justifies slavery, racism, or oppression. While the text offers no further explanation on what it means by "mark" - I have heard everything from epilepsy to turning him red to some mark on his forehead - people seem to overlook the fact that God has to mark Cain, purportedly the third human being in creation, from being set upon and harmed for the murder of Abel. Set upon by whom? Well, from the townsfolk living in the town of Nod located east of Eden to which Cain takes refuge (don't believe me? Read Genesis 4:15-16).
My point here is that there are many other things going on in the Bible. To say that the Judges passage is against homosexuality is to overlook its context, story, plot, and parallel with Genesis. It is also to pick out a passage and remove its original context in an attempt to make it say what one needs it to say in order to make a point.
Who cares? Students of the Bible should.
Comments
Post a Comment