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.
Correct, I realized my passage reference were pulled from the wrong section of a text I quoted. My mistake...now I look foolish.:)
As to your proof text, I think it just as likely that you misread the textual clues. Newness does not of necessity indicate a lack of any alcohol whatsoever. New wine also contained alcohol...we can debate the percentage content, but that really isn’t the point.
And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Geeze, these Libs see sex in EVERYTHING.
To take a tender story like Ruth and Boaz and turn it into an MTV special is beyond the pale............
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?
1 Sa 25:36 And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart [was] merry within him, for he [was] very drunken: wherefore she told him nothing, less or more, until the morning light. 1 Sa 25:37 But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became [as] a stone.I enjoy Welches grape juice but can't say it ever caused me to be merry, or drunken, or had a lingering effect through the night.
Isa 28:1 Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty [is] a fading flower, which [are] on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! Isa 28:2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, [which] as a tempest of hail [and] a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand. Isa 28:3 The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet: Isa 28:4 And the glorious beauty, which [is] on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, [and] as the hasty fruit before the summer; which [when] he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up. Isa 28:5 In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people, Isa 28:6 And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate. Isa 28:7 But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment. Isa 28:8 For all tables are full of vomit [and] filthiness, [so that there is] no place [clean]. Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.None of the above sounds like Isaiah was describing excessive consumption of Welches grape juice.
One really has to believe night is day to believe the wine mentioned in the bible is the same as the Welches grape juice we buy in the supermarkets.
I once heard a man try to justify wife-swapping by saying that women were chattel according to the Bible.
I once heard a man try to justify wife-swapping by saying that women were chattel according to the Bible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2671210/postsM
And one thing that came out, is that the "Gay Christian" advocates claim that THEY recognize the authority of the Bible only, "Sola Scriptura," and that the Bible actually doesn't condemn homosexuality per se -- or even mention homosexuality per se. They say St. Paul's condemnations, for instance, dealt specifically with offenses like boy-prostitution, rape, pagan temple sex cults, etc.
Their argument is that Bible doescondemn "bad" sex (rape, pedophilia) but does not condemn "good" gay sex (e.g. gay marriage.)
This can be soundly refuted, as Albert Mohler notes, by saying that the Church couldn't have been wrong about something as important as this for 2,000 years; but the "gay Christians" insist that their own inerpretation is correct, and "the Church" is just a human, man-made institution and is wrong in this case.
I'd be interested is seeing someone refute their arguments, based on the words of Scripture alone. The dispute about the meaning of the specific Scriptural terms is found here:
http://tinyurl.com/GayChristian101
Anyone??
If you take the Bible as primarily a bunch of do’s and dont’s for normal everyday life, then you are not only misreading it but also opening yourself up to contrary misreadings like this. If the Bible were meant to be primarily a list of do’s and dont’s, then it would be listed in a simple list format. Why have parables, sermons for the disciples’ ears only, mysterious details, etc., the creation account, etc., if we just go there for mundane details. When we dishonor it in this way, we open the interpretation up to this type of thing.
Also, let's consider this - when the Lord spends eternity, in the new heavens and the new earth, fellowshipping with His saints, we can be guaranteed that there will be no such thing as fermentation (and therefore fermented wine) even existing anymore. Why? Because fermentation is an artefact of decay. It is a result of the principle and process of decay that initiated when man sinned in Eden, and when the curse is lifted, that decay process will also go away. No more death, no more decay, no more of any of that. It will all go away as surely as will cancer, broken bones, severe flus, hurricanes, famines, and all the other things that characterise this world of second law thermodynamics.
I don't think the argument against the use of fermented wine as a correlary to the necessity for unleaven bread in the Supper can be arbitrarily wished away, despite the amount of "tradition" (Catholic, modern Jewish) that goes into using alcoholic wine in the Passover/Lord's Supper. It's not so much a matter of "can Christians drink or not" as it is the meaning and content of the typological pictures involved.
Mark 14, 51 & 52. What’s up with that?
Author: Hey, yeah, you can shack up with anything without guilt.
Media: New findings say you can shack up without guilt.
Bible: Message remains the same as it always has, shacking up isn’t healthy nor desired.
Religious personalities: this means the whole issue has to be reexamined, you should send us more money.
I’m sorry, yet another attempt to justify sexual promiscuity and reject responsibility, another attack upon marriage being a union between one man and one woman.
How many Christians can read ancient Greek or Hebrew?
Not many.
How can anybody have any authority on any biblical matter unless they know what these ancient people were doing and what the language actually meant at the time?
What is a sin?
We have the Noahide laws, the mitzvot for Jewish men, mitzvot for Jewish women, Jesus’ words, Paul’s letters and modern Christians who make things up as they go along.
You can go into a hundred different churches in this country and people will be preaching and doing different things—evangelical churches, Catholic Church, Mormon church, 7th Day adventists, Baptists, etc— which goes against the supposed universality of the meaning of the Bible. Simply, the Bible means whatever you think it means as an individual. The liberal Christian haters even have their interpretations, but who can blame them? Not all Christians agree either! Many good Christians here disagree all the time and usually in good faith, but sometimes people think their truth is superior to another truth.
Everybody claims to be an authority, yet nobody is an authority.
I am a gentile who follows the Noahide laws, yet I am still supposedly a sinner, according to Christian belief just for being alive. A sinner of what exactly? The laws are clear cut for Jews, but not for gentiles, except for the Noahide laws, which are not exactly difficult to follow for any civilized person with a modicum of integrity and common sense.
As far as the wine and fruit juice debate goes, this is nuts, because whenever fruit and natural yeast are present, natural fermentation develops all by itself.
Leave some untreated grape juice or macerated grapes out on a counter and let it sit and watch what happens.
And imagine what it was like when there was no refrigeration in the middle of the desert!
If people back then were macerating fruit to make juice, fermentation was taking place naturally.
Lastly, it fascinates me that some Christians will say drinking fermented beverages is a sin when there is no clear cut prohibition against it, yet will eat pork when there is clear cut evidence that eating pork is a prohibition in the Bible.
Enjoy that grape juice with them pork chops.
Have you a 1st or 2nd century AD source for this information, either Jewish or Christian? Can you provide a link for early (early meaning during the first 1,000 years of Christianity) reference to, exposition of, or elaboration upon, these points?
I'm not trying to give you a hard time here. I'm trying to find out if and when Jews and/or Christians came out against consuming alcohol per se. I'm wondering if it was before the 7th centuyry AD.
Thanks.
Seems to me we all forgot:
“Whatsoever you do, do it heartily as unto the Lord.”
“All things are pure if it is sanctified by prayer and the word of God.”
“If meat offends my brother, I will eat no meat.” “If wine offend a brother. I will drink no wine.”
“As many as are led by the Spirit, they are the children of God.”
What is sin? “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” “.....Transgression of the law is sin.”
“....all unrighteousness is sin.”
“To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”
Shall we continue on?’
LOL!
Feet in the Bible always means feet!
There isn't a single case where it could be referring to the genitals.
I’m not so sure you can definitively say there won’t be alcohol in heaven. Just because it is a product of decay doesn’t mean the Lord can have anything he wants in Heaven. You can’t place our perceived natural laws onto our God. I understand how you arrive at that position, but it is too anthropocentric. I can agree there won’t be any drunkenness in Heaven, but maybe our perfected and sinless bodies will be able to enjoy a good glass of wine that is perfectly created by our good Lord.
Christ turned the water into non-ferminated wine, which cannot get anyone intoxicated.
Rahab the harlot is presented in a positive way in Joshua chapter 2. The two Israelite spies "lodged" with her--it doesn't say whether Joshua required them to submit an itemized bill or whether there was a discount rate for sleeping alone.
Wine was considered to have come diectly from the vine, without fermentation.
And the same Gr. word in the LXX is used here as in Jn.2.
The Bible has fermented and nonfermentated wine and the context will tell you which is which.
Clearly, there was both.
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.