Part 3
Sodom and Gomorrah are known for two things: homosexuality and destruction. Many Christians today directly relate the two in their minds; they believe that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their society accepted homosexuality. Indeed, references to Sodom and Gomorrah are frequent in the Christian debate over gay marriage. The argument goes that if God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for practicing homosexuality, certainly he is not pleased with the Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage, and is horrified that some Christians are openly embracing homosexuality in their churches.
So the question we must ask ourselves is this: does the Bible really say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for accepting homosexuality? While Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently used in the Bible as a symbol of God's wrath against wickedness in general, only two books provide us with an explanation for why God destroyed them: Ezekiel and Jude. For this article, we will analyze the story of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction found in Genesis, and then see how both Ezekiel and Jude understood God's reasoning for destroying them.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah can be found in Genesis 18.16-19.29. For those who do not wish to read the entire text, I will paraphrase it below in two parts:
God and two angels meet with Abraham at his tent to tell him that he and his wife will have a son, despite their old age. Shortly after, the two angels leave for Sodom, and God explains to Abraham where they are going: "How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin! I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know" (18.20-21). Abraham, presumably knowing that God may smite Sodom (which is where his nephew, Lot, happened to be living), pleads with God to not destroy the city if there are at least 50 righteous men living there. God agrees that he won't destroy Sodom if at least 50 righteous men are living there. Abraham tests God's mercy, and asks if he would destroy it if at least 45 righteous men are living there. God again says he won't destroy Sodom if at least 45 righteous men are living there. This bargaining continues, until finally Abraham gets down to 10 righteous people, and God agrees that he will not destroy the city if there are but 10 righteous people living there.We see that God has heard a great "outcry" against Sodom and Gomorrah for some very serious sin(s), to the point that he feels he needs to send angels to investigate if the cities are worthy of a good smiting. However, so far it does not specify what has caused such an outcry. So let's keep on reading:
The angels arrive at Sodom, and they see Lot near the city gate. Lot sees them, bows, and pleads with them to stay in his home for the night rather than sleep in the town square, and then to leave the city early in the morning. The angels agree, and go to Lot's home and eat dinner. Before they could go to bed, every single man of Sodom (both young and old) gather around Lot's house, and demand that Lot hand over the two angels so that they could "know" them (this is a Hebrew euphemism for having sex, and in this context, rape). Lot tries to dissuade the men of Sodom from wanting to rape his guests by offering them his two virgin daughters to rape in their stead. But the men of Sodom refuse, and threaten to do even worse things to Lot for thinking he could judge their actions. Before they can do anything to Lot, the angels grab him and strike the men of Sodom with blindness. The angels then escort Lot and his family out of Sodom, warning them not to look back. God then has fire and sulfur rain down from the sky, destroying Sodom and Gomorrah as Lot and his family travel away from the city. Lot's wife looks back at the burning city despite the angels' warning, and as a result she "became a pillar of salt" (19.26).[1]More than just learning that Lot probably didn't win any father-of-the-year awards, we see that there was much more going on in Sodom than mere homosexuality. The angels were sent to test Sodom's wickedness, and the people of Sodom didn't pass. The angels intended to sleep in the town square, but Lot, knowing how the townspeople treated foreigners, begged them to stay with him instead, and leave before they could be harassed. But it was too late; the men of the city had spotted the angels, and organized themselves into a horny mob to sexually assault them.
What immediately should be clear to us is that it's not as if the Genesis text implies that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah simply because they practiced homosexuality. Other than obviously being okay with homosexual intercourse, Sodom is depicted as being hostile to strangers and okay with city-wide gang rape.
[[So Sodom and Gomorrah did many things that angered God to the point he wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth, but can't we count their homosexuality among those things?]]
This is a difficult question to answer, since the Genesis text never identifies specific sins which ultimately led to Sodom and Gomorrah's demise. So let's turn to the books of the Bible that do tell us why God destroyed them.[2]
The book of Ezekiel is a series of prophecies written in the 6th century BCE to rebuke Jerusalem's wicked ways. In chapter 16 Ezekiel is very clear on why God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. He first compares Jerusalem's wickedness to her "sister" Sodom, and actually accuses Jerusalem of being WORSE than Sodom (16.47)! Ezekiel then explains exactly why Sodom was destroyed from God's perspective:
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[3] before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. (16.49-50)According to Ezekiel, Sodom's crime was having plenty of resources, but refusing to use them to help those in need—specifically, travelers. Traveling was common in the ancient Middle East, but it was also dangerous. Cities such as Sodom and Gomorrah ideally served as safe havens for travelers, since cities had gates as well as watchmen to ward off bandits and wild animals. But rather than aiding travelers, Sodom instead used its power to take advantage of the travelers' vulnerable position, which would have been a huge taboo to ancient audiences. For Ezekiel, Sodom's destruction was about the city's extreme inhospitality, NOT homosexuality.
It is also worth noting that Jesus seemed to hold similar views as Ezekiel. In both Matthew and Luke, we see Jesus sending out his followers to preach the gospel in foreign towns. His followers, then, were relying on the hospitality of the towns to aid them with food and shelter (like Lot tried to do). For those towns that did not welcome them, Jesus is quite clear that they will suffer a fate worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus paralleled Sodom and Gomorrah to cities showing inhospitality towards travelers in need, NOT cities accepting homosexuality.
[[Okay, so it appears that Ezekiel and Jesus saw Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction as a result of hostility towards strangers in need, not homosexuality. So why do people think that Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for sexual reasons?]]
We find our answer in the book of Jude.
Jude's epistle was written in the early years of Christianity, probably sometime between 50 CE and 100 CE (much later than Ezekiel). Jude was writing to warn Christians about false teachers, and here he compares the fate of such wicked teachers to a few groups, including the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah:
Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, that the Lord, who once for all saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (1.5-7; emphasis is my own)Jude is saying that despite the fact that false teachers claim to be Christians, they will be punished by God, just as the following groups were:
1. The Israelites, who despite being rescued from Egypt by God worshiped idols.
2. The fallen angels, who despite being made to serve God disobeyed him.
3. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, who despite being prosperous (presumably by God's allowance) still practiced wicked acts of sexual immorality displeasing to God.At last we see Sodom and Gomorrah's sexual practices being attributed for their destruction! They "indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust." While "sexual immorality" is vague and could very well be referring to gang rape, not homosexual intercourse, the bit about "pursued unnatural lust" would at a first glance appear to be about homosexuality. Many people in Jude's day (such as Paul, which we will talk about in Part 6) as well as people today believe that attraction to the same sex is unnatural, so can't we conclude that this is referring to homosexuality? Not exactly.
At a closer look, we notice that Jude is saying that Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality and unnatural lust "in the same manner as they" (italicized in the passage above). The "they" here is referring to the angels mentioned in the previous sentence. This probably seems odd to most Christians: where in the Bible does it say that angels engaged in homosexual intercourse? It doesn't.
The angels Jude is referring to can be found briefly mentioned in Genesis 6, where it says that angels "took human wives for themselves" (6.2). But why would Jude include such an obscure reference in his epistle? For Jude and his contemporaries, it wasn't obscure. A popular book of scripture in Jude's day was the book of Enoch, a book that did not make it into most Christian Bibles (although it is in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church's Bible). In Part 1 of this blog series, we discussed how many different Christian communities have different canons (a canon being a compilation of writings that are considered legitimate scripture). The book of Enoch seems to be part of Jude's canon. In fact, he later directly quotes the book of Enoch as prophecy in his epistle. It's safe to say that Jude and his early readers were familiar with the book of Enoch's content.
In the book of Enoch, we see angels coming down from heaven to have sex with humans, resulting in wicked monsters called the Nephilim. This makes Jude's comparison of "unnatural lust" between the fallen angels and Sodom and Gomorrah much clearer: he is talking about sexual acts between angels and humans, not men and men. For Jude, then, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for their lust in regard to angel-human sex, NOT homosexuality.[4]
Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently thought to have been destroyed by God for their homosexuality, but nowhere in the Bible does it say this.[5] Sodom and Gomorrah often serve as symbols of God's wrath towards great wickedness throughout the Bible, but only two books offer an explanation for why God destroyed them: Ezekiel and Jude. Ezekiel tells us their sin was showing hostility rather than hospitality to those in need, and Jude tells us their sin was sexual perversion towards angels. While they offer two different explanations, neither one mentions homosexuality.
It may be unclear how God felt about their homosexual practices, but saying that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their homosexuality simply isn't biblical.
Notes
[1] It was pointed out in my comments that the Genesis text describes the angels as both "angels" and "men." In other words, the angels appeared to be men, and thus the men of Sodom were lusting after other men in their minds, not angels, as we will see Jude claim later. However, the fact that Genesis describes the angels specifically as men at times is not unique to the angels visiting Sodom and Gomorrah; heavenly beings are often described as humans in the Old Testament, including God himself (see Gen. 3.8-9, Gen. 32.22-32, or paraphrase of Gen. 18 above).
[2] This isn't to say that homosexuality was not considered sinful or taboo. Homosexuality would certainly have been seen as sinful to the ancient Israelites. As we will see in Part 4, homosexual intercourse among men was called an "abomination" in the laws of the Torah. However, we never see the Bible name homosexuality as the specific sin or a significant factor that caused Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction.
[3] "Abominable things" here is the Hebrew word tow'ebah, which we will look at more closely in Part 4. Tow'ebah means a disgusting or offensive thing to a person, group of people, or culture. It is a general term, and it is not clear exactly what Ezekiel means when he refers to it. It's possible that it is referring to homosexual intercourse, or it could be referring to not helping the poor and needy, which Ezekiel specifically names in the previous sentence. Regardless, the specific sin that Ezekiel draws attention to when explaining God's wrath on Sodom was its inhospitality, not homosexuality.
[4] This may seem odd to readers that Jude would have connected Sodom and Gomorrah to angelic/human sexuality. In the first century CE when Jude was writing, books such as Enoch were popular, and angel/human sexual interactions were seen as a very real cause of sin in the world. We even see Paul teach in 1 Cor. 11.2-16 that women should be veiled (either with a literal veil or her hair to cover her body) "because of the angels." It seems that Paul viewed female modesty as a way to prevent angelic lusts after humans—lusts that would result in similar situations that we find in Gen. 6.2 and Enoch.
[5] I had originally written the following: "Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently thought to have been destroyed by God for their homosexuality, but this is a more modern idea than an ancient one, and doesn't seem to be held by the writers of the Bible." This is partially wrong. The Bible never identifies homosexuality as a cause of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, but the idea that it was a cause is indeed found in earlier sources than I realized. The earliest I am aware of now is Philo of Alexandria, a Jew writing in the 1st century CE, who indicates that God destroyed Sodom not only because he detested its sexual acts, but also out of fear that the practice would grow, and humans would cease to reproduce (he believed that homosexuality caused a "disease of females" in men that would quickly spread). This is very indicative of the superstitions that were associated with homosexuality in the 1st century, which we will see more of in Part 6. While homosexuality is identified as the sin that caused Sodom's destruction in the 1st century, it's unclear when or where that idea originated. It is still clear that we still don't see it in the Bible.
I appreciate the break down of the Hebrew word translated as abomination and the way you bring that word into the fuller context of the Torah.
ReplyDeleteThanks Lisa! But I think you commented on the wrong article ;)
DeleteI will enter my paragraphs separately so you may respond to them individually:
ReplyDelete1) In your paraphrase you keep saying “angels” while the text has the men of Sodom calling these two “men.” Lot also refers to them as “men”. The narrator also calls them “men” in verse 10 and 16. From chap 18 to the end of the story they are called “men” seven times. They are called “angels” only twice. The narrative portrays them as appearing as men. Your paraphrase calls them “angles” five times by my count and never calls them men. I think you are setting up your reader whom you believe would not check the Hebrew to accept your conclusion by not reflecting the Hebrew usage here. Isn’t this being somewhat dishonest?
Good point! Every green word or phrase is a link to biblical passages that I am referring to. If someone were to simply click on them and read the links I posted, they would have read the translated story of Sodom and Gomorrah which does say "men" along with "angels." Fact checking was not a fear of mine when writing this post. Divine beings such as angels and even God are described as men in Genesis; I'm well aware. I was referring to them as angels for clarity, not dishonesty. The implication of your point is well taken. To the men of Sodom, these angels looked like men, so in their minds it would be homosexual lusts, not lust after angels. But that doesn't take away from the fact that Genesis calls them angels, too, and they are more than men (for example, they had the power to blind all the men of Sodom). And to Ezekiel and Jude (in my opinion), homosexuality wasn't a primary factor in Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction. Word choice is a difficult thing when writing blogs. In an academic paper, I can carefully cite at length my reasons for choosing my terms, but I don't want my readers here to be lost in the details (especially details they could see themselves by the link I provided them if they weren't interested in my paraphrase). I did acknowledge that Genesis depicts the Sodomites as being okay with homosexual intercourse, so I don't think your critique here contradicts my points in the article. So yes, my word choice was part of my rhetoric. I was drawing attention to them being angels so that parallels could be easily drawn to Jude's passage later. But I don't think this reflected dishonesty, only communication.
DeleteSo you are saying that a person must give up some precision for the sake of clarity when communicating to an audience at the popular level. One must take into account the blog medium, the attention span and vocabulary of one’s recipients into the communication process which limits the content and how it is communicated. Also, if readers wished, they could go straight to the actual source to read it for themselves. For the sake of communicating a particular truth, you chose words that would bring people to the real point, not bog them down with peripheral, technical issues. And that for someone to point out the technical issues should not be considered as misrepresenting the facts or intending to deceive. Is this correct?
DeletePretty much, though I wouldn't say I am bringing them to the "real point," as if I was a giver of ultimate truth, only the point I am making later. And I think you meant to include a "not" in that last sentence. That being said, it's important for people such as yourself to go into technical details, as they can at times be very relevant. I just don't see your points with such details as being relevant to my overall argument of this article. We still don't see biblical evidence that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed specifically for their homosexuality.
Delete2) I think you are right on in your treatment of the Ezekiel passage. Gang rape is really terrible hospitality. Ezekiel could have been clearer in what “abomination” meant in regards to Sodom and I think he purposely left it ambiguous to cover the multitude of sins that Sodom was guilty of. This speaks to me that the prophets did not wish to hold up just homosexuality as an extra horrible sin. As you point out, the Law covered several abominations of which a “male laying down with a male as one would with a female” was one of several.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the term Ezekiel uses is tow'ebah, just like Leviticus 18.22. But it's a general term. I agree that Ezekiel is using it vaguely to refer to many sins. Homosexuality could have been among them, but it's unclear. The sin Ezekiel was clear on was inhospitality. You could be right that Ezekiel sees homosexuality as a cause for Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction, but he certainly didn't say or imply that (nor do any of the prophets writing around him, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, who reference Sodom and Gomorrah but use them as a symbol for God's wrath against great sin in general, never referencing homosexuality). We need to be careful not to insert our own views into the past, and assume that because people connect Sodom's destruction with homosexuality today (or even in Jude's day, as you argue later), it means that's how the authors of Genesis and the earliest readers understood it.
DeleteOne point in the story that has not been mentioned is the reason for the angelic visit. A cry has gone up to God and he wishes to investigate the greatness of this sin. This suggests that "great" sins are practiced at Sodom and the surrounding area. The story illustrates what kind of great sins are going on. The great sin is not sex with angles. It apparently is group homosexual sex, especially of the weak and vulnerable such as travelers. What Sodom was doing was their normal practice, not just a onetime unsuccessful attempt with alien beings "angels" that sure looked like the real thing.
DeleteI agree, I doubt the original editor/author(s) of Genesis intended to say that attempted sex with angels was the cause of God's wrath. But centuries later, it seems that Jude interpreted it this way. The Genesis text is unclear what caused an outcry. Is the outcry from angels who are observing the sins on earth (like Satan does in Job)? Is the outcry from people being abused? If it's from people, it seems like the rape factor and inhospitality were key to an outcry. Perhaps for Jude the attempted rape on angels was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Jude's epistle is incredibly short, as is his reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. It's difficult to understand his full view on things. But given that he connects Sodom and Gomorrah's sins to the watchers (angels who left their position to have sex with humans) found in Enoch and Gen. 6.2, it seems like Jude saw the attempted angelic'human sexual offense as a cause to their destruction (although as I said, perhaps not the sole cause).
DeletePersonally, how I imagine the ancient Israelite audience responding to Sodom and Gomorrah is shock of city-wide male rape and inhospitality to travelers (inhospitality has extreme consequences in multiple ancient cultures). I think the homosexuality preference (indeed, they reject Lot's virgin daughters) was just the cherry on top of these other acts.
3) The Jude passage: The Anchor Bible has produced two volumes on Jude, one by B Reichke in 1964 and the other by Jerome Neyrey in 1993. Reicke is probably closer to your interpretation that Neyrey. They both agree that Jude is using the angles who left their assigned places and S and G people as examples of what will happen to church members who apostatize. Reiche says “Fornication may here, as often in the New Testament, refer to idolatry, while “flesh” (as in I Pet. I 24) denotes human society and its violent attempts at self-exaltation. “ (Reicke 1964, 199). While he does not see what you see, he does not see Jude as speaking of homosexual activity by the words, “strange” (alien – unnatural) sarkos (flesh).
ReplyDeleteI tend to favor Neyrey who sees the Jewish purity map (Malina, 2001) as guiding us in Jude’s thinking. He says purity is “a general label for things that are “in place” according to the group’s classification system; conversely, “pollution” refers to what is “out of place.”” The angels are charged with “not keeping” the assigned place and challenging God’s honor and authority. He continues, “Likewise Sodom and Gomorrah violate the biblical purity code by going after “other flesh”, and so become polluted. Kashrut laws, which prohibit the mixing of things (Deut 22: 9-11), emphatically insist on the separation of the sexes; men may not dress like women and vice versa (22:5). Yet in terms of sexual commerce, men may not have intercourse either with animals or men (Lev. 18:22; 20:13), but only with women. Hence, Sodom and Gomorrah cause pollution by crossing the lines of acceptable sexual partners. Paul reflects the same pollution code in Rom 1:26-37, where he labels this pollution as “shameful” (atimia).” (60-91)
Words can mean different things in different instances, as was demonstrated by the term tow’ebah in Part 4. From what I can tell, I’m not a big fan of Reichke either. Not every word is a technical term, nor is loaded with additional theological meaning. I am arguing that Jude is using “sexual immorality” (as part of the verb ekporneuó in Greek) in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah due to their specific offense of pursuing angelic flesh (male angelic flesh, if you like). I can even get down with Neyrey’s idea about Jude accepting Jewish purity and pollution. I’m NOT saying in this article that Jude didn’t consider homosexuality to fit under “sexual immorality” in general. He very likely did. I AM saying that how he is using the term in regards to Sodom and Gomorrah was about angel/human sexual sin, not human male/human male. My point was to argue that Jude didn’t see human homosexuality as the cause of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction (the “human” part was implied).
Delete4) Furthermore, there is evidence that during pre and early medieval periods there was a connection of Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexual activity. Chrysostom (Homily 4 on Romans), Augustine (Book III, chapt 8, no 15) and St. Gregory the Great (540 – 604) (Morales sur Job, Part III, vol. 1, book 14, no 23) all clearly connect this act with homosexuality and neither group rape or lack of hospitality.
ReplyDeleteMost notably is the Prophet (blessed by he?) who makes a connection. The story of Lot (Lut) is a rather prominent story in the Qur'an. From my own copy of the Qur'an (The Heights, 7:82) or page 115 in my copy the Prophet quotes Lot: “
And Lot who said to his people, ‘Will you persist in these indecent acts which no other nation has committed before you? You lust after men instead of women. Truly you are a degenerate people. . . . We delivered him (Lot) and all his kinfolk except his wife who stayed behind and let loose a shower upon them. Consider the fate of the evil doers.”
Apparently you are in the dangerous position of contradicting the Prophet. Good thing you don’t live in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or ISSI controlled areas. This may by ISSI’s justification for tossing gays off buildings.
Your contention that “this is more a modern idea than an ancient one” is just plain wrong.
I will start by conceding I ought to have used better wording. I'm clearly not yet a master at writing conversationally without sacrificing preciseness at times. Good thing I'm getting all this practice! What I meant by “this is a more modern idea than an ancient one” was that this idea wasn’t there around the time of the authors of the Bible, but is rather a product of later times. Indeed, the earliest source you cited was from the late 4th century CE, around 300 years after Jude wrote, about 700 years after Ezekiel wrote, and God only knows how many centuries after the original author of Sodom and Gomorrah wrote.
DeleteI'm not sure where you got the impression I was a Muslim from. I'm not. The Qur'an was written in the 7th century CE, about 600 years after Jude.
I did not mean to imply you were a Muslim. My point was that you are contradicting a major religious figure and that you would not be free to express your views in those environments.
DeleteIt may be that Ezekiel (under inspiration in my view) purposely broadened the sins of S and G because people were doing to homosexuals what some are doing today- demonizing them by making this sin out to being worse than any other. This may indicate that the story at the popular level was generating much hate for this class of people. It evidently influenced some major church fathers and Mohammed. Ezekiel's goal was then to include the much more acceptable sin of lack of hospitality which would then cause more people to look inward than pick up stones to kill the evildoers.
I certainly understand the challenge at writing at the popular level and then have some smarty (like me) pick at the nuances. I apologize for a tone that gave you the impression I thought you were a Muslim.
5) Concerning your theory that Jude refers to the men of Sodom lusting after angels: As the narrative keeps referring to the angels as men because they appeared as men to Abraham, Lot and the men of Sodom, your theory that the men were guilty of consorting with angels is very weak and unpersuasive. Don’t worry, I also have come up with theories that could not be supported very well.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any of the previous points you made really did much to argue against my article (although good catches on word choice). Sure, Genesis did call the angels men sometimes. And as I pointed out in my article, the Genesis text does show that Sodom was okay with homosexual intercourse. But nowhere does it say in Genesis that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed specifically for homosexuality. When explaining his views on what caused Sodom's destruction, Ezekiel tells us it was inhospitality. In contrast, Jude tells us it was sexual offenses regarding angels. I am not saying that the Genesis authors interpreted Sodom's offense as angelic/human sexual sin. They probably didn't. But Jude did. It sounds like your beef is with Jude's view, and you interpreted that to be my view. I have come up with some pretty bad arguments too, it's part of the learning process. But I don't think this article is one of them.
DeleteDo you know of any other scholar who accepts your interpretation that Jude says the sin of S and G was not that they were having homosexual sex but tried to have (never succeeded) in sex with things they thought were men? Why would God destroy the surrounding area for this one failed attempt by the Sodomites? Isn't this view unique to you? How can you say that this is what Jude said when I've never seen any other scholar say that? I have not studied Jude very much so please let me know of the scholarly support you have for this. As you say, this is how we learn.
DeleteI used Andrew S. Jacobs's commentary in _The Jewish Annotated New Testament_ (Oxford University Press, 2011). In his introduction to Jude, Jacobs writes:
Delete"The letter draws heavily on popular, late Second Temple Jewish cosmic narrative (e.g., 1 Enoch) to shape its understanding of the moral order of the universe. The Torah was elaborated in this period by creative narratives filling in the words and deeds of the patriarchs and great leaders of the Israelites... The author refers to, for instance, to a story of the angel Michael and the devil battling over Moses' corpse. Particularly the focus on angels as historical moral agents (vv. 6,8-9) ties this letter to patterns of thought common among first-century Jews. The vast collection of stories known as 1 Enoch, cited directly in v. 14, created an elaborate angelology and promoted apocalyptic expectations. This book interpreted the "sons of God" in Gen. 6.2 as fallen angels whose interactions with humanity initiated a division between godly and godless humans, which would last until the end of the world. The author of Jude couples this Jewish apocalyptic worldview with more stabilizing "predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (v.17), thereby linking it to Christian tradition. Nonetheless, the prophetic language and angelic outlook of this letter attach it closely, almost intimately, to the Jesus movement's Jewish roots."
In his commentary on verses 7, Jacobs writes:
"Gen. 19.4-11 , ties disobedience to licentiousness and fiery punishment. Although this has passage has traditionally been taken as a condemnation of homosexuality, it may in fact be a further denunciation of unhealthy spiritual practices; 'unnatural lust,' GK 'sarkos heteras,' 'other flesh,' referring to those who had, or wish to have, intercourse with angels."
In a point above I mention that Ezekiel may have purposely disassociated homosexuality with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah because people were demonizing gays unjustly. This is actually evidence of popular association during Ezekiel's time. If I found one scholar who said, "It may in fact be evidence that Ezekiel here was battling the popular association between homosexuality and Sodom and Gomorrah . . ." Would you believe it?
ReplyDeleteI'm open to the possibility if you can find (and cite) evidence. You like throwing out names of scholars, and that isn't bad, I rely on them too, and I would not make it far in grad school if I didn't cite them! But here I am interested in discussing points; it would take a good argument to persuade me, not merely a stated opinion of a scholar. Indeed, I have read some horrible "scholarly" works written by PhDs. Right now, I can admit that I am not 100% certain of my stance, but think it is the best one given the evidence (and lack of evidence).
DeleteI may be thick in the head (which is likely) but could you give me a paraphrase of the paragraph from Jude. I'm not looking for super fidelity to the Greek, just an idea of what you think Jude is saying. That would help me a lot. If that's just beating a dead horse and too much trouble, i understand.
DeleteOops, missed this one. Jude is a short book, and warning readers about false teachers who would create divisions (or factions) in the Church. False teachers will call themselves followers of Christ, but Jude is saying they aren't really. I think Jude is using three groups to make the point that people who seem to be in a position of intimacy with God may not really be godly, but will actually be punished by God in the end.
DeleteGroup #1: the Israelites. God showed favor towards them as a people and rescued them from Egypt, but destroyed those who did not really believe in him (I think this is a reference to the Golden Calf, but it is admittedly vague, see Exo. 32.25-29).
Group #2: the disobedient Watchers. In Enoch (and Gen. 6), there are angels who come down (leave their proper dwelling) and have sex with human women, producing the Nephilim. The angels are referred to as Watchers (although not all Watchers were disobedient or bad). According to Enoch, the bad Watchers were bound deep inside the earth until Judgement Day. While the angels should be obedient servants of God, they disobey him and were punished by God.
Group #3: people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah were believed to be very prosperous cities, yet were destroyed by God for (according to Jude) attempting to have sex with angels. Prosperity was seen as being permitted by God, and I think Sodom and Gomorrah were included here to show that while they seemed to be blessed by God, they were in the end destroyed by God for their wickedness and disobedience.
I seems unlikely to me that Jude thought that this was Sodom and Gomorrah's only offence to God or only form of wickedness, but it is the one he gives us, unless we can make sense of homosexuality being the same offence as the Watchers, which I am unaware of any source indicating that this was ever believed to be the case. Keep in mind that Jude is a short epistle, and these stories are being used to create a dichotomy between us (Jude's teachings on Christ) versus them (others' teachings on Christ). He is not providing a full analysis of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, it is telling to me that when Jude is giving us the offence of Sodom and Gomorrah in a nutshell, he indicates their sin was angel/human sexual offence, not homosexuality.
I like how you put the notion of being wicked into perspective, with Lot "not winning the father of the year award". The most important element I might retain from this article is the importance of context. Can we truly attempt to pass laws in the United States in the 21st century based on books in which a father is considered more worthy if he prefers having his own girls raped instead of "angels"? The case for separation of Church and State is fairly clear to me.
ReplyDeleteThanks Matthieu! I agree that there should be a separation of Church and State. In my experience, different religious groups argue for various causes and use the same scriptures very differently to argue their specific cause. I think that political policy ought to be argued through a different medium than religious exegesis.
DeleteIn regards to your comment on Lot, I don't think his acts were meant to be admirable in the original story, nor are they often interpreted by Christians as such today (in Genesis, Lot actually ends up impregnating his daughters when they get him drunk and seduce him, which would be just as much a taboo today as it was to the ancient audience). I think God is supposed to be the righteous one of this story, despite the fact he destroys 2 entire cities. That being said, your point is well received that what is considered ethical to the Bible writers often does not line up with our modern ethical standards, and as such should be used with caution when relating their relevancy to our world today.