The Truth about Adam and Eve

The story of Adam and Eve is found in Genesis chapter 2 and following. In my last post, I wrote that I do not believe this story to be a factual account of human origins. Nevertheless, I believe the story of Adam and Eve to be profoundly true. I also said that Adam and Eve represent all of humanity.


In short, the story goes like this: God made a human being (“adam” in Hebrew means “human” or “humankind”) from the dust of the ground and placed him in a paradisiacal garden called Eden. There was only one rule in Eden: Do not eat from “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” God, noting that it was not good for the human being to be alone, made all of the creatures of earth and sky. God brought them to Adam, who gave names to each one. None of them, however, was a fit companion for the human being. So, God caused Adam to sleep, and taking one of his bones, possibly a rib, fashioned a woman from it. Upon awakening, a delighted Adam called her “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” The author inserts a note that “for this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Adam also called his new partner “woman,” and later named her “Eve” (Hebrew for “life-giver”). They lived, for a while, naked and innocent in Eden.

A talking snake entered the scene and, promising Eve that she would not die but rather become “like God,” convinced her to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. She and Adam ate and realized that they were naked. They covered themselves with fig leaves and tried to hide from God. When God, rather anthropomorphically, took a stroll in the garden, he found and confronted the human pair. Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the snake. All three of them were cursed. They were thrown out of Eden, and ever since people have toiled to grow crops, women have given birth in pain, and snakes have crawled on their bellies.

Though this ancient story of Adam and Eve is couched in the male-dominant terms of the patriarchal culture in which it originated, it still has a powerful descriptive function. It tells us what our life as humans is like. We are creatures, made by God, and akin to the earth. We long for companionship. It is not good for us to be alone. We are subject to sexual desire, and to mortality.

We are made to live in right relationship to God, nature and one another but our relationships are broken. We live in a state of alienation. We still wish to be our own gods. We desire dominance over one another. We toil for our existence. We long for an ideal existence that we can imagine but cannot obtain.

These few conclusions do not begin to exhaust the truths about human existence expressed in the story of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are us.

Next: Genesis 2 and marriage.






This post’s image of Adam and Eve was painted by Lucas Cranach the Younger. I found it here. For a scholarly take on Adam’s “rib” bone couched in sophomoric humor, read chapter one of The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book, by John Kaltner, Steven Mckenzie and Joel Kilpatrick, HarperOne, 2008. If you don’t find low humor amusing, skip it. What can I say? I tickled me.

Are You Calling God a Liar?

NO. ARE YOU?

The second chapter of Genesis tells the story of Adam and Eve. Let me be clear from the start. I do not believe that Genesis 2 is a factual account of human origins. You may disagree. Many Christians do. But, please bear with me while I present my evidence.

First, there is the internal evidence. The Book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation. The first is found in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. It includes the beautiful, poetic account of the seven days of creation. The second account begins at Genesis 2:4b and tells the story of Adam and Eve. The two accounts disagree in many details. For example, in the first account, birds are created before human beings (Gen. 1:20-23). In the second account, humans come before birds (Gen. 2:18-20). In the first account, plants are created before humans (Gen. 1:11-12). In the second, humans are made before plants (Gen. 2:4b-9). In the first account, man and woman are created simultaneously (Gen. 1:26 ff.). In the second account, the man is created first, and the woman is made from his rib (Gen. 2:21 ff).

Apologists try to reconcile these two creation stories. As with the story Judas’ death, their attempts only work if one ignores the plain meaning of the text. The very fact that anyone tries to reconcile the two accounts indicates the problem. As I see it, the two accounts were not meant to be reconciled.

Even the names “Adam” and “Eve” suggest that Genesis 2 was not meant to be a factual record of human origins. The Hebrew word “adam” means “humankind.” “Eve” means “life bearer” according to a footnote at Genesis 3:20 in the HarperCollins Study Bible. I take these names to indicate that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Rather, they are symbolic representations of all humanity

Then there is the external evidence. The biblical accounts of creation indicate that the earth would be about 6,000 years old. Some young earth creationists will stretch that to 10,000 years. On the other hand geologists and physicists who examine the physical record tell us that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.

Again, a literal reading of Genesis suggests that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago but the fossil record indicates that modern humans existed in Africa 200,000 years ago.

And again, Genesis tells us that human beings were created in their present state. The best science tells us that human beings evolved from earlier life forms. Although some Christians reject the evidence, evolutionary theory explains physical reality better than the biblical accounts do.

The question of human origins is another case where the General Revelation contradicts the Special Revelation. If science is right in this case, then Genesis 2 is not factual.

At this point, I expect an inerrantist to exclaim, “Wait a minute. The Bible is the word of God. Are you calling God a liar?” To which I reply, “No. Are you?” After all the hand of the Creator is revealed in the creation. If Genesis 2 is a literal, historical account, then God must have falsified the physical record.

More importantly, although I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve to be factual, I absolutely believe that it is true.

I’ll take this up again in my next post.






Two recommended books for those who are interested in reconciling Christian belief with evolutionary science: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins, Free Press, 2006, and Can You Believe in God and Evolution: A Guide for the Perplexed, Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Abingdon Press, 2008. The HarperCollins Study Bible (Wayne A. Meeks, general editor) was published by HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. The painting of Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder was found at www.libart.com.

All Slogans are Lies!

THAT’S MY MOTTO

If it can be printed on a bumper sticker, it is not the whole truth. Bumper sticker slogans may be clever. They may express a bald opinion, but they do not, and cannot, communicate subtle and nuanced thought. They do not reflect the reason, if any, behind the opinion.

The bumper sticker pictured above was distributed free-of-charge by Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. According to its conservative algebra “Marriage equals one man plus one woman.” I frequently hear this norm attributed to the Bible.

I counter with a bit of doggerel verse I memorized long ago.

King David and King Solomon led merry, merry lives
With many, many lady friends and many, many wives
But when old age crept over them with many, many qualms
King Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms.

–James Ball Naylor, 1935.

The simple truth is that the Bible does not define marriage. There is no verse in Scripture that says “Marriage equals one man plus one woman” or something to that effect. In fact, the Bible describes several kinds of marriage and does so without judgment. Certainly the norm of one man and one woman is most common in the Bible, as I believe it has been in every time, place and culture, but polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage are also found in the Bible.

What-irate marriage?

Levirate marriage was the practice of a man marrying his brother’s childless widow in order to raise children for his dead brother. This kept the deceased’s name alive and his inheritance intact. It also provided a measure of security for the widow in a society that treated women as chattel property. The word “levirate” derives from the Latin word “levir" meaning “brother-in-law.” The practice of levirate marriage is described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and features in the stories of Ruth, Tamar (Genesis 38) and Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:38 ff and parallels.

Jacob, who became Israel, and whose children gave their names to the twelve tribes of Israel, was a polygamist. His children were born to his two wives and their two handmaids. See Genesis, chapters 29 and 30.

As for Israel’s two greatest kings, David had multiple wives and concubines, but Solomon takes the prize with “seven hundred wives…and three hundred concubines” who led him into idolatrous worship (1 Kings 11:3ff.). If that seems a bit excessive, it may account for the command, no doubt written after the fact and postdated, found in Deuteronomy 17:17

And he (the king) must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away….

To sum up, the Bible does not mandate that marriage equals one man and one woman. The Scriptures recognize several forms of marriage, including polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage.







Next: a look at Genesis 2

God is Ambidextrous

MARRIAGE AND TWO KINGDOMS DOCTRINE


The Two Kingdoms doctrine is a standard trope in Lutheran theology. Essentially it says that God works in this world through two distinct spheres. The Kingdom of God’s right hand is the Church where the Word is preached and the Sacraments administered. The Kingdom of God’s left hand consists of the civil authorities that exist to promote peace, reward good and punish wrongdoing.

These two kingdoms are distinct, but God is at work in both of them. God has given them both for the benefit of humankind.

Luther’s reforms included a reduction in the number of Sacraments from seven to two. Baptism and Holy Communion, both commanded by the Lord Jesus, were retained. Confirmation, ordination, last rites, confession, and marriage were not considered Sacraments because Jesus did not command them. Effectively this made marriage, for Lutherans, a part of the Kingdom of God’s left hand.

Marriage is regulated by the State, not the Church. This makes sense because the institution of marriage exists also in non-Christian cultures. Marriage benefits society by promoting order, ensuring inheritances and property rights, providing stability for families and so on. Marriage is good. Marriage is God-given. Marriage may be blessed by God’s right hand, but it is given from God’s left hand.

In my last post, I linked to Ted Olson’s article providing a politically conservative rationale for same-sex marriage. I would argue that a political rationale is a theological rationale. The State is free to regulate marriage as it sees fit. Whether the Church chooses to bless a marriage is another question.

Next: some thoughts on marriage in the Bible.




The illustration of Martin and Katie's wedding came from the ELCA website. Please pray for the people of Haiti, and if you are able, give to their relief. Give through any reputable charity of your choice. ELCA Disaster Response is my choice.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Theodore B. Olson presents good social and Constitutional arguments for same-sex marriage in an article in Newsweek. Read it here. It is not, of course, a theological case but gives us all something to think about.

If I agree with almost everything Olson says, does that make me a conservative?

The Argument from Anatomy

OR, NO, REALLY, WHAT WAS PAUL THINKING?

In biblical times, the concept of sexual orientation did not exist. It was thought that sexual nature was determined by anatomy. If you had male parts you were male and you were expected to fulfill a culturally defined male role. Likewise, if you were born with female parts, you were expected to fulfill a culturally defined female sex role. To do otherwise was “unnatural.”

This, I believe, is the notion behind Paul’s references to “natural intercourse” in 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.

This argument from anatomy is also behind the condemnation of homosexual sex in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus is not a moral code, but a holiness code. It divides world into “clean” and “unclean.” Just as dirt is “matter out of place” (In the garden it’s earth. In the kitchen it’s dirt.) so, anything in the wrong place is “unclean.” Since male parts are not supposed to go with male parts, in this thinking, homosexual sex is prohibited.

Today we understand sexual nature to be a more complex matter of “chemistry, brain and hormones.” Still, the argument that anatomy determines sexual nature is sometimes heard. Last summer, David Housholder invoked the argument in a blog post.

Any fifteen- year old can tell you what part goes where (sexually).

That short line is a miniscule sound bite from a lengthy post. I disagree with most of what Housholder says in it, but will not subject you to the tedium of a point-by-point rebuttal. Instead, I will stay focused on my theme.

A creative fifteen year old can probably think of any number of ways that the various parts can be put together (sexually). A fifteen year old who, because of “chemistry, brain and hormones” is homosexual by nature will probably prefer to think of ways in which same-sex parts go together (sexually).

In biblical times homosexuality was thought of as unnatural. Today we know that same-sex attraction is a naturally occurring subset of human sexuality. Do the Bible’s condemnations of homosexual behavior still apply in the light of our current knowledge, or are there ways in which homosexuals can ethically express their love?




Scripture quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The phrase “matter out of place” is taken from Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, by Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Fortress Press, 1998, page 94. Durer's paintings of Adam and Eve were found here.

Questions about Patriarchy, Slavery, Racism, Sexism...

...GENOCIDE, SUPERCESSIONISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND THE CHRISTIAN USE OF SCRIPTURE

If the Bible is patriarchal, does that mean God is patriarchal?
Does it mean that Christians should be patriarchal?

If the Bible is pro-slavery, does that mean God is pro-slavery?
Does it mean that Christians should be pro-slavery?

If the Bible is racist, does that mean God is a racist?
Does it mean that Christians should be racists?

If the Bible is sexist, does that mean God is a sexist?
Does it mean that Christians should be sexist?

If the Bible advocates genocide, does that mean God is genocidal?
Does it mean that Christians should be genocidal?

If the Bible is anti-Jewish, does that mean God is anti-Jewish?
Does it mean that Christians should be anti-Jewish?

And of course, if the Bible is homophobic, does that mean God is homophobic?
Does it mean that Christians should be homophobic?

Arguably the Bible is, at least in some parts, patriarchal, pro-slavery, racist, sexist, genocidal, anti-Jewish and homophobic. Also arguably, the Bible, at least in some parts, teaches us that God is not patriarchal, pro-slavery, etc. What does this mean for Christians and our use of Scripture?

Romans 1 and the Cause of Homosexuality

OR, WHAT DETERMINES SEXUAL NATURE?

We do not know exactly what causes homosexuality. Research into the subject is ongoing. We can be quite sure, however, about some things that do not cause homosexuality. Bad parenting, for instance, does not cause homosexuality. In spite of the fact that some prominently placed preachers claim that a weak father and a domineering mother will create a homosexual boy, the best research says otherwise.

We can also be certain that idol worship does not cause homosexuality. Some homosexuals may worship graven images, but others are devout monotheists. I have known some homosexuals who are, in fact, committed, church-going, God-fearing, Jesus-loving, devout, dedicated, pious Christians.

Yet, in the first chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul states quite unequivocally that homosexuality is caused by idolatry.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. 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. (Romans 1:22-27)

Either we have here another case of the general revelation contradicting the special revelation or the Apostle Paul had in mind something other than what we know of homosexuality. From context, I am inclined to think that Paul was referring to orgiastic pagan temple rituals.

Again, though we may not know exactly what causes homosexuality, we do know that it occurs quite naturally. Yet, in Romans 1, Paul refers to homosexual sex as unnatural. In the time of the Apostle Paul, sexual identity was thought to be determined by anatomy. What kind of genitalia you were born with determined your sexual nature. We now understand sexual identity to be much more complex. Factors such as “chemistry, brain, and hormones” contribute to our sexual nature.

In an earlier post I wrote that the Bible does not say what we think it does about homosexuality. In fact, the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as an orientation. In the five passages that address the subject, the Scriptures are negative about homosexual behavior, but none of those passages can legitimately be used to universally condemn all homosexual behaviors. This does not mean that the biblical writers would approve of same-sex acts. The truth is we now understand homosexuality very differently than they did.

The quote from Romans is taken from the New Revised Standard Version. The phrase "chemistry, brain and hormones" is borrowed from The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus J. Borg, HarperOne, 2009, page 163. I lifted Emil Nolde's painting of the the worship of the Golden Calf from this website.

In Memoriam

Art Clokey, the creator of Davey and Goliath, born October 12, 1921, entered eternal life January 8, 2010. I never knew the man, but I grew up with Davey and Goliath.

Rest eternal grant him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him.

The image of Davey and Goliath came from their official website: http://www.daveyandgoliath.org/index.html

The Apostle Paul is Pulling Your Rug

THOU ART THE MAN

Pulling the rug out from under your audience can be a powerful rhetorical strategy. First you raise their outrage against a common foe. Then, with a great “Aha!” you show them that they are that foe.

When King David seduced another man’s wife, and then arranged for that man to be killed in battle, he was confronted by the prophet Nathan, who told him the sad story of a poor man. This man’s pet lamb, Nathan said, was stolen and slaughtered by a wealthy man in spite of the fact that the wealthy man had many flocks of his own. The King, outraged, declared the wrongdoer worthy of death. Then Nathan pulled the rug out from under him. “Thou art the man,” he said in good King James English. You can read all about it in 2 Samuel 12.

Martin Luther also engaged in a little rug-pulling in a masterful Christmas sermon. He described the sad plight of the holy family who were cruelly turned away from the crowded inn so that Mary had to give birth to Jesus in a stable. Of course, he said, no one in his congregation would be so cold-hearted. Surely they would provide warmth and shelter for the newborn Savior. Then Luther accused them of hypocrisy for ignoring the needs of the poor, hungry and cold in their own midst.

In the first chapters of his letter to the Romans, the Apostle Paul used the same rhetorical strategy. First he engaged the Roman Christians’ outrage against the depravities of the pagans. God’s wrath burned against them because they worshipped idols! (Rom. 1:22-25). They were God-forsaken, engaging in depraved sex acts! (Rom. 1:26-27) And therefore…

They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. (Rom. 1:18-31)

It’s shocking! It’s horrible! They deserve to die! (Rom. 1:32). Right?

Rug-pulling is a powerful rhetorical strategy, but it is also a dangerous one. Like sarcasm, the one using this rug-pulling technique runs the risk that their audience just will not get it. Maybe they will tune out before they hear the point. Maybe someone will come along later and undermine the point by inserting a chapter break in the text just before the rug gets pulled.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Anyone who uses Romans 1:18 ff. as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals has not read as far as Romans 2:1.

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Thou art the man.



Still more to come.













I snagged Matthias Scheits' painting of David and Nathan from wikipedia.

Homosexuals and Haberdashery...

...IN THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL



It was during the period of debate, discussion and study leading up to last summer’s Churchwide Assembly that I had a conversation with a pastor who belonged to one of the more conservative Lutheran church bodies. He said, “How can the ELCA even think about approving of homosexual relations when the Scriptures are so clear?” I told him, “Assuming that your question is sincere, I’ll answer it. But first let me ask you a question. Do the women in your congregation cover their heads when they pray?”

He knew what I was referring to. In 1 Corinthians 11, the Apostle Paul takes up the question of head coverings. Men, he says, should pray with their heads bare, but women should cover their heads.

“Don’t be silly,” he said. “Paul was referring to a cultural custom. Besides, it was just one point in a larger argument.”

I said, “Exactly. And that’s how the ELCA can consider approving of same-sex relations. Paul’s references to homosexual acts were culturally conditioned. In our culture we understand homosexuality differently than he did. What’s more, in Romans 1 Paul mentions homosexual acts among the Gentiles as one point in a larger argument.”

Anyone who uses Romans 1:26-27 as a blanket condemnation of homosexuals apparently has not read as far as Romans 2:1.

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Paul’s point is not that homosexuals are sinners, but that everyone is a sinner, since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….” (Romans 3:23)

More to come.





Scriptures quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version. I found Raphael’s painting of Paul preaching, bareheaded, here.

The Story So Far

It might be wise, at this point, to recap some of what I have been saying about the Bible and homosexuality.

First, the general revelation, i.e. reason and experience, has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We now recognize that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation. This new understanding was foreign to the thinking of the biblical writers.

Second, while the book of Leviticus prohibits same-sex acts, the prohibition applied only to the men of Israel (not to women, nor to Gentiles). The Levitical code is not a moral code but a purity code. It was intended to set Israel apart from other nations as the Lord’s people. Christians freely disregard most of the laws found in Leviticus.

Third, there are three passages of the New Testament that address same-sex acts. I’ve looked at two of them. The Greek word malakoi occurs at 1 Corinthians 6:9. It literally means “softs” and is, I think, approximately equivalent to the derogatory English term “sissies.” The word arsenokoitai (literally “man-beds”) is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This word is notably difficult to translate, as 1 Corinthians is its first known occurrence. It is likely, though by no means certain, that both of these words describe practitioners of some homosexual act. Neither of them can legitimately be translated as “homosexuals” since the concept of homosexuality did not exist in biblical times. Nor can they be taken as a condemnation of same-sex marriage as that concept did not exist in biblical times either. This does not, of course, mean that the writers of the Bible would approve of same-sex marriage. Even had they shared our new understanding of homosexuality, we cannot say what they would have thought.

In my next post I will be looking at the last of the New Testament passages dealing with same-sex acts, Romans 1:18 ff.

Those Pesky Arsenokoitai

WHAT WAS PAUL THINKING?

Some commentators suggest that, because 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the earliest known use of arsenokoitai, Paul minted the word. Color me skeptical.

I assume that when the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he wanted to be understood by them. Including a newly coined word in list of those who “will not inherit the kingdom” is a poor way to be understood. It seems to me much more likely that Paul would use a word that he thought was in the Corinthians’ vocabulary. Probably the word arsenokoitai was in common, if infrequent, use.

Among the commentators who think that Paul minted the word arsenokoitai, there are some who suggest that he based it on Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. When Paul quotes the Old Testament, it is from the Septuagint). A New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007) renders Leviticus 20:13 as,

And he who lies with a male in a bed for a woman, both have committed an abomination; by death let them be put to death; they are liable.

It reads a little better in the Greek. Trust me. At any rate, the components of the word arsenokoitai, arsenos (“male”) and koiten (“bed”), occur together in this verse. Still it is highly conjectural to think that Paul had this verse in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9. Again, assuming that Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand him, we would need some reason to think that the Corinthians, a Gentile congregation, would know this verse from Leviticus. It’s not impossible, of course, but it assumes a lot.

The fact is, we cannot know exactly what Paul was thinking when he used the word arsenokoitai. He apparently had something specific in mind, but it is beyond our ability to know just what that was. The variety of ways that English translations handle the word demonstrate this.

There are some things we can be sure Paul did not mean by arsenokoitai. He did not mean “homosexuals” that is, “people who have a same-sex attraction.” The concept of homosexuality did not exist in Paul’s day. Neither did he mean persons living in a committed, covenanted, publicly accountable same-sex relationship (“gay marriage”). That, too, is a new concept.

In short, Paul’s inclusion of arsenokoitai in the vice list of 1 Corinthians 6 cannot be taken as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, homosexuals, or all homosexual acts. It cannot be taken as a condemnation of gay marriage.

This does not, however, mean that Paul would have approved of gay marriage. The truth is, he saw even straight marriage as a compromise for those who could not live in celibacy.

It would be nice to think that, if Paul knew what we know about homosexuality, he would have given the thumbs up to life-long, committed, publicly accountable same-sex relationships. Unfortunately, we cannot know what Paul would think.








For this post I cribbed another cool image of the Apostle Paul from http://www.rembrandtonline.org/

The "Softs" and "Male-beds" in Translation

You may want to read my previous post before proceeding with this one. If you get bogged down in my discussion of various English versions of the Bible, you have my full permission to skip to the last paragraph of this post.


As noted in my last post, the dear old King James Version of the Bible (1611), at 1 Corinthians 6:9, translated the Greek word arsenokoitai as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” At 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai is translated “them who defile themselves with mankind.” I take both of these rather ungainly phrases to mean “men who have sex with men.” The KJV translated malakoi, a word also found in 1 Corinthians 6:9, as “effeminate.”

The 1952 Revised Standard Version translated both malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians with a single word, “homosexuals.” This seems to me a particularly unfortunate choice as it has the effect of condemning persons for who they are rather than what they do. I also think that this translation reflects the understanding and misconceptions of homosexuality that were current in 1952. At 1 Timothy 1:10, the RSV translated arsenokoitai with the word “sodomites.” This, too presents difficulties. Arsenokoitai in Greek would not have meant “sodomite” in the sense of a citizen of Sodom, though it might mean “a practitioner of sodomy.”

The widely used New International Version (1978) translated malakoi as “male prostitutes,” a translation that is followed by several other modern English translations including the New Living Translation (1996) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004). The NIV translates arsenokoitai as “homosexual offenders” in 1 Corinthians. I find this translation rather egregious as the word “offenders” occurs nowhere in the Greek text. I also question exactly what a “homosexual offender” would be. The NIV is also inconsistent in that it translates arsenokoitai as “perverts” in 1 Timothy.

The New Revised Standard Version (1989) also translates malakoi as male prostitutes, and arsenokoitai as “sodomites” in both of its occurrences.

The English Standard Version, an Evangelical revision of the RSV published in 2001, follows the RSV by combining malakoi and arsenokoitai into a single term “men who practice homosexuality.” It translates arsenokoitai alone with the same phrase in 1 Timothy 1:10. Since Paul used two distinct words in Greek, I question the validity of translating the two with a single term.

Curiously, the New King James Version (1982) translates malakoi as “homosexuals.” It translates arsenokoitai, in both of its occurrences, as “sodomites.”

The New English Translation (2005) translates malakoi into “passive homosexual partners” and arsenokoitai as “practicing homosexuals.” A footnote points out that the emphasis is on “actual behavior, not orientation.” This understanding seems to underlie the translation of arsenokoitai in several other recent versions, such as the NLT and the ESV.

Dr. Ann Nyland, translator of The Source New Testament (2004), has an interesting translation for arsenokoitai: “anal penetrators.” In her footnote to 1 Corinthians 6:9, she says that the word “appears to include rape” and “does not apply exclusively to males as receptors as it was also said for anal penetration of a woman.” She translates malakoi as "receptive male homosexual cross-dressers" which may (or may not) be accurate, but is even more awkward than the KJV's "them who defile themselves with mankind" for arsenokoitai.

So in translation the malakoi are treated as "effeminate," "male prostitutes," "homosexuals," "passive homosexual partners," or "receptive male homosexual cross dressers." The arsenokoitai may be "abusers of themselves with mankind," "sodomites," "homosexual offenders," "perverts," "practicing homosexuals," or "anal pentrators."

Obviously, the words malakoi and, especially arsenokoitai pose challenges for translators. The various versions largely agree that they represent practitioners of some homosexual act or acts. Recent translations are rightly careful to distinguish between acts and orientation. (The concept of sexual orientation did not exist in the time of the Apostle Paul). In my next post or two I want to examine whether Paul’s use of these terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 constitute a universal condemnation of all homosexual acts.

Paul's Weird Word

ARSENOKO-WHAT?

There is a vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:8b-10, a list of several types of people who will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” The Apostle Paul uses a weird word in the original Greek of this passage. I quote it here from the King James Version of the Bible, emphasizing the phrase used to translate Paul’s unusual word. I am using the KJV intentionally because it was made before the word “homosexual” came into use.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul’s unusual Greek word was arsenokoitai. It is a plural compound noun made from the words arsen which means “male” and koitai meaning “beds.” What makes it strange is that 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the earliest known use of this word. The same word occurs in a vice list of those who are “under the law” in 1 Timothy 1:10. This is its only other use in the New Testament and is most likely derived from its earlier use in 1 Corinthians.

A word’s meaning is not determined by its etymology. In English, we can understand a thing without actually standing under it. Knowing that arsenokoitai is literally “male-beds” obviously does not define the word. Meaning is derived from context and usage. Since 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the first known use of arsenokoitai context becomes key. From the context of the New Testament vice lists, it is safe to say that being one of the arseonkoitai is not a good thing. Saying exactly who the arsenokoitai are is more difficult.

In my next post, I’ll look at the ways various English translations have treated the word. I should point out first that some translators couple the word arsenokoitai with the word preceding it, which the KJV translated as “effeminate.” That word (which does not occur in the 1 Timothy vice list) is malakoi, a plural noun that could be translated literally as “softs.” In New Testament era Greek it had a range of meaning that spanned from “cowards” to “catamites” and “cross-dressers.” It occurs to me that the derogatory English word "sissy" carries much the same range of meaning.




The picture of St. Paul in prison was taken from http://www.rembrandtonline.org/. Cool website!

Blessed Christmas!

I'm taking a break from the discussion of Scripture and homosexuality to wish anyone who might read this blog a blessed and merry Christmas!





"Unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11)










Fra Angelico's painting of the Adoration of the Magi was borrowed from Wikipedia. Click here see the picture in much greater detail.

Leviticus

THE LOGIC OF ALL SEXX LAWS*

The book of Leviticus is a collection of laws, reportedly given by God to the Israelites through Moses. Its contents include instructions for offering sacrifices, dietary regulations, a version of the Ten Commandments, detailed descriptions of various forms of leprosy, and laws concerning a variety of sex acts. Chapter 18 of Leviticus specifically prohibits incest in several degrees, bestiality and, in verse 22, male homosexual relations: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

The penalties for infraction of the sex laws are specified in Leviticus chapter 20. At verse 13, we read: “ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Sometimes commentators divide the Levitical laws into categories of moral, ethical and civil regulations. These categories are of limited usefulness. First, Leviticus itself makes no such distinctions. The laws are simply the laws for the people of Israel. Second, it is not always clear which category a particular law fits. For example, is the prohibition against murder a civil or a moral law?

In fact, the Levitical code is not much concerned with morality. There is nothing particularly immoral about having sex during a woman’s menstrual period or eating shellfish, but Leviticus prohibits both of these things. Leviticus is much more concerned with holiness, purity or cleanliness. That is, the laws, even the sex laws of chapter 18, are intended to set the people of Israel apart as the Lord’s people, distinct from other peoples.

The rationale for the sex laws is stated in Leviticus 18:3, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes.” In other words, obedience to the sex laws of Leviticus 18 distinguishes the Israelites from their pagan neighbors.

So while Leviticus prohibits male homosexual relations, it does so only for the men of Israel, and this is not for purposes of morality, but to set them apart as the Lord’s people.

In the early days of Christianity, a controversy arose concerning whether gentile Christians were bound to keep the Jewish laws of cleanliness. According to the book of Acts, the apostles in Jerusalem laid aside the Levitical code and required gentile Christians “to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” This raises the question of whether homosexual behavior is necessarily considered “fornication.” But that is a topic for another post.







* The subtitle for this post comes from the Song “Sexx Laws” on the Midnite Vultures album by Beck. Scripture references are quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. The image of Michaelangelo’s Moses was lifted from Wikipedia and adapted.

The Bible Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

At Synod Assembly last June the proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality and the recommendations concerning ordained ministry were discussed. I am happy to say that, though the issues are contentious and feelings run high, the discussions were conducted with civility and charity.

During a break from the Assembly, I had a private conversation with a friend and colleague who holds a PhD in New Testament. I will not name him in case I quote him incorrectly. What I heard him say was, “The Bible doesn’t say what you think it does about homosexuality. No matter what side of the debate you’re on, the Bible doesn’t say what you think.” I believe my friend was right.

Arguably the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. If we understand homosexuality to be a sexual orientation, the concept did not even exist until the nineteenth century. Nor does the Bible speak to the subject of life-long, committed, covenanted same-sex unions, another concept that did not exist in Bible times.

What the Bible does address is certain homosexual behaviors. The five passages that speak to the subject are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. I specifically omit the story of Sodom (Genesis 19) from this list as it deals with rape and not consensual sex. In each of the five passages listed the described behavior is judged negatively. In the next few posts I will examine each of the five passages. As I look at the Bible’s statements on homosexual behavior, I want to keep these questions in mind:

Do these Scriptures make a universal condemnation of all homosexual behavior?

Do the ancient condemnations still apply in the light of what we now know about homosexuality?

Do the Scriptures view homosexuality, or homosexual behavior, as “inherently sinful?”







There are more than 300 passages of Scripture that address our need to care for the poor. I'm only saying....

Homosexuality

THAT'S RIGHT. I SAID THE H-WORD.

Issues surrounding homosexuality are hot-button topics in both the Church and society today. My beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is currently dealing with the aftermath of a Churchwide Assembly that approved ordination for qualified individuals living in committed same-sex relationships. Some ELCA members find this intolerable and are leaving our church body. They say that the ELCA is going against both Scripture and tradition, that is, the Special Revelation.

It is true that the Christian Church has no tradition for same-sex marriage. It is also true that the Bible, in the five instances where it addresses homosexual behavior, is negative.

But, the best empirical evidence—reason and experience, that is, the General Revelation—has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We have learned that same sex attraction is neither an illness nor a willful perversion. It is, rather, an innate orientation. Very simply, some people are born gay. In theological terms, God made them that way.

The examples of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin teach us that the Church gives privilege to the Special Revelation over the General Revelation at its own peril. Mistaking the content of the Special Revelation for the content of the General Revelation not only embarrasses the Church but also puts it at risk of denying the Truth.

I would suggest that, in light of our current best knowledge concerning homosexuality, the questions facing the Church are whether and how persons of homosexual orientation can ethically express their sexuality.

In the next several posts, I intend to examine some of the issues concerning homosexuality, beginning with an understanding of what the Bible says.

At Play in the Oil Fields of the Lord

TWO KINDS OF REVELATION

Some years ago I met a geologist who worked for a major oil company. At the time some conservative Christians were pushing to have “Creation Science” included in public school curricula. “Creation Science” is the attempt to prove the historical and factual nature of the biblical creation accounts with scientific evidence. A handmaiden of Creation Science is “Flood Geology” which tries to explain the earth’s natural features in light of the account of Noah’s flood in Genesis 6ff.

These things were all in the news. So, I asked the geologist what he thought of Creation Science and Flood Geology. His answer was succinct and pointed. “It doesn’t help me find oil,” he said.

In other words, the biblical accounts of creation and flood do not accurately describe the physical reality of our world. The truth of these stories is metaphoric and spiritual. To read them as factual accounts is a mistake.

Theologians speak of two kinds of revelation. The General Revelation is the knowledge of God that is available to all people through experience and reason. The Special Revelation is the knowledge of God that is available to the Church through Scripture and tradition. I will spell that out a little more fully below.

First let me note that my Methodist friends will recognize the Wesleyan quadrilateral of experience, reason, tradition and Scripture in the last paragraph. These are the four things that John Wesley taught must be considered in all theological reflection. To adapt from Wesley a little, I would say that both the General and Special Revelations must be considered in our discussion of God.

The General Revelation (reason and experience) can teach us a lot about God’s will and work. It can show us God’s existence and direct us in moral living. It can teach us how God ordered creation. The content of the General Revelation is broad.

The content of the Special Revelation (Scripture and tradition) is narrow. The Special Revelation teaches us about God’s saving work on behalf of humankind, first through his chosen people Israel, and then, through Jesus Christ, extending from Israel to all nations.

The Church gets itself into trouble when it mistakes the content of the Special Revelation for the content of the General Revelation. This was the mistake that Luther made in rejecting Copernicus out of hand. It was the mistake that the Roman Catholic Church made in condemning Galileo. It is the mistake that Creation Scientists and Flood Geologists have made in our own time.

Experience and reason teach us about God’s creation. Scripture and tradition teach us about salvation.