Biblical Theology LXI: Jude

Jude is thought to be the brother of Jesus, who identifies himself instead as the brother of James, who is likely the James who is the brother of Jesus. The letter is clearly a summary of the message of 2 Peter 2-3, and mentions the letter in vv. 17-18. Jude states his purpose as exhorting his audience to “fight for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (v. 3).

Theology: Jude relates the concept that the faith was already delivered to the saints “once for all,” and is not lacking further revelation to clarify it. The false teachers in Jude, however, argue that there is more revelation coming from God concerning the faith that would change how Christians see grace and the Christian life. This revelation comes from dreams/visions they believe they are receiving from God (v. 8). These teachers are likely Gnostics who believe the spirit speaks to the spiritually enlightened directly and are not limited to the apostles, even having the ability to reinterpret the apostles with their new revelations, and reject the Old Testament as an enslaving covenant delivered by angels who are evil workers of the Demiurge, i.e., the spiritually inferior god of the Old Testament.

As other New Testament books have argued, these teachers are not merely Christians with different views about grace, church authority, the means of revelation, etc., but instead people who have been predetermined for damnation (vv. 4 and 13).

Ethics: Jude argues that these men need to be avoided. They are like Cain in that they are murderers of the righteous. They are like Balaam in that they betray the people of God for money. They are like Korah in that they oppose the rightful teachers of God. He furthers his argument by using a series of nautical metaphors. These men are rocks, waterless clouds, dead fruit trees that bear no fruit, wild waves of the sea, roaming stars. In other words, rocks upon which the faith is shipwrecked, they offer no water to thirsty sailors, nor food, but are waves that sink ships, and offer no guidance as a fixed star would.

These men distort the nature of grace by arguing that grace allows for sexually immoral behavior. He gives three examples to refute their view of grace, and that God still accepts people who live this way: (1) God later destroyed the very people he saved out of Egypt for their rebellion, (2) God imprisoned His own angels into the deep darkness because they engaged in sexual immorality, (3) God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring towns for engaging in sexual immorality as well as an example of the eternal fire reserved for all who do the same. The Lord is going to return to judge all of the ungodly, of whom these false teachers are a part.

By presenting these men this way, Jude wishes to argue that those who follow these men will become like them and receive their punishment.

Jude warns his audience that these men are great speakers who capture people’s respect and allegiance with their persuasive words (v. 16). They look for faults in the orthodox teachers so that they can gain an audience and supplant them.

Instead of following such men, true Christians are to build themselves up in their holy faith (i.e., increasing in the knowledge of the apostolic teaching), praying in the Holy Spirit (i.e., communing with God through prayer), and by these two things, keeping themselves in the love of God as they await His mercy upon them that will bring them eternal life.

He exhorts them not to condemn those who are doubting, but still open, and to rebuke others, perhaps, to the point of discipline, as a way of snatching them out of the fire. All credit is given to Christ who will give them the ability to keep them from falling into the sins of these false teachers.

The Bible Has Always Been Anti-Gay

I was sent this short interview by a friend of mine who also had this sent to him. The one giving the interview is a homosexual named Ed Oxford. He's publishing a book entitled, Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay, a title obviously insinuating that the Bible wasn't against homosexuality originally. This is a common line of argumentation that commits numerous exegetical fallacies, and so I thought I would briefly point out the errors in such reasoning.

First, it is important to note that this entire argument hinges on all sorts of assumptions about the translated text. The question cannot be solved in translation but in the original languages. I can only assume that a particular fallacy of illegitimate referential transference is being committed here, as it often is in these apologetic pieces that seek to justify homosexuality as a non-sinful behavior and ordered disposition.

First, we must ask the question as to whether the two passages in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) should be translated as knabe “boys” as Luther does. The word zākār is simply the Hebrew word for “male.” What age the male is has to be brought out by the context. Sometimes the male is a newborn, sometimes he’s a mature animal who is brought along to mate with a female, sometimes he’s a mature male who can produce semen, is of marriageable age, has sex with women, goes to war, and is between the ages of 20 and 60. In other words, the word does not carry the concept of age with it. The male can be of any age just like the word female can refer to any age. It does not refer to any specific male until the context makes that clear, and if it does not make it clear, then the referent remains contextually generalized. In other words, if the context does not specifically include a referent to these males as boys, then translating the word as “boy” is incorrect, as it limits what is generic. If the text prohibits activity with X, and the context does not specify that the prohibition is specifically a type of X (i.e., Xa as opposed to Xb), then to limit it to only Xa ignores the context, supplies an alternate context, and changes what is being prohibited. 

Hence, these passages condemn male-to-male sexual relationships, i.e., homosexual relationships, in general, regardless of the nature of the specific relationship in which the activity is practiced.

Of course, the claim that the church has not condemned homosexuality in its beliefs and translations of the sacred text throughout its history is just a flat out lie. All non-procreative sexual activity has been condemned from the beginning. Notice as well that the Vulgate, the translation that had been the Bible for the church for over a thousand years before Luther translates these texts correctly as males having sex with males in general, and not specifically referring to adult-to-boy relationships. Instead, Luther’s translation and the translations that follow it are employed as a diversion, as though they made up the correct translation of these texts and that the church had always seen these texts in that light.

Furthermore, the LXX translation, which has been both the translation used by the early church and even the apostles, translates zākār as arsen “male.” In fact, Paul gets his compound word from the two words found in Leviticus 18 and 20 arsenos and koitē, i.e., “bedding a male.” Nowhere in these texts is there an indication that these condemnations are limited to a specific relationship between the males. In fact, even if one were to argue that 1 Corinthians has a specific relationship mentioned because both the giver and receiver in the sexual act are mentioned (I would dispute that this limits the relationship to an age group at all because malakoi, again, generalized, just refers to any male who has submitted his body to be used in a lewd sexual act or to take on the female role in a male-to-male act, without reference to age), he gives no such context in 1 Timothy 1:10, where only the arsenkoitai “male bedders” are mentioned. 

His appeal to a Latin lexicon is an odd one. For one, the Latin word praedico means to preach and has nothing to do with the subject. I can only assume that the interviewer misunderstood the word he was trying to use. The other word he uses, paedico, which he seems to think has something to do with children means "to practice sodomy," and has nothing to do with children. I can only assume he thinks the word comes from a similar sounding word in Greek (paedo), but this is Latin (the Latin word for a male child is Liberi, or  Pueri for the word "boy"), and the word he references here comes from the cognate paedor "dirt," "filthiness" and not some word referring to children (Oxford Latin Dictionary 1411). Luther is not getting his translation from it.

So why did Luther translate 4 out of 80 texts as knabe “boy” instead of his normal translation of the term zākār as Männlein, Männlich, Mann, or Mannsbuild, i.e., “male”? One of those texts is one of two that make it obvious that it is referring to having a male child. Hence, he uses both knabe (Isa 66:7) and jünge “young” (Jer 20:15), so those two are merely contextual. The “males” in question in those two prophetic texts are clearly children. However, numerous texts indicate clearly that the males are children in the Pentateuch and throughout, and yet, these are translated by Luther correctly as “male.” 

If I were to guess, I believe Luther was not trying to exclude homosexuality from these four texts (Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; and 1 Tim 1:10), but point it directly at the Pope specifically. There is no question that the term zākār simply means “male,” and does not carry any referent from other texts over as a part of its meaning. Hence, when not limited to an age group by what is made explicit or implicit in the context, the term is generic and refers to any male of any age. Hence, men between 20 to 60 years of age, animals old enough to mate, women having sex with males, males having seminal discharges, etc. all indicate that the term can be applied to a male of any age in any situation. Luther affirmed this by translating this way 75 out of the 80 times that it is used.

One of the problems, however, in having someone who wants to speak to his culture translate the Bible is that he is tempted to direct his translation at particular people or situations. In this case, Luther incorrectly limited passages that were generic in nature, i.e., meant to cover all male-to-male relationships, to speak directly to adult-to-child relationships because he was in a battle against the Pope and Rome.

It’s not a secret that Luther loathed the Pope and his cardinals. It was said that Pope Leo X would throw “parties” where a giant cake was delivered and out of it would jump little naked boys. Luther had critiqued the Pope and his cardinals for their pederasty. Leo X had vetoed a bill that would limit the amount of boys cardinals kept for their sexual appetites. Luther argued that it was vetoed because “otherwise it would have been spread throughout the world how openly and shamelessly the pope and the cardinals in Rome practice sodomy” (Warnunge D. Martini Luther/ An seine lieben Deudschen, Wittenberg, 1531). 

Oxford relates that he has suspicions concerning the use of the term “homosexual” because of the background of the sexual revolution, but seems to evidence no suspicion when it comes to Luther’s polemical disposition toward the Pope and the gross sexual immorality being practiced by these powerful men his day. It is also no secret that Luther’s translation is polemical toward the teachings of Rome, evidenced in his translation of numerous texts (e.g., “faith alone” rather than “faith”—although there is contextual warrant for this example).

Hence, the translation was polemical, not linguistically responsible. The great irony is that a translation once meant to condemn a sexual perversion is now being used to condone one, since, if these texts are limited to a specific male-to-male relationship, it is argued that they do not condemn other male-to-male relationships outside of them. 

This is a species of what I call “context replacement.” The context does not limit the relationship in any way by specifying, explicitly or implicitly, what age the males involved might be. Hence, a faulty background is inserted to provide the context so that it can be limited, and what was once prohibited by the generalized statement is now permitted by the specific that supposedly is not being addressed.

This same type of fallacy is committed when interpreters attempt to argue that this refers to an uncommitted male-to-male relationship, or an act of male-to-male prostitution, etc. The passage does  not limit the extent of the relationship because it is prohibiting any and all male-to-male sexual relationships. The same is understood when the law prohibits murder or adultery. We are not assume that one cannot murder only a specific group, whereby making it permissible to murder any group outside of that group, nor are we to limit adultery in such ways. Likewise, generalized prohibitions are not limited to groups, but instead go beyond specific limitations to encompass any and all situations. 

When I discuss homosexuality, however, I make note of these fallacies but then attempt to enlighten people concernig the larger creational trajectory of the Bible that argues for the goodness of procreative sexual activity and the chaotic/evil nature of anticreational activity. Understanding the larger framework in which these exampled prohibitions reside is helpful to avoid these types of bad arguments, even if one does not know the original languages. The overall context of the Bible is clear, even if these texts seem blurry to the non-linguist. The Bible is absolutely creational, and has, and always will be, therefore, anti-gay. 

An Insightful Blog for Women

A couple of the ladies in our church have put together a very insightful blog geared toward women named "Bone of Bones." Check it out when you get the chance.

Biblical Theology LX: 3 John

The Third Epistle of John is written to a man named Gaius, who seems to be one of a few elders at this church. The other two seem to be the other men he mentions, Diotrephes and Demetrius. I say this because Diotrephes evidently has the power to excommunicate others and Demetrius is spoken of by John as though he is a judge on these ecclesiastical matters. Likewise, Gaius is praised for receiving the brothers sent to the church and is assumed to have some authority in these matters as well. If this is true, it shows that this early local church had multiple elders, not one (giving further evidence to the idea that multiple, not singular eldership is the New Testament ideal). Diotrephes, however, has become apostate, and excommunicates people who receive the teaching of the apostles or recognize their authority. John argues that Demetrius, however, has had the truth testified to him. John, then, writes to a church with a leadership that has been divided due to apostasy and the desire for self-advancement. 

Gaius’ love is evidenced by his walking in the truth, which John says is his greatest joy to hear. Representatives of the church at which John currently resides have come out to Gaius’ church and were received well as strangers. John argues that such men involved in ministry should be financially supported and have no need to get their support from pagans. By supporting them, these Christians partake in their work and become fellow workers with them for the sake of Christ and His kingdom.

John, once again, argues that the rejection of the apostolic witness is apostasy, and those who do so are characterized, as in the previous letters, as those who do evil rather than good. They are not righteous, but wicked. Hence, Deotrephes not only rejects their witness, but then slanders them, so that he can bring them down and lift himself up. Hence, John says that his motivation is that “he loves to be first among them” (v. 9). The motive is not the glory of God through lifting up the truths of Jesus Christ taught to his apostles, but rather a desire to be respected as most important among the people. This sort of self-exaltation is not only wicked in itself, but leads to the further evils of slandering representatives of Christ, as well as rejecting the true interpretation of Christianity given to the apostles.

This sort of evil must be called out in the open, and not just privately dealt with.

It is interesting that excommunication is always done by one of both sides of a dispute. Apostates think that they are in the right, and so excommunicate the faithful, either officially or through a personal disassociation with the person. It almost as though everyone knows that one who does or believes evil should be shunned, but it is only those with the truth who are right in doing it. The wicked who believe themselves to be right are actually doing yet another wicked thing to add to their large pile of sins. 

The letter is short, and so John merely wants to scratch the surface apparently due to his desire to come and settle these matters face to face.

Biblical Theology LIX: 2 John

The letter is written “from the elder” and addressed to “the elect lady and her children.” The Johannine language of the letter indicates that it is likely the Apostle John who writes it. The chosen lady is likely a local congregation, and not a woman who owns or is head of a household where the church meets. John also ends the letter by saying, “The children of your elect sister greet you,” which is likely a reference to the local church from which he is writing. The metaphor of the church being a woman is also very Johannine. The letter, essentially, summarizes the message of 1 John that theology and ethics are evidences of knowing, or not knowing, God. John shows that not walking in love for fellow Christians is connected to following a false Christ.

Theology: John argues that many deceivers have gone out into the world, paralleling his statement in his first epistle that many false prophets have gone out into the world. He, however, changes the Docetic denial of Christ’s physical humanity from the incarnation to the second coming by changing the participle from the perfect aspect in 1 John, i.e., “has come” (denying that He was physically incarnate when He came into the world) to the present (future-referring) aspect, i.e., “is coming” in v. 7 (denying that He will physically come again into the world). As he stated in his first epistle, all who deny the apostolic teaching concerning Christ that comes from their eyewitness testimony have replaced Christ with their own ideas, and are, therefore, antichrist. 

John implies that those who reject this have rejected the apostolic witness and will lose their reward, i.e.., salvation, if they are not careful to pay close attention to follow what the apostles have taught them (v. 8). Such people do not “have God.” Only those who remain in the teaching of the apostles have both the Father and the Son (v. 9).

As such, anyone who does not teach what the apostles teach is not to be allowed in the church/household where church meetings are held. He is to receive nothing from the church, even a greeting, lest those who give him even a greeting will participate in his evil work of proclaiming a false Christianity to the damnation of those who accept it (vv. 10-11).

Ethics: Those who reside in the truth love one another because they also stand in the truth (vv. 1-2), both in terms of believing the theology taught by the apostles and the way of living that is consistent with it (v. 4). Believing the same things creates a love for those who believe like us. The common idea that the same deep love can be fostered apart from a love of God through His revealed, apostolic truth is foreign to John. It is because of the unifying truths that are taught that connects us together and causes us to love one another.

Furthermore, it is through this truth and love together, never separated, that the grace, mercy, and shalom of God the Father and Jesus Christ are given to His people, and not apart from it. This is directly opposed to modern Americanity’s idea that love can be divorced from believing and living in the truth. John writes that “we are to love one another.“ (v. 5). And then defines love for us so that we know what he is talking about. “Now this is love: that we live according to his commandments” (v. 6). Obedience to what God has commanded is what love looks like, and Christians are to love one another by being obedient to what God has commanded.  Apart from this, “love” is a meaningless word if one seeks to obey this command, as John is very specific in what he means by the term and if one exercises any other kind of love, and not this one, he is not actually doing what is commanded. 

The command, of course, is not that Christians are to love, making the command generic, but that they are to love "one another," referring to their fellow disciples who believe and live in the truth that the apostles taught, and do not go beyond it so as to end up denying it.