The Message of the Cross…is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18–25  is (I think) one of the most favourite passages of a one-time (long ago) mentor, Tom Jones. Every chance he got, he taught, talked about, and discussed this passage. But more importantly, I watched as he made every effort to live it out in his day-to-day life. His teachings and his life impacted and influenced me in ways that changed the focus and trajectory of the rest of my life.

The verse that begins this passage reads: “For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (v. 18).

Since we, who are gathered here today, are among those “who are being saved” what is this verse saying to us? Very simply: “For the message of the cross…is the power of God.” Paul said something similar in the book of Romans: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Romans 1:16).

The message of the cross is the power of God. That’s what these two verses are telling us. But what is the message of the cross? Literally, it is the message of the physical death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:3–5). Spiritually, it is the message of a God who loves us so much that he came into this world as a human and submitted himself to death on a cross. And those who follow Jesus are called to imitate that love. As Paul wrote to the Philippians:

"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:5–8).

Bottom line the message of the cross is a message of the power of self-denial, humility and obedience to the will of God. Self-denial in humble service to other humans and obedience to God is just plain stupid to the world. That type of life, they say, is not power but weakness!

Yet, I have found that when I consciously strive to live according to the message of the cross, that is when God’s power is evident in my life. But practically speaking, how do we do this? The other passage I heard Tom preach, teach and talk about in that brief, but life-changing 18 months in Kirksville, MO., was Matthew 5–7, and especially Matt. 5:3–12...

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

When I am striving to be this person, to have these attitudes and practices in my life, here is what happens:

“You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Matt 5:13–16).

The message of the cross tells us, and demonstrates, that self-denial, service and submission wins the day. It may be foolishness to some, but to us who believe in and are striving to follow Jesus, it is the power of God. 

P.S. Thanks Tom!

Problems With Proof Texts - Introduction

Many times, when people are discussing, and particularly when they are defending, what they believe the Bible teaches about a subject, they engage, consciously or unconsciously, in "proof-texting." Proof-texting is the use of certain, usually short, passages–often only a single verse–pulled from a biblical book without respect for its context.

The problem with proof-texting is that it gives their selected verse(s) a meaning that is somewhat, or entirely, different from what the original author intended. The Bible is written in such a way that most verses cannot be correctly understood in a stand-alone fashion. The context of a particular verse, who wrote it, the time period in which it was written, to whom it was written, under what circumstances and for what purpose, etc. is needed in order to arrive at what the author most likely intended to convey. 

To reiterate: A proof-text is a passage of scripture presented as evidence for a theological doctrine, belief, or principle. Proof-texting is the practice of isolating quotations from a biblical text to support an already established theological position. Such an approach to scripture does not often lead one to a better understanding of the original intent of the text’s author. Rather, when the cited passage is approached with curiosity, an open mind and a desire for understanding, there is at least a possibility, and often a probability, that new, deeper and perhaps even radically different understandings can be gleaned, thus rendering it useless as a proof text. 

I agree with blogger and Bible student, Tim Chastain, that there are two main issues with the practice of proof-texting:

1.     Proof-texting is based on a faulty presupposition about the nature of the biblical texts. The presupposition is that the biblical texts are word-for-word the truth of God that is applicable to all people, everywhere, and for all time. Therefore, what difference does the context make? The thinking of the proof-texter is that the Bible means what is says and says what it means, because God's providence oversees the transmission and translation of his word, so that even in our modern English translation, a verse means what it says and says what it means.

2.     Proof-texting almost always ignores context which results in conclusions that have little, if anything, to do with the original author’s intent. [Have I said that before? If so, there's a reason.] While we cannot interview the biblical authors to ask them exactly what they meant, if we are careful, honest and humble, we can, at least, suggest some reasonable possibilities. Only once we've made an honest stab at understanding the author's original intent, do we have any hope of understanding how the passage applies (or not) to believers today.

In numerous posts to follow, I will examine often used proof-texts  that have been, and continue to be, utilized by Christians and ministers to give credence to some of the foundational doctrines of fundamentalist and conservative evangelical Christianity. My goal is to suggest meanings that take into account the original language, the challenges of translation, and the immediate context in which the passage is found. By doing so, I hope to demonstrate respect for how ancient these biblical texts are, and that they often represent diverse perspectives. Thus, to 21st century Christians, many passages communicate ambiguity rather than clarity.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – Part 5: Questions and Conclusions

      In this final instalment, I raise some questions and draw some conclusions about what the laws in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 actually prohibit. Both verses contain a phrase that is ambiguous as to its meaning in its original language and thus quite difficult to know how to translate. The English translations we have in most modern versions are not literal but interpretive. Also, both verses are found within a broader context of prohibitions against incest, which is especially clear in the re-contextualizing of  the law as stated in 20:13. It is my conclusion that using Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 as a proof text for the traditionalist view ignores both the ambiguity found in both verses and dismisses the reality of the contexts in which both verses are found. In other words, Leviticus 18:22 and/or 20:13 cannot justifiably be used to establish a biblical prohibition against all same-gender sexual relations for all peoples and for all times.

*********************

4.     Questions that arise

The first two questions have to do with the idiom מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֔ה.  How should it be translated? Given the awkwardness of a literal translation, what words should be inserted to make it understandable in English without being overly interpretive? Another question relates to the gender differences. Why does the author say, “You will not lie with a זָכָר” (18:22) and “A אִ֗ישׁ who lies with a זָכָר” (20:13), especially since אִשָּׁה (woman), not נְקֵבָה (female) follows? Then, having to do with the various prescribed punishments: Why is it stated in 18:29  that, “For whoever commits any of these abominations…shall be cut off from their people,” whereas the punishment in 20:13 for both participants is that “they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them”? Along with that, one might ask: Based on Lev 20:2–3, is being “cut off from their people” somehow equivalent to “shall be put to death”? The next two questions have to do with context. Why does the redactor of the Holiness Code embed these two texts in the immediate midst of different laws? How, then, do the immediate contexts of each verse impact how we understand what act is prohibited? And finally, why, if Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit all same-sex relations, is this law not found in any law context other than in Leviticus 18 and 20, where the majority focus is on proscribing incest?

            Lings notes, “All hermeneutical approaches to Leviticus 18.22 [and 20:13] have one thing in common … that the lawgiver expresses condemnation.”[1] Whatever interpretation an exegete determines is best, that person should acknowledge that these questions are justified and therefore provide some reasonable answers. There are some scholars who do not acknowledge that exegetical challenges exist and thus feel no need to provide answers. For these scholars, the texts simply “mean what they say,” because these laws are “concise and precise” and “clear.”[2] Others dig deeply into the Hebrew text, which they do not find to be clear or precise and thus strive to answer the questions that arise from their thoughtful analysis. At the very least, the unusual details mentioned above should cause one to pay close attention and perhaps consider the possibility that the authors/redactors of the Holiness Code knew exactly what they were doing. Keeping all this in mind, some conclusions are possible.

5.     Conclusions        

I do agree with Wold when he writes, “The debate within the church [re: “the practice of same-gender sexual relations”] reflects diametrically opposed views of Scripture and the role that the Bible plays in determining sexual ethics.”[3] How an exegete views Scripture determines one’s hermeneutic and thus the method of interpretation he/she employs. However, there is a continuum of differing “views of Scripture;” not just two diametrically opposed views. I find that those who set up a dichotomy of views, tend to treat “the Bible as divine oracle or law, abstracting its words from their literary and social contexts and absolutizing them as statements of timeless rules or principles that stand over against changing social practices and values.”[4] To be clear, my view of Scripture is that it is a human-divine product and as such it is pluriform, multivocal and therefore, at times, its meanings are diverse and/or ambiguous. I also regard the biblical texts as the ancient texts of a patriarchal and hierarchical culture and thus these cultural realities must be taken into account.[5]

It seems clear to me that Lev 18:22 and 20:13 are neither precise or clear in prohibiting all same-gender sexual relations.[6] First, there is no mention of a woman lying with a female. This law, like so many others in these two chapters (and throughout the biblical law codes) have men as their subject. In places where a law applies to women as well, the female gender is often referenced specifically. Second, the numerous questions that arise from the close reading and various analyses of each verse are not insignificant and should give any interpreter reason to pause and thoughtfully try to provide reasonable answers. Those who insist that these laws clearly and unambiguously prohibit all same-gender sexuality for all people for all time, ignore or minimize the complexities/difficulties of the Hebrew text, misunderstand/misrepresent the meaning of תּוֹעֵבָ֥ה, and/or refuse to take the immediate context into consideration.[7]   

I agree with Friedman and Dolansky who write, “Above all, from this discussion we learn, at minimum, that understanding these passages is difficult. It is complicated. It is more difficult and more complicated than one might think when one first reads the verses.”[8] As Lings notes, “One thing remains clear: the original Hebrew is opaque. There is no satisfactory method for converting the unusual phrase “with a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman” to good, idiomatic English,”[9] even though “[m]ost modern translations present this text as self-explanatory.”[10]

Of all the ways scholars have tried to explain why this prohibition exists, and thus what is being prohibited, one makes more sense to me than the others. Given that this is the only context in which a law regarding man-male sexual relations is stated, these laws are prohibiting incest between males who are related by blood or marriage.[11] For sure, there are a several other laws also found within the confines of Leviticus 18 and 20 that are not about incest but the majority of laws in these two chapters have to do with prohibiting incest.[12] Also, in the reorganizing of the laws from Leviticus 18 to 20, 20:13 is found in the midst of other laws prohibiting incest.[13] I realize other explanations have been offered and are possible for why man-to-male sexual relationships are prohibited, but in my opinion, not one of these addresses the immediate context well.[14]
However, of this I am convinced: a close reading and various analyses of Lev 18:22 and 20:13 raise serious questions, concerns and issues regarding the traditionalist view (i.e., that these passages prohibit all same-gender sexual relations for all people and for all times). Thus, whatever position one takes position one takes on what kind of same-gender sexual relations Lev 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit and why, these texts cannot be used as proof-texts for the traditionalist view. For Christians, at least, coming to a "biblical" conclusion (i.e., as to whether the Bible supports a non-affirming or affirming position regarding those who identify as LGBTQ and Christian), may best lie with the results of an exegetical analysis of Romans 1:26–27 within the context of the New Testament's overall teachings.[15]

---

[1] Renato K. Lings, Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible (Bloomington, IN: Trafford Publishing, 2013), Kindle edition, “Unresolved Issues,” loc. 5151.

[2] Michael L. Brown, Can You Be Gay and a Christian: Responding with Love and Truth to Questions about Homosexuality (Lake Mary, FL: Front Line, 2014), 127; Wold, Out of Order, 102.

[3] Wold, Out of Order, 7.

[4] Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation,” 143.

[5] Bird, “The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberation,” 146. An academic discussion of this hermeneutic can be found in Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008) and a more popularly written approach in Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015).

[6] Wold states, “Written in the language of law, both verses are concise and precise…” (Out of Order, 101) and “Contrary to the opinions presented by many contemporary scholars, the language of the two biblical laws on homosexuality is clear” (Out of Order, 102).

[7] Brown (Can You Be Gay and a Christian? 127) writes, “Either way, it turns out that Leviticus 18:22 means exactly what it says, and it applies to all peoples for all times. Will we accept the words of our God?”

[8] Friedman and Dolansky, The Bible Now, 39.

[9] Lings, “The ‘Lyings’ of a Woman,” 248.

[10] Lings, “The ‘Lyings” of a Woman,”  231.

[11] Lings notes, “The argument of James Miller (2010: 49) that Leviticus 18.22 is ‘non-incest’ because of its position between 18.21 (sacrifice to Molekh) and 18.23 (bestiality) loses its force if the parallel prohibition in Leviticus 20.13 is brought into the picture. The context of this verse differs from Leviticus 18.22 in significant ways. Most remarkably, the two preceding verses clearly speak of incest, i.e. Leviticus 20.11 and 20.12 announce the death penalty for incestuous acts. According to 20.13, the same punishment applies to males who engage in mishkevey ishshah (Lings 2009: 245). Therefore, while it is impossible to speak with absolute certainty at this stage,136 various factors seem to point in the direction of a possible location for mishkevey ishshah within the biblical vocabulary pertaining to incestuous relationships (Lings 2009: 245).” [Love Lost in Translation, “Incest, Part One,” loc. 5233]. This is also the position taken by Jacob Milgrom and David T. Stewart, as well as a growing number of scholars.

[12] Of the 17 specific laws listed in chapter 18 (not including 18:22), 14 are prohibiting various incestuous relationships. The other 3 laws have to do with: not uncovering the nakedness of a woman who is menstruating; not sacrificing offspring to Molech; not have sex with an animal. Of the 14 specific laws listed in chapter 20 (not including 20:13 and the laws re: unclean food), 7 are prohibiting various incestuous relationships. The other 7 laws have to do with: not sacrificing offspring to Molech; not turning to wizards and mediums; not cursing one’s parents; not committing adultery; not having sex with an animal; not being a medium or wizard. However, in chapter 20, v. 13 is found in the midst of the 7 laws prohibiting incest.  

[13] See Appendix C for a visual representation of the embedding of 18:22 and especially of 20:13 in chapter 20. Lings (“The Lyings of a Woman,” 245) summarizes it as follows: “The amplified equivalent of Lev. 18.22 is found in 20.13. From a literary point of view, the most remarkable detail is the fact that the two preceding verses clearly speak of incest. Thus Lev. 20.11 and 12 announce the death penalty for incestuous acts. According to 20.13, the same punishment applies to all males who engage in מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה.  Following a brief parenthesis, which presents the penal framework for other sexual crimes, the incest theme is resumed in v. 17 and vv. 19-21.”

[14] Bird (“The Bible in Christian Ethical Deliberations,” 157) concludes, “It appears most likely in the patriarchal ethos of ancient Israel that homosexual activity carried a sense of male shame for the partner “forced” to assume the “female” role (or shamelessness for the male who assumed it voluntarily), a judgment corroborated by Mesopotamian evidence…In the final analysis it is a matter of gender identity and roles, not sexuality—which must conform to the socially approved gender patterns.” Olyan (“And with a Male You Shall Not Lie,” 197–198), summarizes the various attempts by scholars to find unity in these laws as follows: “Some scholars have been inclined to explore how the laws of Lev 18 and 20 function as a group and to suggest what if anything unites them … One way of understanding these prohibitions emphasizes alleged connections with so-called idolatry. Another approach utilizes Mary Douglas’s arguments…with regard to prohibited animals, arguing that male-male anal intercourse is forbidden because the receptive male does not conform to his class (male). A third view sees the wasting of male seed in nonprocreative acts as the central concern in the sexual laws of Lev 18 and 20, including 18:22 and 20:13. Finally, it has been argued that the mixing of otherwise defiling emissions is at issue in several of these sexual proscriptions.”

[15] I look forward to engaging in this exegetical study in the not-too-distant future.