The word “sodomy” is in quotes because Sodom is a place, and “sodomy” is a Medieval term which eventually became a legal term. So I use it loosely, and sarcastically.
What’s interesting is what happened in Lot’s family during the post-Sodom period.
From Genesis 19:
19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
I want to pause right there, because if we assume the accuracy of the Bible, if the father was made to drink, and was so drunk that he was not aware of what was going on, that is rape in most states today.
Lot was a rape victim. And an incest victim.
Not just once, but twice. The girls were in a conspiracy to commit rape:
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
So far as I can tell, God does not seem to have punished the daughters for violating the Leviticus incest prohibition. Nor for rape, although the Bible has been accused of being soft on rape.
Not that this especially matters to me. It’s just that people cite the Bible for all sorts of things without regard to context, and they actually seem to think context does not matter — as if every word in the Bible is intended to be taken literally and obeyed by all people in all places in all times.
Romans (written by Saint Paul) is often cited as incontrovertible Biblical evidence of what Christians must do and think, without regard to context. For example, Paul stated that homosexuality was a form of punishment inflicted by God on people who became pagans:
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Reading that literally (which we must if the Bible is to be taken literally), it would appear that God made them homosexual because they became pagans. Yet that passage is seen by many as dispositive on the issue of homosexuality, without regard to whatever context Paul might have been thinking about in the 1st Century AD.
So… if context is irrelevant and Saint Paul’s teachings must be applied to modern America, I suppose that means we must all meekly obey our rulers and pay our taxes, no matter what:
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Got that? Barack Obama is God’s servant, for our own good!
Isn’t it just possible that the above and other Biblical passages are subject to interpretation?
Comments
8 responses to ““Sodomy” followed by incestuous rape (and other unassailable truths)”
[…] speaking of Biblical interpretations, regardless of whether or not December 25 is in fact the anniversary of the date Jesus was born, […]
It also sez in the bible that blasphemers and adulters should be stoned to death! It also sez a fetus can not be considered a human being look it up in cronicles!
You unconsciously adopt the Protestant view that the meaning of the Bible is plain and obvious to anyone of normal intelligence and a good will. Protestants are, however, a minority in the Christian world. The Catholic, Orthodox and Jewish stance (for the Old Testament) is that the Bible must be read from the viewpoint of the established tradition. They of course, do so because the Bible is littered with self-contradictions throughout and is fundamentally incoherent. This incoherency is the primary reason for the 30,000 Protestant sects roaming the planet today and the divisions in Christianity.
So the Catholics and other traditionalists impose a coherency via traditional, authoritative readings. Moreover, all Christians and Jews worship the god of the Greek philosophers (omniscient, omnipotent, ubiquitous, benevolent, …) which hardly describes Yahweh.
You should worry more about Islam and progressivism.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Eric, your larger point about context holds water, but you need a professional Bible scholar like (ahem!) me to guide you through the interpretive forest. A more contextual reading of that Romans passage goes something like this:
Pagan society largely rejected the true God (i.e., the God of Israel, who turns out to be the God of the universe). As a result, society suffered the skewing of God’s good intent for humanity, causing a loss of intellectual rigor (“wise became fools,” “hearts darkened”) and a reversal of nature (“men burned with lust for each other,” “women exchanged the natural use for the unnatural”) among other ills.
It’s not that some individual rejected God and God made them gay. It’s more like widespread knowledge of God keeps a society on track morally and intellectually, while widespread rejection of God results in a train wreck.
The story of Lot’s drunken incest functions in part as a etiology (explanation story) of the origins of the peoples of Ammon and Moab. Ancient Israelites probably enjoyed the portrayal of their often-hostile neighbors as a bunch of literal bastards.
And I can’t believe I just wrote about this on Christmas Day. If THAT story is true, God has done something dramatic to rescue us from our drunken incest and a whole bunch of other ills.
Peace on earth and in your heart.
*an etiology
The story of Lot’s family is an interesting one. These same two girls had been offered by Lot to the riotous mob in Sodom when they were attempting to rape the visiting angels. Although they were spurned by the mob, perhaps the girls held it against their father. They must not have been very happy about their mom being turned to a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, either!
Incidentally, Jesus is descended from Moab, through Ruth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_%28biblical_figure%29
If the mob wouldn’t take Lot’s daughters they must have been some ugly girls. No wonder they had to resort to raping their drunken father. Wine goggles.
Speaking of context….
1. Lot leaves Abraham for Sodom because of greed, ignoring the immorality of the place. The story follows a classical tragic arc with first Lot, and then his daughters, showing just how much they’ve absorbed the corrupt, insular mindset of the city.
2. The main sin of the Sodomites isn’t sexual – it’s the lack of hospitality despite great wealth (which hints at a general pagan culture of inequality/exploitation). In a water-starved region, Sodom was (like the Nile delta) a reliably watered area – sitting on a major trade route.
3. Jewish Biblical scholarship has an eye for nuance and detail that most modern scorners don’t credit – for example, the name “Moav” means “from the father”. The first daughter was shameless about her son’s incestuous birth.
The name “Ben-Ammi” means “son of my nation” and shows that the second daughter felt differently.
Later on, the Bible traces how these initial attitudes led to differences in national character – and degree of opposition to the liberated Israelites.