King James, abominations, and gay sex

I was preaching back in the 1970s in a Plymouth Brethren church (not that the PB's would ever refer to their buildings as churches) in Ontario. As was my practice at the time, I used the New American Standard Bible for any passages I wanted to quote. I thought that the sermon (not that the PB's would ever refer to a message as a sermon) went pretty well. As I stepped away from the pulpit (not that the PB's..oh, never mind), a late middle-aged woman intercepted me with a tolerant smile. "I like the King James," she offered along with a gloved handshake.

There is no question that the 17th century King James (or Authorized) Version of the Bible was a literary triumph and is indeed beautiful to read. The loyalty that it won in the hearts of its admirers over 400 years was remarkable. But as a desire by younger Bible readers for more accessible English developed in the latter part of the past century and a number of new biblical translations and paraphrases hit the bookstores, a small but fervent minority of conservative Protestants fought a rearguard action. From this attempt to keep the KJV alive arose the (probably) urban myth of one loyalist who proclaimed, "If the King James Version was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me."

While I was eventually a convert to the New International Version--half a dozen of its translators were my seminary professors--I find that I still quote passages from the KJV, the only Bible in use when I was memorizing scriptures as a boy. And even now, I'll use it when looking up a word in a concordance because I'm not sure how it is translated in the newer versions of the Bible.

One such word is 'abomination'.

Now there is a mighty word! There aren't many terms that sound exactly like the sense that they want to convey. Its dictionary definition is 'a vile, shameful, or detestable action, condition, or habit'. Synonyms include hatred, corruption, and depravity. Nobody doubts your opinion, or your mood, when you label any act or object as an abomination. Just type the word into Google images, for instance, and look at the pictures that pop up.

Should you utilize an on-line biblical concordance to locate all of the verses that contain the word abomination in the KJV, the list runs on for pages. The Old Testament was full of condemnation for these hateful things--gay sex among them. A closer examination of the texts, however, reveals the following amazing discoveries:

• Eating shrimp was also an abomination. So were shepherds. And eagles.
• Many abominations seemed unconnected to any notion of sinfulness.
• A good number were connected to the behaviours of surrounding nations from which the Israelites were to differentiate themselves in establishing their own national identity. So to be uncircumcised, for instance, was an abomination.
• Jesus and his followers treated various Old Testament abominations as mere piffles (another word that sounds just like the sense it intends to convey).  

I've discussed much of this in previous posts since this past February. But I want to look specifically at the actions of Jesus with respect to the biblical legal codes and his apparent disregard for their on-going literal application. We'll follow with a reference to the writings of the Apostle Paul, who reinforced Jesus' view on legal matters.

1. Matthew 9:9-13 -  As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”  

The Pharisees are calling Jesus out for violating the Holiness Code by eating with people who were ritually unclean. Jesus responds on two fronts: a) He notes that his mandate, as it were, is to deal with people who need help, not with those who can claim to be ritually pure and otherwise spotless; therefore, being with sinners is not only appropriate but vital; and b) He quotes the Old Testament prophet Hosea (chap. 6 vs. 6) who makes a similar distinction between that which is only ritually important (sacrifice) and that which truly makes a person righteous (mercy). Hosea had taken the Jews of his day to task for their grave injustice by oppressing and exploiting the vulnerable. 

2. Matthew 12:1-7 - At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.” He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?  He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

Once again the Pharisees attack Jesus' bad influence on his disciples by not rebuking them for doing work on the Sabbath, not only a ritual impurity but a capital offense in the Holiness Code. Jesus  again reminds the Pharisees that it is vital that they distinguish between things that are simply identity markers of their Jewishness and that left them ritually pure or impure only, and those acts that have to do with genuine righteousness. He first reminds them of the incident in the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel 21 where Israelite King David ate bread that was reserved only for priests, a ritually impure act that did nothing to destroy his innocence in the matter. He goes on to note that the moment any priest entered the Temple he was breaking the Holiness Code in that it was impossible for a human being to be ritually pure at all times--yet the priests weren't considered to be sinful for doing so. Finally, he tosses Hosea 6:6 at them again: For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Ritual purity versus genuine righteousness.

3. Matthew 22:34-40 - Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

I'll add here a portion of the parallel passage in Mark 12:28-34 where the legal expert's response is recorded, specifically vss. 32-33: “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

 Jesus having countered the Pharisaical concern for ritual purity pretty handily by reminding them about genuine righteousness, they bring in the heavy artillery, an expert in the law, who asks Jesus to suggest which was the greatest commandment. Apparently there was considerable debate among Jewish teachers as to which of the 613 Old Testament laws ranked highest. 

Jesus response is a masterpiece. He first quotes from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, known as the Great Shema and recited to this day by pious Jews: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door frames of your houses and on your gates.

Then lest anyone think that he is suggesting that "these commandments" referred to the ritual purity laws, he follows up with this: And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ It's important to not misunderstand the English words 'and the second is like it', as if Jesus were saying that it's 'something the same'. The Hebrew idiom means 'the second is identical', to say one is to say the other. How one loves God in the proper way is to love your neighbour--pure Hosea 6:6 again. 

Clearly the teacher of the law got it--"Well said Rabbi," he replied.

[The Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, is replete with references to justice and mercy for the needy and that these are foundational to genuine godly living. One of my favourite passages comes from Jeremiah 22, where that great if gloomy prophet is lambasting the King in Jerusalem for his self-indulgent and exploitative ways, in contrast with his godly father, the late King Josiah. At verse 16 Jeremiah even goes so far as to say that doing justice on behalf of the poor and marginalized is identical to knowing God:

He (i.e. King Josiah) defended the cause of the poor and needy,
    and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?”
    declares the Lord.

Note further that the reference to 'knowing' God utilizes the same Hebrew word that is used, somewhat euphemistically, for sexual intercourse, as in "Adam knew his wife and she bore him a son." The word refers to the most intimate knowledge of all kinds and is used of God's relationship with his people. 

Isaiah, the Prince of the Prophets, draws a similar distinction between ritually worthiness and genuine piety in the opening chapter of his prophecy, waving aside all of the worship going on (doubtless ritually pure) because the worshipers' "hands were full of blood" from their merciless lifestyles (1:10-17):

Hear the word of the Lord,
    you rulers of Sodom;
listen to the instruction of our God,
    you people of Gomorrah!

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord....
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies....
When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

Wash and make yourselves clean.
    Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
    stop doing wrong.

Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.

 
Note in passing the reference to the sin of Sodom being injustice, not homosexual rape.

A very beautiful example of the preeminence of justice and mercy, eventually set to music, is from the Old Testament prophecy of Micah 6:8 (pictured above) that provides Micah's famous summary of God's bottom line requirements for his followers. See a nice, folk-y rendition of the passage at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7q5BAyAAM.

Not surprisingly, when Jesus' brother James (a man who had to be weaned off the exaggerated importance of ritual purity himself) is asked to define pure religion, his response (1:27) is very similar to the Old Testament prophets quoted above; i.e., justice for the oppressed: Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress..]

4. Galatians 5:13-14 - You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

We'll finish off with that greatly misunderstood New Testament apostle and theological giant Paul, who had been as Pharisaical as they make them prior to his conversion. He even bypasses the great Shema itself in discussing Old Testament law, and goes right to the second half of Jesus' choice of the greatest commandment; i.e., justice through loving one's neighbour. 

Keep in mind that Jesus made the definition of one's neighbour pretty clear in his famous parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:36-37:

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
 
I hope that the point of the above is not lost on you. The argumentation against the "sexual sin" of homosexuality rests primarily on what I consider to be ritual laws, intended only for a certain purpose, not necessarily linked to actually sinfulness, and divorced from genuine righteousness. A growing understanding of the relative importance of the two kinds of expectations (ritual purity and identity markers versus personal righteousness) is seen in the Old Testament and comes to full flower in the New.  As hard as my upbringing and my evangelical circle try to convince me to the contrary, I see nothing in a loving, committed, faithful, monogamous same sex relationship that violates the biblical admonition of loving God through loving one's neighbour. Such a relationship, at most, violated the code associated with ritual purity to worship at the Temple--as did intercourse between a husband and wife, menstruation, and childbirth.

I think that I've exhausted my limited abilities to do theology from the ground up regarding the issue of homosexuality. I'll provide one more summary post, and then leave you to better, more knowledgeable writers for your future study.

Jesus committed abominations

One of the difficulties in sorting out Old Testament legal material is that we misunderstand the reasons behind its various formulations. Thus, we have Jews who to this day follow a kosher lifestyle, and others who may still be people of faith but who don't observe those old laws. Christians, by and large, have relegated most of the Holiness Code to the culturally-bound trash heap, although some still distinguish between ritual laws which no longer apply, and moral ones that do.

I want to spend a little more time on this because of the view of many Christians that homosexuality is immoral and that the only legitimate marriage is between a man and a woman, based to a large extent on the teaching in Leviticus 18 and 20, as well as Romans 1. It is this very view that is arousing such animosity among those critics who want to deny Trinity Western University, my old employer, the right to found a law school.

Of the many (613 to be exact) Mosaic laws that defined Israelite life in the ancient near east, a good number of them served as, for want of a better expression, identity markers. Keep in mind what I said in an earlier post--when the Israelites left Egypt for the Promised Land, they were by and large "Egyptianized", when it came to everyday life. There was not much that made them stand out from the dominant Egyptian culture. Many would not even have been monotheistic. Therefore, having taken the Israelites out of Egypt, God took the further step of taking Egypt out of the Israelites through a series of laws, commemorative feasts, even physical markings. Circumcision was one such example of these markers, the 10 Commandments another, Passover and the other sacred festivals a third. They built a sense of national identity and solidarity, and firmly established Yahweh (or Jehovah) as the one true God.

Other laws had to do with issues of being clean and unclean. This had nothing to do with physical cleanliness per se, or even with moral purity. The issue was one of ritual purity; i.e., being in a state of readiness to participate in religious rites. To be unclean didn't necessarily mean that you had committed a sin, but only that you were not in a fit state to worship.

[Editorial note: In my fundamentalist upbringing, fitness for worship included a jacket and tie for the males, and appropriate dresses or skirts for the females. But I digress :-).]

There were an amazing number of normal and completely acceptable human activities (e.g., a husband and wife having intercourse) that rendered a person unclean--not sinful, remember, just ritually unprepared for worship. For each there was an appropriate regimen that had to be followed to rid oneself of this ritual impurity. Here is a helpful list from BibleStudyTools.com:

In Old Testament times the ordinary state of most things was "cleanness," but a person or thing could contract ritual "uncleanness" (or "impurity") in a variety of ways: by skin diseases, discharges of bodily fluids, touching something dead (Num 5:2 ), or eating unclean foods (Lev 11 ; Deut 14 ).

An unclean person in general had to avoid that which was holy and take steps to return to a state of cleanness. Uncleanness placed a person in a "dangerous" condition under threat of divine retribution, even death (Lev 15:31 ), if the person approached the sanctuary. Uncleanness could lead to expulsion of the land's inhabitants (Lev 18:25 ) and its peril lingered upon those who did not undergo purification (Lev 17:16 ; Num 19:12-13 ).

Priests were to avoid becoming ritually defiled (Leviticus 21:1-4; Leviticus 21:11-12 ), and if defiled, had to abstain from sacred duties. An unclean layperson could neither eat nor tithe consecrated food (Lev 7:20-21 ; Deut 26:14 ), had to celebrate the Passover with a month's delay (Num 9:6-13 ), and had to stay far away from God's tabernacle (Num 5:3 ).

Purification varied with the severity of the uncleanness. The most serious to least serious cases in descending order were: skin disease (Lev. 13-14), childbirth (Lev. 12), genital discharges (Leviticus 15:3-15; Leviticus 15:28-30 ), the corpse-contaminated priest (Eze 44:26-27 ), the corpse-contaminated Nazirite (Nu 6:9-12 ), one whose impurity is prolonged (Lev 5:1-13 ), the corpse-contaminated layperson (Num 5:2-4 ; 19:1-20 ), the menstruating woman (Lev 15:19-24 ), the handling of the ashes of the red cow or the Day of Atonement offerings (Leviticus 16:26; Leviticus 16:28 ; Num 19:7-10 ), emission of semen (Lev 15:16-18 ), contamination by a carcass (Lev 11:24-40 ; 22:5 ), and secondary contamination (Lev 15 ; 22:4-7 ; Num 19:21-22 ).

Purification always involved waiting a period of time (until evening for minor cases, eighty days for the birth of a daughter), and could also involve ritual washings symbolizing cleansing, atoning sacrifices, and priestly rituals. "Unclean" objects required purification by water (wood, cloth, hide, sackcloth) or fire (metals), or were destroyed (clay pots, ovens), depending on the material (Lev 11:32-35 ; Num 31:21-23 ).

What could possibly be wrong with sexual relations? or menstruation? or childbirth, for Pete's sake?

Why should I be able to eat chicken but not pork? Couldn't one just slap a bandage on that skin problem and head off to the Tabernacle? Because these things made me sinful? Not at all. Their reasons were symbolic, as BibleStudyTools.com goes on to explain:                                                                       The purity system conveys in a symbolic way that Yahweh was the God of life and was separated from death. Most of the unclean animals were either predators/scavengers or lived in caves (e.g., rock badgers). The pig, moreover, was associated with the worship of Near Eastern chthonic deities (i.e., spirits of the underworld). Leprosy made a person waste away like a corpse (Nu 12:12 ). Bodily discharges (blood for women, semen for men) represented a temporary loss of strength and life and movement toward death. Because decaying corpses discharged, so natural bodily discharges were reminders of sin and death. Physical imperfections representing a movement from "life" toward "death" moved a person ritually away from God who was associated with life. Purification rituals symbolized movement from death toward life and accordingly involved blood, the color red, and spring (lit. "living") water, all symbols of life (underlining is mine).

Please remember that a ritually impure person did not have to repent as such. There was no sin in play, and therefore no required contrition. But a ritual purification was necessary as outlined above.

That's why I said that Jesus must have often been unclean. He didn't avoid lepers (skin disease being the worst form of uncleanness); he touched and healed them. Dead bodies? He raised them from the dead. A woman with chronic menstruation grabs his robe--no problem. She is healed as well. Jesus was, from time to time, unclean, yet without sin.                                                                                                 

And here is another curious point--many of these unclean entities, experiences, and behaviours were called abominations. An abomination that wasn't a sin!

Now that's worth exploring further.