More
on Knust’s Blunders about the Bible and Homosexuality
An
Addendum to My CNN Editorial
by Robert
A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
March 3, 2011
For printing
use the pdf version
here.
I couldn’t squeeze
all or even most of my criticisms of Prof. Dr. Jennifer Wright Knust’s
editorial at CNN’s Belief Blog, “The
Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality” (Feb. 9, 2011), in
my same-site response, “The
Bible really does condemn homosexuality” (March 3, 2011).
Note that the title
is that of the Religion Editor, added at the last moment without checking
with me. I would say ‘homosexual practice,’ not ‘homosexuality.’ My own
suggested title was more positive: The Bible’s surprisingly consistent
message on sexuality.” Within the article the editor stripped away nearly
all my citations of primary sources.
The editors of the
Belief Blog limited my word count to roughly the size of Knust’s
editorial. This limitation was excruciating given the number of dumb
arguments that Knust made and the array of counterarguments at my disposal
for answering each of these. So I limited myself there to treating her two
key contentions, her androgyne argument and her slavery analogy, and put
here my response to the rest of her claims.
I’m sure Prof. Knust
is a nice person in other contexts but it is inexcusable to be so
uninformed (and even condescendingly abrasive) about a subject on which
she claims to be an expert.
A clarification: My
comment about “the Left” not dealing with the significant literature that
disagrees with their homosexualist interpretation of the Bible refers to
the religious Left (i.e. persons generally dismissive of Scripture), not
the political Left. I should have made that point clearer.
More on Knust’s
Androgyne Argument
It is not accurate to
say, as Knust does, that Jesus “discouraged” marriage. He merely created
the option for those like himself who “made themselves eunuchs because of
the kingdom of heaven” on pragmatic missionary grounds (Matthew
19:9-12). Foregoing marriage and thus all sexual relations was an option
for those who wanted to proclaim the message about God’s kingdom with
greater freedom of movement and risk than would otherwise be the case with
a spouse and children.
In response to my
rebuttal Knust might argue that the existence of hermaphroditic or
“intersexed” persons in our society undermines Jesus’ argument that the
creation of two primary sexes, “male and female,” is an indicator that God
limits sexual unions to two persons. It doesn’t.
First, the phenomenon
of the intersexed involves an amalgam of the two primary sexes, not
distinct features of a third sex. Second, extreme sexual ambiguity is very
rare, encompassing only a tiny fraction of one percent of the general
population. Usually an allegedly intersexed person has a genital
abnormality that does not significantly straddle the sexes; for example,
females with a large clitoris or small vagina, or males with a small penis
or one that does not allow a direct urinary stream. The extreme exception
merely underscores the prevailing rule of foundational twoness.
Third, the category
of the “intersexed” no more justifies an elimination of a two-sexes
prerequisite than does the equally rare phenomenon of conjoined
(‘Siamese’) twins justify the elimination of a monogamy principle; or than
does some fuzziness around the edges of defining “close blood relations”
and “children” justifies the elimination of standards against incest and
pedophilia. Fourth, homosexual persons who seek to discard a binary model
for sexual relations do not claim, for the most part, to be other than
male or female. Thus they, at least, remain logically and naturally bound
to a binary model for mate selection.
More on Knust’s
Slavery Analogy
Knust’s insinuation
that Paul wouldn’t have cared if masters sexually abused their slaves is
absurd, inasmuch as Paul rejected all sexual relations outside of
marriage, to say nothing of coerced relations.
Relative to the slave
economies of the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin
the countercultural dynamic of ancient Israel and the early church appears
quite liberating. The countercultural dynamic of Scripture with respect to
homosexual practice moves decisively in the direction of equating
liberation with freedom from enslavement to homoerotic impulses.
No culture in the
ancient Near East or in the Greco-Roman world was more strongly opposed to
homosexual practice than ancient Israel, early Judaism, and early
Christianity.
David and
Jonathan
Knust makes a mistake
common to persons unfamiliar with ancient Near Eastern conventions when
she discusses David’s relationship to Jonathan. She confuses non-erotic,
covenant-kinship language with erotic love language.
All of the
expressions that she takes as erotic in the David and Jonathan narrative
have stronger Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern parallels with
non-sexual relationships between close kin of the same sex. The narrator
of the Succession Narrative (1 Samuel 16:14 to 2 Sam 5:10) legitimizes
David’s succession of King Saul by showing that David was accepted by
Jonathan into his father’s household as an older brother, not as
Jonathan’s lover (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146-54).
For example:
-
Compare
“the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved
him as his own soul” (1 Sam 18:1; cf. 20:17) with “[Jacob’s] soul is
bound up with [his son Benjamin’s] soul” (Gen 44:31) and “Love your
neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18); compare it too with the language of
covenant treaties, such as “You must love [him] as yourselves”
(addressed to vassals of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal) and the reference
in 1 Kings 5:1 to King Hiram of Tyre as David’s “lover.”
-
Compare
Jonathan “delighted very much” in David (1 Sam 19:1) with (1) “The king
[Saul] is delighted with you [David], and all his servants love you; now
then, become the king’s son-in-law” (1 Sam 18:22); with (2) “Whoever
delights in Joab, and whoever is for David, [let him follow] after Joab”
(2 Sam 20:11); and with (3) the reference to God “delighting in” David
(2 Sam 15:26; 22:20).
When David had to
flee from Saul, David and Jonathan had a farewell meeting, in which David
“bowed three times [to Jonathan], and they kissed each other, and wept
with each other” (1 Samuel 20:41-42). Is this an erotic scene? Not likely.
Only three out of twenty-seven occurrences of the Hebrew verb “to kiss”
have an erotic dimension. Most refer to kissing between a father and a son
or between brothers.
At one point in the
narrative Saul lashes out at his son Jonathan: “You son of a perverse,
rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse
[David] to your own shame and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness?” (1
Samuel 20:30-34). Does this remark imply that David and Jonathan were in
an erotic relationship? No, Saul here simply charges Jonathan with
bringing shame on the mother who bore him by acquiescing to David’s claim
on Saul’s throne (cf. 2 Samuel 19:5-6).
When David learns of
the deaths of Saul and Jonathan he states of Jonathan: “You were very dear
to me; your love to me was more wonderful to me than the love of women” (2
Samuel 1:26). The Hebrew verb for “were very dear to” is used in a sexual
sense in the OT only two out of twenty-six occurrences. A related form is
used just three verses earlier when David refers to Saul as
“lovely”—hardly in an erotic sense. Jonathan’s giving up his place as
royal heir and risking his life for David surpassed anything David had
known from a committed erotic relationship with a woman. David is not
referring to erotic lovemaking on the part of Jonathan. As Proverbs 18:24
states in a non-erotic context, “There is a lover/friend who sticks closer
than a brother.”
The narrators’
willingness to speak of David’s vigorous heterosexual life (e.g., his lust
for Bathsheba) puts in stark relief their complete silence about any
sexual activity between David and Jonathan. Homosexual interpretations
misunderstand the political overtones of the Succession Narrative in 1 Sam
16:14 – 2 Sam 5:10. Jonathan’s handing over his robe, armor, sword, bow,
and belt to David was an act of political investiture (1 Sam 18:4) that
transferred the office of heir apparent.
The point of
emphasizing the close relationship between David and Jonathan was to
establish the fact that David was not a rogue usurper to Saul’s throne. He
was rather adopted by Jonathan into his father’s “house” (family,
dynasty). He has become Jonathan’s beloved older brother. Neither the
narrators of the Succession Narrative nor the author(s) of the
Deuteronomistic History show concern about homosexual scandal. The reason
for this is that in the context of ancient Near Eastern conventions,
nothing in the narrative raised suspicions about a homosexual
relationship.
The New
Testament View of the Sodom Story
Citing Jude 7 Knust
alleges that “from the perspective of the New Testament” the Sodom story
was about “the near rape of angels, not sex between men.” She
misinterprets Jude 7. Understood in relation to leading first-century
Jewish commentators (Philo and Josephus), Jude 7 should be read as a
rhetorical figure known as hendiadys (literally, “one by two”): By
attempting to commit sexual immorality (men with males), the men of
Sodom got more than they bargained for: nearly having sex with angels
(compare the parallel in 2 Peter 2:7, 10). For further discussion of Jude
7 see pp. 9-13 of an online article
here.
There is no tradition
in early Judaism that the men of Sodom were even aware that the visitors
were angels (on the contrary, compare Hebrews 13:2: “… entertained angels
unawares”). Furthermore, Paul’s indictment of homosexual practice in
Romans 1:24-27 has multiple echoes in its context to the Sodom story, with
no hint of an offense toward angels. The New Testament witness does indeed
understand a key element in the judgment of Sodom to be attempted man-male
intercourse.
The Canard that
Only a Few Bible Texts Reject Homosexual Practice
Knust dismisses the
texts that reject homosexual practice as “few.” But limited explicit
mention can be an indication of an irreducible minimum in sexual ethics
that doesn’t need to be talked about extensively. Bestiality, an offense
worse than homosexual practice, is mentioned even less in the Bible; and
sex with one’s parent receives a comparable amount of attention to
homosexual practice.
The Bible’s attention
to homosexual practice is also not as limited as Knust pretends it to be.
Knust leaves out some texts that have to do with homosexual practice. A
case in point are the repeated references in Deuteronomy through 2 Kings
to the “abomination” of the qedeshim (so-called “sacred ones”),
cult figures who engage in consensual sex with other males, also echoed in
the Book of Revelation (22:15; 21:8).
Even more
importantly, every biblical narrative, law, proverb, exhortation,
metaphor, and poetry in the Bible that has anything to do with sexual
relationships presumes a male-female prerequisite – no exceptions. A more
consistent ethical position in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation could
hardly be found. This is not, as Knust claims, “a very particular and
narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages.”
Knust’s Claim
that the Bible Doesn’t Reject Homosexual Practice Absolutely
Knust claims that
texts like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Paul’s indictment of homosexual
practice in Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10 are not
absolute indictments of all homosexual acts for all time. She makes a
number of sloppy allegations.
She states that the
Levitical prohibitions applied only to Jews living in Palestine. However,
the laws in Leviticus 17-18 apply also to non-Jews living in Israel. By
the period of the New Testament they make up the “Noahide laws” that Jews
thought were binding on Gentiles (see, for example, the Apostolic Decree
in Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25). Both Jews living outside Palestine and
“God-fearing” Gentiles attracted to the Jewish religion understood the
prohibitions of incest, adultery, man-male intercourse, and bestiality in
Leviticus 18 and 20 as morally binding on them.
Knust states that the
prohibitions address only male homosexual practice but this is true only
in a pedantic sense. Lesbianism isn’t mentioned in Leviticus because such
behavior was largely unknown to men in the ancient Near East where society
tightly regulated women’s sexual lives (it goes virtually unmentioned
elsewhere). The first-century Greco-Roman world did know about lesbianism
so it is not surprising that Paul explicitly rejected it in Romans 1:26,
in keeping with the normative Jewish view of his time.
Knust states that
“biblical patriarchs and kings violate nearly every one of these
commandments.” It is true that some of the close kin marriages forbidden
by Levitical incest law are practiced by the patriarchs. Nevertheless,
this exemption is withdrawn for later generations by biblical narrators -
and the worst forms of consensual incest are never accepted in the Bible.
As with Jesus’ rejection of concurrent and serial polygamy, an earlier
permission in sexual ethics is retracted.
Knust says: “Paul’s
letters urge followers of Christ to remain celibate.” Like Jesus, Paul
commends to converts a celibate life, but on pragmatic missionary grounds,
not because sexual relations in the context of marriage are a bad thing.
Like Jesus, he insists that marriage is no sin and a necessary institution
for those who would otherwise drift into immorality. Not that this was the
only value of marriage for Jesus and Paul. Neither person was known to be
an ascetic. Jesus was accused of being “a glutton and drunkard” (Matthew
11:19) and Paul boasted that he knew how to be content both in lack and in
abundance (Philippians 4:12).
Knust adds to her
indictment of Paul that he “blames all Gentiles in general for their poor
sexual standards.” I’m not sure what her point is here. Relative to the
sexual morality of Jews, Gentile sexual morality on the whole was indeed
in very bad shape. Read the graffiti found in the ruins of first-century
Pompeii to get a sense of how bad things were. Homosexual practice was a
case in point but so too the widespread sex with prostitutes, adultery,
and fornication.
Paul’s indictment of
homosexual practice in Romans 1:24-27 is clearly absolute. This is
indicated by multiple layers of evidence, including: the strong echoes to
Genesis 1:26-27 in Romans 1:23-27; the nature argument based on the
material structures of creation (compare Romans 1:26-27 with 1:20); the
indictment of lesbianism, not known for exploitative practices; the
emphasis on mutuality (“inflamed with their desire on one another,” 1:27);
Jewish and Christian texts from the second and third centuries rejecting
same-sex marriage; and the broader Greco-Roman context where some
moralists and physicians condemn as “against nature” even loving forms of
homosexual practice by persons congenitally predisposed to same-sex
attractions.
After her skewed
assessment of what Scripture has to say about homosexual practice, Knust
asks: “So why are we pretending that the Bible is dictating our sexual
morals?” There is no pretending. The Bible’s witness against homosexual
practice is consistent, strong, absolute, and countercultural, as any
informed stance will recognize.
The
Contribution of Philosophical Reasoning and Science
The notion that
Scripture provides firm and clear moral guidelines against homosexual
practice is all too obvious. Although Knust intimates that the only
arguments that could be used against societal endorsement of homosexual
unions are (invalid) scriptural ones, there are other reasons drawn from
reason and science. These include good philosophical arguments, where it
is reasonable to view as inherently self-dishonoring and self-degrading
sexual arousal for what one already is and has as a sexual being – males
for essential maleness, females for essential femaleness – and the
attendant effort at reuniting with a sexual same as though one’s sexual
other half.
In effect
participants in homosexual practice treat their individual sex as only
half intact, not in relation to the other sex but in relation to their own
sex. If the logic of a heterosexual union is that the two halves of the
sexual spectrum, male and female, unite to re-form a single sexual whole,
the logic of a homosexual union is that two half-males unite to form a
whole male, two half-females unite to form a whole female.
Finally, there are
good scientific arguments against affirming homosexual practice, including
the disproportionately high rate of measurable harms associated with it.
These harms correspond to gender differences between males and females:
for homosexually active males, higher numbers of sex partners lifetime and
STIs; for homosexually active females, shorter-term unions and mental
health issues (even relative to homosexually active males). These
gender-type harms are not surprising since in a homosexual union the
extremes of a given sex are not being moderated, nor the gaps filled, by a
true sexual counterpart.
Condemnation,
Love, and Grace
Knust caricatures the
moderate view of the Bible on homosexual intercourse as “the Bible forces
me to condemn them” (i.e. “gay people”). Augustine put it better in
explaining his dictum “Love and do what you want”: “Let love be fervent to
correct, to amend. . . . Love not in the person his error, but the person;
for the person God made, the error the person himself made.”
Ironically, it is
Knust who brings condemnation on persons who engage in homosexual practice
in a serial-unrepentant manner. She acts as judge and jury, substituting
God’s judgment for her own by acquitting persons of behavior that the
Bible’s authors view as endangering their inheritance of eternal life.
Which parents are
loving: Parents who are negligent in preventing their young children from
touching a hot stove (or, worse, give assurance that no harm will come) or
parents who strenuously warn their children to avoid such behavior? Much
more is at stake in affirming homosexual behavior than any burn that comes
from touching a hot stove.
Judgment and grace
are the opposite of what Knust portrays them to be. In Romans 1:18-32,
which includes Paul’s searing indictment of homosexual practice (1:24-27),
Paul depicts God’s wrath as God stepping away from moral
intervention, thereby allowing people to gratify themselves in impure,
degrading, and indecent behavior. As a consequence, offenders heap up
their sins and bring upon themselves cataclysmic judgment at the End. By
contrast, Paul presents God’s grace in Romans 6:14-23 as God
through Christ actively stepping back into the lives of believers in order
to destroy the rule of sin and put a stop to impure and shameful
practices.
I welcome further
dialogue or debate with Prof. Knust in print, radio, or television. A
televised discussion in particular would give a much larger audience a
chance to see what kind of case can be mounted on each side of the
question. How about it CNN?
Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D., is associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary and author of
The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics and (with
Dan Via)
Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views.