Posted on 02/12/2011 10:57:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Reputable Christian scholars are outright rejecting one author's message that the Bible gives mixed and contradictory teachings on sex and sexuality.
Earlier this week, a Newsweek article entitled, "What the Bible Really Says About Sex," brought attention to the work of Jennifer Wright Knust, author of Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire.
Knust, a religion professor at Boston University, argues that there are cases in the Bible where premarital sex, homosexuality and prostitution is permissible, according to her book and the Newsweek piece.
Evangelical scholars say she fails to demonstrate authentic scholarship and correct biblical interpretation despite teaching religion and being an ordained American Baptist pastor.
"Jennifer Knuts offers a revisionist interpretation of the biblical texts. Her interpretation departs, not only from the traditional ways those texts are interpreted, but also from the true meaning of what the texts actually say," Dr. Claude Mariottini, professor of Old Testament at Northern Baptist Seminary, told The Christian Post.
In his blog post responding to the Newsweek piece, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the Bible already presents a "clear and consistent sexual ethic" and that the issue at hand is not lack of clarity.
"The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision," he wrote Wednesday. "To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled."
In an interview posted Thursday on the Huffington Post, Knust contended to Stephen Prothero, author of Religious Literacy, that the story of Ruth is an example of how premarital sex is "a source of God's blessing" in the Bible. She claimed that the Bible's record of Ruth "uncovering the feet" of Boaz and lying down at his feet is actually a scene of the great grandparents of King David having sex. "Feet" can be a euphemism for male genitals, according to Knust.
Dr. Paul Copan, a philosophy professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach, Fla., told The Christian Post that he believes Ruth's uncovering of Boaz's feet was just that and that nothing sexual took place.
"The Bible doesn't shy away from recording sexual encounters and would have recorded it if one took place," he said.
President of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, Copan also pointed out that the grammar in the Bible doesn’t support a sexual act. The word "lie" can be used in a sexual way, such as Potiphar's wife telling Joseph "lie with me," he noted. But in the story of Ruth, "the word is used here without sexual connotations," said Copan.
Mariottini acknowledged that "feet" can refer to "genitals" in a few passages of the Old Testament, but to say that "Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals, is to read a sexual meaning into the text that may or may not be there," he said.
"Even if Ruth exposed Boaz’s genitals, it does not mean that they had sexual intercourse. It is possible that Ruth was tricking Boaz into thinking they had sex," offered the Old Testament professor.
Bottom line: "The case of Ruth cannot be used to give approval to premarital sex," said Mariottini.
Both Copan and Mariottini referred to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to explain that the Bible is against premarital sex. According to the passage, sex consummates the marriage so if a man has violated a virgin woman, he must pay her father 50 pieces of silver and also take her as his wife, the scholars said.
They also cited the passage in Genesis 2:24, which states, "This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh."
Scripture affirms God's creation order of marriage between a man and a woman and sexual pleasure as taking place in the context of marriage, they said.
In another controversial claim, Knust also argues that the Bible justifies prostitution, pointing to the story of Tamar.
Tamar was left a widow after the Lord punished Er, Judah's eldest son, with death for his wickedness. Judah then asks his second eldest son, Onan, to marry Tamar and give her an offspring but he, too, is slain by the Lord after he intentionally withheld his seed from Tamar. When the third son Shelah was grown but was given to wed Tamar, she posed as a prostitute and had sex with her father-in-law.
"The Bible does not approve prostitution, but like in our society today, prostitution was very common," said Mariottini.
"The reason Tamar dressed like a prostitute was because Judah violated a societal rule and refused to provide an heir for his dead son. So, she was forcing him to fulfill his obligation," he said.
In a commentary to CNN this week, Knust takes another stab at the Bible's claims on sexuality by arguing that Scripture supports homosexuality. Again using Old Testament characters to make her point, she sets her sights on David and Jonathan, alleging that the two were same-sex partners.
"There is no evidence that David and Jonathan were gay partners," stated Mariottini. "Both of them were married and had children. They were just friends who had the kind of friendship that was common in the Ancient Near East. This type of friendship is unknown today. This is the reason people mistake this kind of friendship with a gay relationship."
Mohler had this to say about Knust's claim on homosexuality, "No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual – at least not until recent decades."
"The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?" he asked rhetorically.
Knust acknowledged in her CNN commentary that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a "few" biblical passages, but claims that "these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways."
Not so, according to Copan.
Copan, who addresses the topics of homosexuality and gay marriage in his book When God Goes to Starbucks, said that homosexuality is strictly prohibited by the Bible in Leviticus 18:22 and again by Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6.
Homosexuality "goes against the very design that God intended: marriage is between husband and wife," said Copan, reaffirming the passage in Genesis.
"Paul speaks very strongly against homosexuality," he said. "He says that these sorts of things are not to be approved in the Kingdom of God. He is also saying that people can be redeemed from this."
In his book, Copan cited the work of Richard Hays, dean of Duke Divinity School, who calls such attempts to label Ruth and Naomi as lesbians or David and Jonathan as gays "exegetical curiosities” that just aren’t taken seriously by biblical scholars.
"The Scriptures offer no indications – no stories, no metaphors – that homosexual relationships are acceptable before God," concluded Copan in When God Goes to Starbucks.
I told a liberal friend that they were just trying to sell books. I still feel that’s true. Heck, every smart aleck 13 year old boy in Sunday school knows about the “dirty parts” of the bible, so it’s not as if they are finding sin existed in the good old days.
And yes, they are “cautionary” tales, showing us that God can even save incestuous men like Lot or Judah, if the repent and turn back to him.
But the “David and Jonathan” story is interpreting it to cover their own sins. Deep friendships are now Taboo in the US, but were acceptable in the past or today in other societies.
“The Bible says ‘wine’ context tells you if it is fermented or nonfermented or not.”
Where?
The consensus of scholarly evidence today discounts the veracity of Scripture to begin with. I’m not impressed.
I have gone full circle on the King James Bible. I grew up on it. Adopted other versions later on. And through much study have returned to being KJB only. Older does not mean better. Older may just mean they weren’t in as much use and therefore didn’t need to be replaced as often. The King James Bible has the most manuscripts, the best fruit, and the clearest statement of essential Christian truth than ANY English Bible out there. There is a reason it has survived for 400 years. God preserves His Word.
You are misreading my intentions. I don't need any further evidence that homosexual practices are sinful: I am already thoroughly convinced. I brought up the subject because there there are many influential people out there (for instance at Gay Christian 101 --- take a look and you'll be dumbfounded) who hold themselves out as serious Christians of the sola-scriptura variety, who argue based on the words of scripture that not all homosexual relations are "vile" or "unseemly." They concede that some are vile and unseemly (e.g. rape, pedophilia and prostitution) but assert that others are not (e.g. gay marriage).
They look at this verse, for instance, Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
..and they say, "OK, so marriage is honorable for gay couples, and "marital" gay behavior is undefiled; and at the same time, we also condemn whoring and adultery."
They're wrong, I'm convinced; but as long as one appeals to scripture only, without any further interpretive authority, such errors will proliferate.
It's happened before: all Christian history considered that Onan's sin, the sin of contraception, was an obviously unnatural act and a very grave error, through the past 20 centuries --- until recently. In the past 100 years, most churches changed their interpretation of that.
It happens because the Bible is not a self-interpreting text. The argument proceeds in a very unsatifactory manner--- much like the argument on this thread over wine vs grape juice ---- because people are parsing it out erroneously, without a "referee" to rule some interpretations out of bounds.
With all due respect, this is a statement I'd expect from a member of a cult. Not all scholarly evidence can be dismissed out of hand simply because you don't agree with it. Not every scholar denies the divine authority of Scripture...in fact, Evangelical scholarship is overflowing with wonderful men and women of God right now...you should look into the number of outstanding commentaries that have been written in the past 10-15 years. Standout series, just to name a few, are the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (BECNT), the New American Commentary Series (NAC), The Pillar New Testament Commentary series (PNTC), The New International Version Application Commentary series (NIVAC), the New International Commentary on the New Testament & Old Testament (NICNT/NICOT). A wonderful set would be the Tyndale New Testament Commentary/Old Testament Commentary series (TNTC/TOTC).
Might I venture to guess that you are a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church?
1. Tremper Longman's Proverbs Commentary in the Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms (Semi-technical).
2. Paul Koptak's Proverbs Commentary in the NIVAC (Expository).
3. John A. Kithcen's Proverbs Commentary in the Mentor Commentary series (Expository).
These are considered some of the top commentaries in the field of Proverbs...and they all affirm the diving authority of Scripture. But let me ask you this...I suspect you won't look into these commentaries because you might not like what you find. I honestly believe that when you speak of "veracity of Scripture", what you really mean is "your interpretation of Scripture" or "the interpretations of Scripture that you've been taught". The interpretation that I support is the one that has been recognized for two thousand years...your position is the new kid on the block. I've yet to see a peer-reviewed scholarly presentation/commentary that is able to find that drinking alcohol is absolutely forbidden in Scripture. Now it may be wise not to consume the alcohol of today, but that is an entirely different argument not born in Scripture.
Comments go in the comment box.
Only the title goes in the title box—>
Ok, so allowing that maybe it was a euphemism: then indeed uncovering his feet was a proper, if suggestive, way to indicate her interest in such a [proper] relationship.
1) I did not say ALL scholarly evidence I said the consensus which is what YOU brought up that was supposed to impress me. Don’t try to put words in my mouth.
2) I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, but have not always been so and was not when I studied the subject of biblical versions (in a seminary that was NOT King James only nor did it at any time advocate King James only). How does someone who starts out KJ Only & then moves to accept other versions go to a seminary which does not promote King James come out of it believing more strongly than ever that the King James Bible is the Word of God and other versions are corrupt? Before you dismiss me so easily, I would suggest that you study the subject yourself.
3) From your other comment, the consensus of the scholars for around 1200 years was that justification came by faith plus works and membership in a particular church. Delving into Scripture challenged that view sufficiently that it set the world on end. Scholarly pinheads do not impress when what they say stands against the Word of God.
The challenge was laid out for the pro-alcohol folks to conclusively prove that this is what Jesus used in Scripture. A counter challenge was brought forth to 1)Show 1st century sources that spoke of non-alcoholic grape juice being used in any great degree in the 1st century and 2)Show where the Bible is against the alcoholic variety. I believe I lived up to my end but have seen diddly squat from the pro-we-justify-it-because-we-want-to-drink crowd as to the original challenge. You’re welcome.
Then show me one modern scholarly commentary that agrees with your position.
2) I am a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, but have not always been so and was not when I studied the subject of biblical versions (in a seminary that was NOT King James only nor did it at any time advocate King James only). How does someone who starts out KJ Only & then moves to accept other versions go to a seminary which does not promote King James come out of it believing more strongly than ever that the King James Bible is the Word of God and other versions are corrupt? Before you dismiss me so easily, I would suggest that you study the subject yourself.
Which seminary did you graduate from? I have studied this deeply and find that the KJV-only arguments lacking. You previously mentioned that the NIV is lacking. But show me where the Hebrew texts of the KJV and the NIV disagree on the verses you've quoted. They don't. The problem for you is that you are basing your readings on your self-imposed interpretation of the English translation from the KJV. The problem here is that even a more literal translation like the NASB doesn't support your positions either.
3) From your other comment, the consensus of the scholars for around 1200 years was that justification came by faith plus works and membership in a particular church. Delving into Scripture challenged that view sufficiently that it set the world on end. Scholarly pinheads do not impress when what they say stands against the Word of God.
This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. The fact that you talk about "scholarly pinheads" really leads me to believe that you have no formal training in exegesis or textual analysis.
The challenge was laid out for the pro-alcohol folks to conclusively prove that this is what Jesus used in Scripture. A counter challenge was brought forth to 1)Show 1st century sources that spoke of non-alcoholic grape juice being used in any great degree in the 1st century and 2)Show where the Bible is against the alcoholic variety. I believe I lived up to my end but have seen diddly squat from the pro-we-justify-it-because-we-want-to-drink crowd as to the original challenge. You’re welcome.
You're kidding right? All you've proved is that you can pick verses out of context to prove anything you want. My friend, you are intellectually dishonest. The point is that the versus that decry drunkenness cannot logically be taken to prohibit all consumption of alcohol when they are read IN CONTEXT with other verses that discuss the benefits of drinking. You cannot logically rationalize saying these verses condemn all drinking...otherwise you simply have to ignore the verses that speak positively about wine. How do you account for the positive references to alcohol?
Note the following:
The 247 references to wine and strong drink in the Bible can be divided into 3 broad categories: positive references, negative references, and neutral references. We will first summarize these categories and then examine them in detail.
Summary of references to wine in Scripture
On the negative side, there are 17 warnings against abusing alcohol, 19 examples of people abusing alcohol, 3 references to selecting leaders, and one verse advocating abstinence if drinking will cause a brother to stumble. Total negative references: 40, or 16%.
On the positive side, there are 59 references to the commonly accepted practice of drinking wine (and strong drink) with meals, 27 references to the abundance of wine as an example of God's blessing, 20 references to the loss of wine and strong drink as an example of God's curse, 25 references to the use of wine in offerings and sacrifices, 9 references to wine being used as a gift, and 5 metaphorical references to wine as a basis for a favorable comparison. Total positive references: 145, or 59%.
In what could be considered neutral references, there are 33 symbolic references ("the wine of His wrath," etc.), 21 references to vows of abstinence, 4 references to people falsely accused of being drunk, and 4 references which don't seem to fit a category. Total neutral references: 62, or 25%.
Positive references to wine in Scripture
Surprisingly, by far the most numerous type of references to wine in the Bible (58 references, 24%) are casual references to wine as an integral, commonly accepted part of the culture. No value judgement is attached to it, anymore than people in our culture would attach a value judgement to a choice of iced tea or Diet Coke with a meal. These references show that in the minds of the writers of the Bible, no stigma was associated with casual use of alcohol. Nowhere, in these references or elsewhere, is it even remotely suggested that it is considered a sin.
Almost as many times (47 references, 19%) an abundance of wine is used as an example of God's blessing and a lack of wine is used as an example of God's curse. In these references, wine is included along with with milk, wheat, corn, children, oil, sheep, cattle, fowl, rain, silver, and gold as blessings that come from God. Note that silver and gold are included on this list of examples of blessings from God, even though Paul says, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."[6] This seems to indicate that it is not money itself which is evil, but rather that the evil comes from the behavior of those who have elevated money beyond its proper position. We will address the application of this principle to wine later.
There are 25 references (11%) to instructions or examples of the use of wine in offerings and sacrifices. These references seem to establish conclusively that the Bible does not consider wine to be inherently evil, otherwise how could it be used in sacred rituals? Coupled with the fact that Jesus himself chose wine as an essential part of communion, we are forced to conclude that representing alcohol as inherently evil is not a scriptural position.
And finally, nine times wine is mentioned as a gift (along with things like bread, cattle, and sheep) and five times in the Song of Solomon it is used as a basis for favorable comparisons, such as "thy love is better than wine."
Neutral references to wine in Scripture
The verses in this category don't seem to contain any particular positive or negative connotation. They don't characterize wine as being good, but neither do they contain warnings about the dangers posed by wine.
There are 32 symbolic references to wine, used primarily in reference to acts of God[7] or human behavior that is similar to the effects of wine. [8] Most of them could be used as examples of the prevalence of the everyday use of wine, since symbolism frequently draws from familiar images, but it seems more appropriate to consider them as neutral.
The 21 references to vows of abstinence can be separated into two categories: partial abstinence and total abstinence. The Levitical priests were prohibited from drinking wine before going into the temple to perform their duties. However, it is clear that they weren't required to abstain completely since offerings of wine were included along with grain and other goods to financially support the priesthood.
By contrast, the Nazarite vow included a vow of total abstinence from wine and strong drink, along with other signs of being set apart, such as not cutting the hair. This vow was taken by few people and was certainly not something expected of the average person. The other example of total abstinence is the sons of Jonadab, who made a vow to their father that they would never drink wine. Jeremiah attempted to persuade them to drink wine, but they remained true to their vow. According to the commentaries, the sons of Jonadab were used by Jeremiah as an example of faithfulness, a quality which the nation of Israel had lost.
In summary, the vows of abstinence recorded in the Bible were special cases that did not apply to the general population. They are included in the neutral category because abstaining from alcohol for the sake of a vow does not imply that the common use of alcohol is a sin, any more than a vow to not cut the hair implies that cutting hair is a sin.
There are four references to people falsely accused of being drunk: three for Hannah and one at Pentecost. These could possibly be considered negative references, but since there are so few their placement is not important. There are also four references that don't seem to fit a category at all. This number is also too small to significantly affect the outcome.
Negative references to wine in Scripture
All but one of the 40 negative references to alcohol in the Bible concern the abuse of alcohol. There are 17 warnings against abusing alcohol, 19 examples of people abusing alcohol, and three guidelines for selecting leaders. The 3 references to selecting leaders caution that those who abuse alcohol should not be selected as leaders. They use the phrases "not given to much wine," "not given to drunkenness," and "not given to wine." These references indicate that total abstinence is not required or expected of leaders. [9]
Based on the content and number of positive references to alcohol and these 39 negative references, it seems that the scriptural position is an emphasis on moderate use of alcohol with a caution against drunkenness. In light of what the Bible actually says about alcohol, it is surprising that so many conservative Christians treat a prohibitionist position as a scriptural position. However, before we reach any final conclusions we must give full consideration to the remaining reference to wine.
Oliver Wendell Holmes jr., William James, and Charles Peirce were close friends in the years before the the Civil Wars. I am sure that some gays might after scutinizing their letters claim them for their own. Perversely I must add, but their very view of the world is perverse.
Well done. Total abstention from alcohol is proper for alcoholics, and certainly the spouses and children of alcoholics had reason enough to speak of “demon rum.” But human beings have a tendency to overdo every pleasure. Todays’s zealots against smoking could tell the Prohibitionists a thing or two about how one gets a population to abstrain from a substance. Notice, however, they are now getting into food. Too much of a good thing is turned into an evil.
2)Seminary: Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I studied theology directly under Dr. Albert Mohler who is not a King James Bible advocate.
2b) NIV Versus KJV on these verses. WHO CARES??? NIV is a corrupt version with bad manuscripts (Alexandrian texts) and bad methodology (Dynamic Equivalent). Why would I care what it has to say?
3)Having a Th D. after your name doesn’t make you a good Bible Scholar. Lots of Doctors with the Jesus Seminar that are pinheads. My statement stands.
4) The verses I used were in context and in response to a question. That they don’t support your cause isn’t my problem.
I am sorry for you that you've bound yourself to legalism where none exists in Scripture. I will pray that the Grace of our Lord will see that you review the article I've linked and that with an open mind you will let the Holy Spirit show you how wrong legalism really is.
The article considers what ALL of Scripture says when taken in its entirety, not the use of selective text to prove a point. I don't fear your verses because I know them to prohibit drunkenness. I am able to reconcile all of Scripture...I don't believe you are able to say the same my friend. I am utterly convinced with the weight of historical, scholarly and Scriptural authority that my position espouses the clear meaning of Scripture, whether it comes from the Masoretic Text or the Alexandrian Text.
May God Bless You.
Just a few passages from the King James Version:
Gen 9:20 And Noah began [to be] an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: Gen 9:21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Since when does grape juice cause a man to sleep through being sodomized?
I really do not see that Noah,s son done any thing to him except uncover him which is wrong because a son is not to see his fathers nakedness.
Although i realize that it includes sexual matters it also is meant in the littoral sense that has nothing to do with sex.
Leviticus 18:7 “’You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father, nor the nakedness of your mother: she is your mother. You shall not uncover her nakedness.
And for a very good reason, if a son sees his father and mother naked from the time it is a small child, doesent it make sense that it would have an adverse affect on the child?
Could the boy child have a wrong respect for one or the other? could it give him the wrong message?
I have never known any old people who took a bath with their kids, but with the younger generation it seems not so uncommon, is the thread that we are commenting on some of the consequences?
Can someone please explain to me why there is more discussion about the use of alcohol in this thread than there is about what the Bible teaches about sex?
Can someone please explain to me why there is more discussion about the use of alcohol in this thread than there is about what the Bible teaches about sex?
Sex goes better with a stiff drink!
One question that is never addressed by the “gay christian” (sic) movement... where are the rules?
For heterosexuality the Bible is filled with rules. Wait til marriage, don’t go outside marrige, don’t lust after another man’s wife, no rape, no sex at the wrong time of the month, no sex/marriage with certain relatives, polygamy limited in the old testament and banned in the new, etc, etc.
By contrast the scripture has very little to say about homosexuality. There are only a few references to it, and the plain sense of those few passages seems to be, a total ban.
IF the rule has been misinterpreted for 5000 years...if indeed homosexuality is NOT banned in scripture... then, where are the scriptural rules governing the conduct of it?
....crickets chirping.....
Have you ever heard a “gay christian” or a “gay pastor” tell his gay parishioners, don’t commit sodomy til your gay wedding night? NEVER do you hear this! And you NEVER WILL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.