|
 |
|
|
|
Last week, I raised concerns that reading Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) as a text about homosexuality might be a grave misinterpretation. What we do know is that Sodom and Gomorrah is an example of divine judgment used throughout the Bible. What is less clear is the precise reason for God’s wrath. In Part II, we will consider how two other passages of Scripture understand the sin of Sodom.
Consulting other portions of Scripture to understand the events at Sodom and Gomorrah follows the traditional Biblical exegesis that relies on the interpretive principle of text–interpreting-text, meaning that one passage of Scripture can be used to shed light on other passages (provided we also recognize the native context of each passage). We will look at two key passages: the reference to Sodom by the prophet Ezekiel and a passage in the New Testament’s Jude, both of which offer direct commentary on Genesis 19.
The earliest extended biblical commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah is Ezekiel 16:49-50. What does Ezekiel believe the sin of Sodom was? The text reads: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (i) They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” Detestable things could be homosexuality, but let’s hold off assuming that for a moment. At no place in the Bible do Scripture writers refer to Sodom as a place of homosexuality: the story is used as a reference point for divine wrath, but homosexuality is never specifically stated as the sin. Ezekiel is an intriguing passage, particularly in light of traditional Jewish sources that read Genesis 19 “as a story about the abuse by the powerful of the poor and the outsider.”(ii) Furthermore, the first sin of Sodom that Ezekiel names is pride. What could that mean? Was it the pride of trying to dominate the messengers of Yahweh that was the evil that turned Sodom to sulfur? Ezekiel goes on to state that the Sodomites had no intention to help the “poor and needy,” which could be a reference to violating a code of hospitality common in the ancient world, or could be an even deeper rebuke of the Sodomites attitudes towards anyone in need. And finally, to understand the pride of Sodom, we must remember the contrasting story told in Genesis 18, in which Abraham displays humility and hospitality when the angels of God visit him and Sarah. In Genesis 19, not only is there not hospitality, but the men of Sodom want to do blatant harm to the messengers. These two stories back to back are setting up a profound contrast in how people receive both strangers and God’s messengers. Abraham becomes a hero of faith and blessings, while the Sodomites, according to Ezekiel, “were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”
The New Testament’s Jude also presents a highly intriguing interpretation of Sodom that challenges modern understanding of the passage. Jude is using what could be called “typological exegesis”– he draws on familiar stories linked to Israel’s past to speak to present days concerns of his time.(iii) Jude uses three Old Testament stories to warn early Christians against disobedience: he references the fate of those in the wilderness who did not believe (a theme in Exodus), the angels who left heaven (arguably Gen. 6:1-4), and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (which Jude links to the story of the angels leaving heaven). In using Sodom and Gomorrah and linking it with the story of the angels, Jude is assuming certain Biblical and rabbinical interpretive frameworks. For one, Jude is following a Biblical tradition where Sodom is seen throughout the Scriptures as a paradigm of God’s wrath (Deut. 29:23, 32:32, Isa. 1:9-10, 3:9, Jer. 23:14, 49:18, 50:40, Ezek. 16:46-59, and Amos 4:11.”)(iv) That Jude used Sodom as a lesson in divine destruction follows both Scripture and our modern understanding (at least in part.) Yet, Jude seemingly throws in a curve ball to explain the reason for God’s wrath. The text reads:
"Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings" (1:5-7, italics mine).
The text goes on in the next verse to discuss Michael and the devil arguing, all in all providing a very curious context for understanding Jude’s reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly, Jude’s condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah is about sexual immorality, but is this homosexuality? What exactly is he getting at?
Some scholars argue convincingly that Jude’s statement is assuming an understanding of Genesis 6:1-4, a passage that references “sons of god” or “the Watchers” coming down from their celestial places and having sexual relations with human women. Yet, the Genesis text itself does not specifically condemn the angels as does Jude, nor does the Sodom and Gomorrah text in Genesis 19 compare the two stories. So why is Jude drawing a comparison? By discussing the sin of the angels with the sin of Sodom (stating “in a similar way” going after sexual immorality), he is likely drawing on the tradition of I Enoch’s depiction of the account of Genesis 6, which references the angels leaving their proper places and having sex with women.(v) The text of Genesis 6 alone cannot alone account for Jude’s reference; the key elements in his treatment of the angels’ fall and punishment come from Jewish traditions, of which Jude and his original audience seem to be familiar. (vi) Thus, as we focus on Jude’s commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah, we must also consider the broader tradition into which he speaks– a tradition that integrates both written and oral story as well as rabbinical commentary.
The fact that Sodom and Gomorrah committed harlotry “in a similar way” as the angels Jude references (which I argue references Genesis 6), actually makes sense when Sodom is seen in the context of its proceeding chapter. (viii) Genesis 19 depicts the men visiting Lot as the angels who visited Abraham in Genesis 18. Thus, the men in Sodom are condemned by Jude for wanting to have sex with angels, as paralleled in the account Genesis 6, where humans have sex with angels.(ix) Secondly, while this act of immorality is called “perversion” in the NIV, a literal translation from the Greek is “going after strange/other flesh” (or “heteros sarx” in the Greek.) If Jude was condemning homosexuality, wouldn’t “going after the same flesh” make more sense?(x) While Jude is using Sodom and Gomorrah as a paradigmatic text for divine destruction, it is surprising to modern sensibilities that he may not be highlighting homosexuality, but rather he condemns the men of Gomorrah for intending to force sex on celestial beings. Certainly, Jude is by no means a thorough exegesis of the narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it is a significant window on an ancient hermeneutic of the story, found within the New Testament.
Conclusion: So Why Does It Matter?
What does it matter that we reconsider the Sodom and Gomorrah story? What is at stake in rethinking this story? For one, we ought to begin to ask why this is not a well–known text on sexual violence, a traditionally unaddressed issue in church history. In fourteen years of attending evangelical churches, I have never heard a sermon preached on rape (even though the Western society to which I belong has shockingly high statistics for sexual violence.) I have often heard the passage referenced to condemn homosexuality; it matters what we are overlooking. With our country’s statistics on sexual violence, plus the global crisis of women and children being trafficked into sexual slavery, this is a grave moral issue we must concern ourselves with from pulpits and within politics. Yet, the evangelical church is often too silent around issues of sexual violence, while it is notoriously loud on issues around homosexuality. Why? What is going on in the church that we misread this text and fail to see the sexual violence, but instead treat the passage as though it can speak into current questions on same–sex relationships?
Furthermore, we ought to ask why is this not a text to illustrate the harm of abuse of power, making outsiders, and the psychology of a mob mentality. Perhaps, in our myopic reading of the text, the text is in fact reading us. For using Sodom and Gomorrah to condemn homosexuality, while missing larger issues, reveals something quite disturbing about our hermeneutic– that too often we use our Bibles to judge those we want to keep outside our communities, than to use the Scriptures to step toward our own repentance. The text is not inviting Christians to judgment of those we might wish to make “outsiders”- for this very pride is what is condemned within the text.
And finally, if the prophet Ezekiel is indeed right and it is arrogance that is the key downfall of the Sodomites, then perhaps the term sodomy should no longer apply anymore to a group marginalized for sexual orientation, but rather to every human heart struggling with pride. (xi) This text– so often used to stand in judgment of others– actually brilliantly invites the church to humility and hospitality to those made “outsiders.”
May God give us grace to repent.
Endnotes:
i.Text taken from the NIV. This rebuke to Israel startles me every time I read it. How often am I arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned with truly engaging the suffering of the poor and needy? And furthermore, how does God look upon evangelical churches which focus on homosexuality as a predominant moral issue of our time, when thousands of children are dying every day of malnutrition, and those very churches often have the resources and influence to do something about such suffering?
ii.Michael Carden, “Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah: A Response to Ken Stone, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82 (1999): 92.
iii. Charles J. Daryl. “ ‘Those" and ‘These’: The use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1990): 116.
iv. Charles J. Daryl. “ ‘Those" and ‘These’: The use of the Old Testament in the Epistle of Jude” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1990): 115–116.
v.Walter M. Dunnett. “The Hermeneutics of Jude and 2 Peter: The Use of Ancient Jewish Traditions” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31 (1988): 89
vi. Thomas Wolthius. “Jude and Jewish traditions” Calvin Theological Journal, 22 (1987): 27.
vii. Walter M. Dunnett. “The Hermeneutics of Jude and 2 Peter: The Use of Ancient Jewish Traditions” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31 (1988): 88.
viii.William H. Countryman, William H. Dirt, Greed, & Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1988. 133.
ix. Ibid., 134.
x.Ibid., 134.
xi.Carden, 93, discusses changing the definition of the term to depict: xenophobia, racism, cruelty, exploitation, etc.
Kimberly B. George is a writer, teacher, and graduate student living in Seattle, Washington. She is currently writing a book on issues related to gender and Christian faith. She blogs at faithandgender.blogspot.com, and can be contacted at faithandgender@gmail.com.
|
Nice follow-up, but I find the Jude argument weak, especially in light of the preceding and succeeding passages, which reference "lewdness" and "ungodly lusts." Jude (and the derivative 2 Peter 2) seems to refer to Gnostic immorality, which may or may not have included homosexuality, but which certainly did not include sex with angels. Thus it seems fairly clear that, at the very least, Jude is referring to sexual promiscuity, and not so much the mistreatment of God's messengers.
But the Ezekiel passage speaks in terms of abominable behavior, and Ezekiel would have certainly referenced existing Mosaic texts on that matter. There are plenty of proscribed foods and sacrifices, but only a few proscribed behaviors that are labeled as abominations, and they all seem to be sexual sins. In Leviticus 18:27, the LORD points out that of the abominations He has proscribed in that chapter, "all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled." Those were the abominations God had seen before in that area, and those were the things He wanted the Israelites to avoid. Among those abominations is indeed homosexual behavior, as well as adultery, bestiality and incest. In Deuteronomy, Moses lists more abominations related to offerings and idolatry and, again, sexual relations. Unfortunately, rape is NOT among those things God saw as abominable -- punishable by death, but not labeled as abominable. As you mentioned before, rape really is less about sexuality than it is about power, but God plainly saw certain sexual practices as abominable in His eyes, and that could justify the reading of Genesis we have lived with for thousands of years.
I guess what I'm saying is that while your argument makes for a good beginning to exegesis, it doesn't make much of a case for using Genesis 19 in preaching against sexual violence. We should preach against rape and abuse, and the Bible certainly has plenty of references for useful teaching on those matters. Genesis 19 is just not one of them.
Glenn! Thanks so much for your comments. I so appreciate you engaging my arguments. A couple thoughts I want to stay in dialogue about:
1. Though I understand the backdrop of Gnostic spirituality that the early church writers (including Jude) seem to be dealing with, I don’t think that shuts down the conversation in terms of why Jude talks about Sodom and Gomorrah in a context where he is also talking about slandering celestial beings. Why does he talk about Sodom right between two other sentences that are about angels (and even explicitly link the statements as though they make sense together? What kind of conversation is he inhabiting (that we are trying to eavesdrop on) that talking about slandering celestial beings and despising authorities seems to fit with condemning Sodom? I definitely understand the link to Genesis 6 feels like a jump (and it is from our point in time) and I am very open to other thoughts, but I still am not sure that just understanding Jude in a Gnostic context solves it all. Would you mind sharing more on that? 2. As far as the word “abomination,” I think you are making the argument that it is used primarily for sexual sin when it is not used to describe certain foods? I am curious to know more about that, because I haven’t seen it reserved for sexual sin in my reading of the OT (but also used for idolatry, lying, and “mixing of kind” issues.) However, I am open to being convinced; and in that case, you are right that it would significantly critic my handling of Ezekiel. I still think though it is quite interesting that Ezekiel highlights neglecting the poor first, regardless of how we debate the meaning of the abominable acts (though I also don’t want to dismiss that discussion). 3. Also, I think we do need to place our reading of the OT within Jewish thought/scholarship, and from my reading, I believe that violating hospitality was an important way to understand Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not the only way, but I am struck by the Jewish tradition weighted in the direction of reading “Genesis 19 as a story about the abuse by the powerful of the poor and outsiders” (Carden). I am not a Jewish scholar, so I would be interested to hear from those why might have studied more how Midrash tradition deals with Genesis 19? 4. Finally, regarding using Genesis 19 as a text about sexual violence: even if you do think the text is comparable to modern day ideas about homosexuality, certainly the sexual act in Genesis 19 is still sexual violence? I am still somewhat confused as to why Genesis 19 is not an appropriate text for preaching against rape (even if someone disagrees with all my other points.) Especially when seen next to the parallel Judges 19 story? (And since similar stories in Jewish narrative often come in twos and threes, I don’t think it is a jump to put these very similar stories in the same discussion.) At the end of the day, if someone can deconstruct everything else I have said, I don't see how this text is not about gang-rape (whether homosexual or heterosexual.) As you said, the Biblical text gives us places to go to to talk about rape, but there is a startling absence of this in Christian tradition.
Glenn, again, I am truly grateful for your critics of my exegesis and your willingness to stay in the arguments I have raised in the article. I offer these 4 thoughts to continue the conversation and sort it out with you and others. I just think there are still many things our traditional, Christian exegesis is not accounting for.
Very interesting exegesis. Well done.
I don't think it makes sense for verse 7 in Jude to be about homosexuality, when all the verses around it are referring to angels in one way or another, and especially after the verse 6 reference to the Genesis 6 "sons of God." Plus I think Kimberly's point about "went after other flesh" (=unnatural lust) is an important one. If the point was about homosexuality, it would be about going after the same (greek, "homo") flesh. I think the categories of rape and "mixing of kinds" lend themselves to a good reading of the passage that is faithful to the text.
As for the issue of "abomination," there are 112 verses in the Hebrew Bible that use this word, and it is used pretty diversely, from sexual sins to eating the wrong kinds of food (Deut 14:3f), coveting silver and gold (Deut 7:25), sacrificing children to foreign gods (Deut 12:31), sacrificing animals with blemishes (Deut 17:1), etc. And the God of Israel wasn't the only one who seems to label things as abominations - the Egyptians in Genesis saw all shepherds as abominations. It is clearly an important word, but it also clearly can't be narrowed to sexual sins.
As such, whether or not the word is applied to rape explicitly in the Bible matters little. I think that rape and sexual violence generally speaking is an abomination, I think that is a position that is faithful to the biblical witness, and I think that is a position that the Church today should take a strong stance on. Even the most optimistic statistics I have heard when it comes to rape, sexual abuse, harassment, molestation, and assault are absolutely horrifying. We MUST take a very strong stance on this. I don't really care whether its heterosexual, homosexual or something else entirely. Sexual violence is completely unacceptable, and it's something that we in the Church should be talking about more often and declaring openly and unreservedly that it is an abomination and that it should not be tolerated.
Thank you so much Kimberly for your beautiful exegesis of this passage to facilitate this important conversation. My prayer is that it would not stop here, but continue into each of our local congregations and throughout the world. If we won't stand up against sexual violence, how can we expect to ever stand for good and against other, (arguably) more elusive forms of evil in this difficult and often confusing age?
Ok, so if we are going to take you exegesis as accurate, then what are we to do with homosexuality today? It seems to me that in the world today, the GLBT community is keen on spinning what they do as done in a loving relationship and therefore it is acceptable. Which means we must then group almost all GLBT sexual experience, excpet when it is done in a committed relationship (marriage) the same way that we would treat sex between a man and a woman who are not married.
If this is the case, then do we allow everyone to get married and continue to look down upon divorce and sexual promiscuity?
I think you have proven that we do a poor job in identifying power issues in society, especially when they come to sex.
I wish I knew the answers to these questions, but any insights about how to frame this in perspective with everything else going on in the world today would be appreicated.
Kimberly, while I do not agree with your interpretation of Genesis 19 and the Jude passage, I do believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah region had other issues beside homosexuality. I would also think that homosexuality wasn't the only sexually immoral thing going on. When christians teach about God's destruction of these cities, they should be mentioning the other sins.
In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I believe that we can learn exactly what Jude was talking about when he uses them as an illustration. God cares about how we treat one another, how we care for the needy, how we live our lives, and (yes) how we live sexually. He is also concerned whether or not we listen to Him. They rebelled and opened doors to ways that were against God's ways. Sodom and Gomorrah must have been so out of control. Then God made a judgment against them. Perhaps it is not the most seeker-sensitive story and not always the one that we want to hear. While God is full of love and mercy, He is also a judge. If we -- who know better -- open doors to sin and don't turn away from them, it is a frightening thought to consider where those doors will lead.
Hey Matt: A couple thoughts come to mind as I read over the points you raised today. For one, I think there are other texts in Scripture that are more helpful to look at regarding homosexuality than Genesis 19. Since I think Sodom and Gomorrah is about gang rape, I don't find it helpful in talking about homosexual relationships. Personally, I think the most thorough text we have to grapple with on homosexuality is Romans 1. Recently I have been listening to both Tony and Peggy Campolo talk about that text: they actually largely disagree on how to interpret it, which makes for a pretty interesting presentation they deliver. If you are interested in hearing it, feel free to email me. I appreciate how they both hold to their different convictions.
Just for the record, if I haven't said it clearly enough on this comment thread, I do believe what we do with our sexuality is a big deal. All of our lives are under the Lordship of Christ: our sexuality, our economics, our need to care for the orphan and widow, our stewardship of the earth. I wouldn't ever want to throw out seeking obedience in our sexuality. I think Holly has communicated this well, because I sense in her words a desire to recognize that sexuality is still one of many important things to talk about, and we can't just throw it out because it is so political.
What I do find so interesting about this comment thread is that we have largely stayed on the topic of homosexuality (which I think might have been needed), but of course what I was hoping to get us talking about was how to engage sexual violence or even the pride of the Sodomites who did not care for the poor (as Ezekiel highlights). Homosexuality is an important conversation, too, but I also have to wonder why it has consumed the majority of our comments? Perhaps this is showing us something?
I have heard it argued based on Gen 14 that the sin of Sodom was actually more about slavery. I think as evangelicals, its easy to rip on homosexuality and assume our bias into the text.
Ok, I think that your first half of the article along with your second to last paragraph are the parts that needed to be focused on more. You made a good point about abuse of power, distance from God('s values), mob mentality and the like, but the second half seemed to dismiss what we ought to do with homosexuality and I think that is why I felt the need to stay on that particular topic.
I was just thinking I was looking forward to the next time Genesis 19 comes up in the lectionary...but I found out that it actually doesn't. Interesting.
I think it is hard to engage sexual violence (much more than pride) because sexual violence seems to need something just as powerful to stop it. Obviously in Gen 19, God is that force, but we as singular persons feel small and weak against something so violent, both physically and mentally. We are called to sacrifice for God, but somehow, this seems to be one of the hardest things to be able to do, which is perhaps why it is so desperately needed.
I liked the article overall. I've read some commentaries about the Sodom and Gommorrah story that might offer some explanation to the idea of humans having sex with an angel, or for that matter, even trying to rape one (as in Genesis). The connection to angels (or gods/goddesse) might derive from the ancient practices of temple prostitution. Jews who were in the land of Palestine and in the Babylonian captivity (some think around 6th Centry BCE when the Genesis stories were compiled while Jews were in the Babylonian captivity) would have easily witnessed the common practice of temple prostitution. The temple prostitutes of various pagan religions commonly performed heterosexual or homosexual sex rituals and received payment for them. The prostitute was thought to be the channel or avatar of the god/dess of the area and brought down rain, produced good crops, and brought on good luck to participants who engaged in these practices. To Jews of the time, it would have been a tempting past time. The notion of sexually mixing with celestial beings (or their avatars in the temple) would have been going too far for Jews who were trying to maintain their religious and collective identities while either being occupied or in captivity. The Sodom story might have been a signal, or code to Jews which said, "stay away from temple prostitutes!"--Don't mix the human with the heavenly this way...it will only bring disaster...look at Sodom and Gommorah!" No one had any idea of what a sexual orientation was way back then and only thought of sexuality in terms of practices. If we can view the "unnatural acts" in the Sodom story as pertaining possibly to temple prostitution, we might find some sort of solution to untangling this story and all the hateful invectives against homosexual that have formed around it over the millenia.
interesting...
I like your thoughts about sexual violence pertaining to these passages, even if I don't necessarily agree with your thoughts about homosexuality. I think we could also take away some principles of self-sacrifice (which Lot, who offered the men his daughters, could have learned a bit more about to be sure).
Overall, very thought-provoking. thanks.
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but perhaps one reason that you've never heard this text as a springboard for a sermon on rape/sexual violence is because there are no major lobying groups / campus societies that exist promoting the acceptance of rape as normative and healthy? Maybe because rapists aren't paraded throughout the streets and celebrated by local politicians? Maybe because "Will & Grace" isn't about rapists?
Tyler: Yes, I think your point actually makes a lot of sense. As a culture, there is just so much attention going towards the questions and concerns about homosexuality, that it is just not really in our gaze to see the issues around sexual violence. We don't see sexual violence in this passage because we don't have the eyes to see it in our world, either. For the most part, Christian churches are much more concerned with opposing homosexuality, than talking about other important issues in our culture like rape. And while "rapists are not paraded through the streets," I also don't hear much engagement from the church opposing the widespread problem of sexual violence. I don't hear Christians lobbying for tougher laws, or many churches trying to reach out to victims or perpetrators. The silence is a problem. Overall, the U.S. outranks all other countries in its incidence of sexual assault, and I kind of have to wonder why the church has so little to say. At least homosexuality (which I am not condoning here) is a choice between two consenting adults. Don't you think it odd that we spend so much more time trying to counter homosexuality, when almost a million human beings are trafficked every year into a life of sexual slavery and violence? We are more concerned about the sexual relationships between consenting adults than we are concerned about the 11 year old girl getting raped 10 times a day, because she was trafficked and sold into prostitution. Am I the only one that thinks God at some point might want us to shift our priorities? My point is not that homosexuality is not an important issue. But, when we look back on the church in a hundred years, what will be our sins of omission? What do we fail to see because we are failing to engage?
|
|
|
|
(11)
Nice follow-up, but I find the Jude argument weak, especially in light of the preceding and succeeding passages, which reference "lewdness" and "ungodly lusts." Jude (and the derivative 2 Peter 2) seems to refer to Gnostic immorality, which may or may not have included homosexuality, but which certainly did not include sex with angels. Thus it seems fairly clear that, at the very least, Jude is referring to sexual promiscuity, and not so much the mistreatment of God's messengers.
But the Ezekiel passage speaks in terms of abominable behavior, and Ezekiel would have certainly referenced existing Mosaic texts on that matter. There are plenty of proscribed foods and sacrifices, but only a few proscribed behaviors that are labeled as abominations, and they all seem to be sexual sins. In Leviticus 18:27, the LORD points out that of the abominations He has proscribed in that chapter, "all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled." Those were the abominations God had seen before in that area, and those were the things He wanted the Israelites to avoid. Among those abominations is indeed homosexual behavior, as well as adultery, bestiality and incest. In Deuteronomy, Moses lists more abominations related to offerings and idolatry and, again, sexual relations. Unfortunately, rape is NOT among those things God saw as abominable -- punishable by death, but not labeled as abominable. As you mentioned before, rape really is less about sexuality than it is about power, but God plainly saw certain sexual practices as abominable in His eyes, and that could justify the reading of Genesis we have lived with for thousands of years.
I guess what I'm saying is that while your argument makes for a good beginning to exegesis, it doesn't make much of a case for using Genesis 19 in preaching against sexual violence. We should preach against rape and abuse, and the Bible certainly has plenty of references for useful teaching on those matters. Genesis 19 is just not one of them.
Posted by Glenn | Posted at 03/01/2008 11:13 PMGlenn! Thanks so much for your comments. I so appreciate you engaging my arguments. A couple thoughts I want to stay in dialogue about:
1. Though I understand the backdrop of Gnostic spirituality that the early church writers (including Jude) seem to be dealing with, I don’t think that shuts down the conversation in terms of why Jude talks about Sodom and Gomorrah in a context where he is also talking about slandering celestial beings. Why does he talk about Sodom right between two other sentences that are about angels (and even explicitly link the statements as though they make sense together? What kind of conversation is he inhabiting (that we are trying to eavesdrop on) that talking about slandering celestial beings and despising authorities seems to fit with condemning Sodom? I definitely understand the link to Genesis 6 feels like a jump (and it is from our point in time) and I am very open to other thoughts, but I still am not sure that just understanding Jude in a Gnostic context solves it all. Would you mind sharing more on that? 2. As far as the word “abomination,” I think you are making the argument that it is used primarily for sexual sin when it is not used to describe certain foods? I am curious to know more about that, because I haven’t seen it reserved for sexual sin in my reading of the OT (but also used for idolatry, lying, and “mixing of kind” issues.) However, I am open to being convinced; and in that case, you are right that it would significantly critic my handling of Ezekiel. I still think though it is quite interesting that Ezekiel highlights neglecting the poor first, regardless of how we debate the meaning of the abominable acts (though I also don’t want to dismiss that discussion). 3. Also, I think we do need to place our reading of the OT within Jewish thought/scholarship, and from my reading, I believe that violating hospitality was an important way to understand Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not the only way, but I am struck by the Jewish tradition weighted in the direction of reading “Genesis 19 as a story about the abuse by the powerful of the poor and outsiders” (Carden). I am not a Jewish scholar, so I would be interested to hear from those why might have studied more how Midrash tradition deals with Genesis 19? 4. Finally, regarding using Genesis 19 as a text about sexual violence: even if you do think the text is comparable to modern day ideas about homosexuality, certainly the sexual act in Genesis 19 is still sexual violence? I am still somewhat confused as to why Genesis 19 is not an appropriate text for preaching against rape (even if someone disagrees with all my other points.) Especially when seen next to the parallel Judges 19 story? (And since similar stories in Jewish narrative often come in twos and threes, I don’t think it is a jump to put these very similar stories in the same discussion.) At the end of the day, if someone can deconstruct everything else I have said, I don't see how this text is not about gang-rape (whether homosexual or heterosexual.) As you said, the Biblical text gives us places to go to to talk about rape, but there is a startling absence of this in Christian tradition.
Glenn, again, I am truly grateful for your critics of my exegesis and your willingness to stay in the arguments I have raised in the article. I offer these 4 thoughts to continue the conversation and sort it out with you and others. I just think there are still many things our traditional, Christian exegesis is not accounting for.
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 03/02/2008 2:44 AMVery interesting exegesis. Well done.
I don't think it makes sense for verse 7 in Jude to be about homosexuality, when all the verses around it are referring to angels in one way or another, and especially after the verse 6 reference to the Genesis 6 "sons of God." Plus I think Kimberly's point about "went after other flesh" (=unnatural lust) is an important one. If the point was about homosexuality, it would be about going after the same (greek, "homo") flesh. I think the categories of rape and "mixing of kinds" lend themselves to a good reading of the passage that is faithful to the text.
As for the issue of "abomination," there are 112 verses in the Hebrew Bible that use this word, and it is used pretty diversely, from sexual sins to eating the wrong kinds of food (Deut 14:3f), coveting silver and gold (Deut 7:25), sacrificing children to foreign gods (Deut 12:31), sacrificing animals with blemishes (Deut 17:1), etc. And the God of Israel wasn't the only one who seems to label things as abominations - the Egyptians in Genesis saw all shepherds as abominations. It is clearly an important word, but it also clearly can't be narrowed to sexual sins.
As such, whether or not the word is applied to rape explicitly in the Bible matters little. I think that rape and sexual violence generally speaking is an abomination, I think that is a position that is faithful to the biblical witness, and I think that is a position that the Church today should take a strong stance on. Even the most optimistic statistics I have heard when it comes to rape, sexual abuse, harassment, molestation, and assault are absolutely horrifying. We MUST take a very strong stance on this. I don't really care whether its heterosexual, homosexual or something else entirely. Sexual violence is completely unacceptable, and it's something that we in the Church should be talking about more often and declaring openly and unreservedly that it is an abomination and that it should not be tolerated.
Thank you so much Kimberly for your beautiful exegesis of this passage to facilitate this important conversation. My prayer is that it would not stop here, but continue into each of our local congregations and throughout the world. If we won't stand up against sexual violence, how can we expect to ever stand for good and against other, (arguably) more elusive forms of evil in this difficult and often confusing age?
Posted by Cabe | Posted at 03/02/2008 2:47 PMOk, so if we are going to take you exegesis as accurate, then what are we to do with homosexuality today? It seems to me that in the world today, the GLBT community is keen on spinning what they do as done in a loving relationship and therefore it is acceptable. Which means we must then group almost all GLBT sexual experience, excpet when it is done in a committed relationship (marriage) the same way that we would treat sex between a man and a woman who are not married.
If this is the case, then do we allow everyone to get married and continue to look down upon divorce and sexual promiscuity?
I think you have proven that we do a poor job in identifying power issues in society, especially when they come to sex.
I wish I knew the answers to these questions, but any insights about how to frame this in perspective with everything else going on in the world today would be appreicated.
Posted by Matt | Posted at 03/05/2008 9:25 AMKimberly, while I do not agree with your interpretation of Genesis 19 and the Jude passage, I do believe that the Sodom and Gomorrah region had other issues beside homosexuality. I would also think that homosexuality wasn't the only sexually immoral thing going on. When christians teach about God's destruction of these cities, they should be mentioning the other sins.
In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, I believe that we can learn exactly what Jude was talking about when he uses them as an illustration. God cares about how we treat one another, how we care for the needy, how we live our lives, and (yes) how we live sexually. He is also concerned whether or not we listen to Him. They rebelled and opened doors to ways that were against God's ways. Sodom and Gomorrah must have been so out of control. Then God made a judgment against them. Perhaps it is not the most seeker-sensitive story and not always the one that we want to hear. While God is full of love and mercy, He is also a judge. If we -- who know better -- open doors to sin and don't turn away from them, it is a frightening thought to consider where those doors will lead.
Posted by Holly | Posted at 03/05/2008 5:44 PMHey Matt: A couple thoughts come to mind as I read over the points you raised today. For one, I think there are other texts in Scripture that are more helpful to look at regarding homosexuality than Genesis 19. Since I think Sodom and Gomorrah is about gang rape, I don't find it helpful in talking about homosexual relationships. Personally, I think the most thorough text we have to grapple with on homosexuality is Romans 1. Recently I have been listening to both Tony and Peggy Campolo talk about that text: they actually largely disagree on how to interpret it, which makes for a pretty interesting presentation they deliver. If you are interested in hearing it, feel free to email me. I appreciate how they both hold to their different convictions.
Just for the record, if I haven't said it clearly enough on this comment thread, I do believe what we do with our sexuality is a big deal. All of our lives are under the Lordship of Christ: our sexuality, our economics, our need to care for the orphan and widow, our stewardship of the earth. I wouldn't ever want to throw out seeking obedience in our sexuality. I think Holly has communicated this well, because I sense in her words a desire to recognize that sexuality is still one of many important things to talk about, and we can't just throw it out because it is so political.
What I do find so interesting about this comment thread is that we have largely stayed on the topic of homosexuality (which I think might have been needed), but of course what I was hoping to get us talking about was how to engage sexual violence or even the pride of the Sodomites who did not care for the poor (as Ezekiel highlights). Homosexuality is an important conversation, too, but I also have to wonder why it has consumed the majority of our comments? Perhaps this is showing us something?
Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 03/05/2008 6:37 PMI have heard it argued based on Gen 14 that the sin of Sodom was actually more about slavery. I think as evangelicals, its easy to rip on homosexuality and assume our bias into the text. Posted by mike | Posted at 03/07/2008 2:26 PM
Ok, I think that your first half of the article along with your second to last paragraph are the parts that needed to be focused on more. You made a good point about abuse of power, distance from God('s values), mob mentality and the like, but the second half seemed to dismiss what we ought to do with homosexuality and I think that is why I felt the need to stay on that particular topic.
I was just thinking I was looking forward to the next time Genesis 19 comes up in the lectionary...but I found out that it actually doesn't. Interesting.
I think it is hard to engage sexual violence (much more than pride) because sexual violence seems to need something just as powerful to stop it. Obviously in Gen 19, God is that force, but we as singular persons feel small and weak against something so violent, both physically and mentally. We are called to sacrifice for God, but somehow, this seems to be one of the hardest things to be able to do, which is perhaps why it is so desperately needed.
Posted by Matt | Posted at 03/07/2008 2:52 PMI liked the article overall. I've read some commentaries about the Sodom and Gommorrah story that might offer some explanation to the idea of humans having sex with an angel, or for that matter, even trying to rape one (as in Genesis). The connection to angels (or gods/goddesse) might derive from the ancient practices of temple prostitution. Jews who were in the land of Palestine and in the Babylonian captivity (some think around 6th Centry BCE when the Genesis stories were compiled while Jews were in the Babylonian captivity) would have easily witnessed the common practice of temple prostitution. The temple prostitutes of various pagan religions commonly performed heterosexual or homosexual sex rituals and received payment for them. The prostitute was thought to be the channel or avatar of the god/dess of the area and brought down rain, produced good crops, and brought on good luck to participants who engaged in these practices. To Jews of the time, it would have been a tempting past time. The notion of sexually mixing with celestial beings (or their avatars in the temple) would have been going too far for Jews who were trying to maintain their religious and collective identities while either being occupied or in captivity. The Sodom story might have been a signal, or code to Jews which said, "stay away from temple prostitutes!"--Don't mix the human with the heavenly this way...it will only bring disaster...look at Sodom and Gommorah!" No one had any idea of what a sexual orientation was way back then and only thought of sexuality in terms of practices. If we can view the "unnatural acts" in the Sodom story as pertaining possibly to temple prostitution, we might find some sort of solution to untangling this story and all the hateful invectives against homosexual that have formed around it over the millenia. Posted by Ron | Posted at 03/16/2008 6:35 PM
interesting...
I like your thoughts about sexual violence pertaining to these passages, even if I don't necessarily agree with your thoughts about homosexuality. I think we could also take away some principles of self-sacrifice (which Lot, who offered the men his daughters, could have learned a bit more about to be sure).
Overall, very thought-provoking. thanks.
Posted by Eric | Posted at 04/02/2008 11:59 AMMaybe I'm stating the obvious, but perhaps one reason that you've never heard this text as a springboard for a sermon on rape/sexual violence is because there are no major lobying groups / campus societies that exist promoting the acceptance of rape as normative and healthy? Maybe because rapists aren't paraded throughout the streets and celebrated by local politicians? Maybe because "Will & Grace" isn't about rapists? Posted by Tyler | Posted at 04/24/2008 7:30 AM
Tyler: Yes, I think your point actually makes a lot of sense. As a culture, there is just so much attention going towards the questions and concerns about homosexuality, that it is just not really in our gaze to see the issues around sexual violence. We don't see sexual violence in this passage because we don't have the eyes to see it in our world, either. For the most part, Christian churches are much more concerned with opposing homosexuality, than talking about other important issues in our culture like rape. And while "rapists are not paraded through the streets," I also don't hear much engagement from the church opposing the widespread problem of sexual violence. I don't hear Christians lobbying for tougher laws, or many churches trying to reach out to victims or perpetrators. The silence is a problem. Overall, the U.S. outranks all other countries in its incidence of sexual assault, and I kind of have to wonder why the church has so little to say. At least homosexuality (which I am not condoning here) is a choice between two consenting adults. Don't you think it odd that we spend so much more time trying to counter homosexuality, when almost a million human beings are trafficked every year into a life of sexual slavery and violence? We are more concerned about the sexual relationships between consenting adults than we are concerned about the 11 year old girl getting raped 10 times a day, because she was trafficked and sold into prostitution. Am I the only one that thinks God at some point might want us to shift our priorities? My point is not that homosexuality is not an important issue. But, when we look back on the church in a hundred years, what will be our sins of omission? What do we fail to see because we are failing to engage? Posted by Kimberly George | Posted at 04/24/2008 12:21 PM