Dear Jerri,
Last week we looked at how the English language – through the words ‘sodomy’ and ‘sodomites,’ has reduced the destruction of Sodom to a judgment of illicit same-sex sexual activity. And then we looked at how the prophets defined the guilt of Sodom in ways that have nothing to do with same-sex sexual activity at all. This week, we’ll look at how God’s people in the “intertestamental period” and the New Testament look at Sodom and Gomorrah.
The phrase “intertestamental period” generally refers to a period of time in between the writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament. During this time, books like I and II Maccabees, I and II Esdras, Tobit, and Judith were written. It was a very rich period of theological development, with the rise of doctrines like eternal life, apocalypticism, the Son of Man, and the desolating sacrilege, as well as groups like Pharisees, Essenes, and others that New Testament readers would recognize. The books written during this time have not been included in the Protestant Bible.[1]But, so many of the terms and titles that emerge in the New Testament were shaped during this period. And the meaning of Sodom is one of those.
II Esdras 2:8-9 says this: “Woe to you, Assyria, who conceal the unrighteous within you! O wicked nation, remember what I did to Sodom and Gomorrah, whose land lies in lumps of pitch and heaps of ashes.That is what I will do to those who have not listened to me, says the Lord Almighty.” The writer here sees Sodom largely as an example of God’s utter destruction – similar to how many of the Old Testament prophets saw it. However, some of the manuscripts of II Esdras 2:8-9 have been modified a little bit. Instead of “pitch and heaps of ashes,” some manuscripts read “whose land descends to hell.” What that change suggests is that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – described in Genesis 29 as sulfur and fire falling from heaven – was becoming a way of understanding the emerging concept of “hell.” By the time the New Testament was written, this depiction of hell was common.
So, what does this have to do with our topic of same-sex relations? I want to show that by the time the New Testament was written, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had long been a vivid picture of God judgment – even a way of understanding the fires of hell. But, it was not always a picture of how God responds to homosexuality. That’s an assumption that we have been taught, wrongly.
And so, we get to the New Testament. In the gospels one can see the influence of the intertestamental period, as Sodom is a symbol of God’s judgment. Matthew 10:15 and 11:23–24 and Luke 10:12 compare Sodom to cities that do not accept the disciples and say that on the day of judgment, “it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom than for you.” For Jesus in the Gospels, whatever sin caused the destruction of Sodom was less onerous than the sin of the cities that reject disciples who come in his name. Paul only mentions Sodom once, in Romans 9:29, quoting Isaiah’s way of speaking about Sodom’s as a symbol of total destruction.
There is one text, however, that speaks of Sodom in such a way that it deserves a little closer look. II Peter 2 is a powerful condemnation of false teachers who, out of greed, deceive those who have escaped the bondage of sinful flesh and entice them through their weakness back into living a life of adultery and exploitation. Read this chapter. It will sound like the strongest of strong sermons that have been preached against homosexuality – with rough language and anger (“These people … are like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed.”) But, notice that – even with a reference to Sodom – the sins of the flesh that are named here are not same-sex sexual sins. The language is general enough that it could includesome forms of same-sex sexual sins. But, that would have to be an assumption that we bringtothe text. It is not givenbythe text. That is why I think it is so important for us to check our assumptions. If we assume that the worst sins of the flesh are same-sex sins, then we could read this chapter as a “case closed” condemnation of every form of homosexuality. But, there are other ways of reading this text. Read it again, as if sex-trafficking is the issue. Wow. Read it as if someone were trying to revive concubinage for rich men, based on the Old Testament. Again, wow. This chapter certainly condemns leaders who engage in sexual exploitation. The sin here is greed. The means is the weakness of the flesh. In the end, this chapter says nothing about a loving, committed, same-sex covenant relationship. Anyone who sees that in this chapter brought it with them.
Jerri, I hope you understand what I am and what I am not trying to do through these letters. We need to read the Scriptures and pray for the Holy Spirit to bring them alive to us according to God’s will, not our opinion. But, you and I were raised with certain assumptions about what the Scriptures say about same-sex relationships and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – an assumption that is even present in the development of the English language. And that assumption has been the lens through which we were taught to read chapters like II Peter 2 and see homosexuality all over them - even when it is not there. So, while I am not trying to make you agree with my opinion, I am trying to alert you to this assumption that we were taught to bring to our reading of the Scriptures. Unless we are aware of this assumption, we treat the Scriptures as a mirror, which simply reflects our assumptions and gives them divine sanction.
Next week, more New Testament texts. Sorry. That’s just how I roll.
[1]I am convinced that part of Daniel was written during this period and there was a lot of editing, translating, standardizing and general activities that the church would later call ‘canonizing’ of Old Testament that took place during this period.
No comments:
Post a Comment