Wednesday Afternoon Press Conference: The Sin of Sodom was Inhospitality

You have got to be kidding me.  Excellent follow up question, Matt.

I wonder if we’ll all be turned into pillars of salt if we keep looking back at this mess of a church?

I think he was referring to the sin of inhospitality

Which is why, of course, inhospitality is known to this day as sodomy.

So where is the doctrine of matrimony in all of this?  Whatever happened to “No sex outside of marriage between man and woman.”?

Me: When he uses the phrase “sexual immorality”?

A: Yes, that was the way they were being inhospitable.

Fr. Matt, you must have had a hard time keeping a straight face.  Now we know, rape is just an inhospitable act….....and to think we have put many in prison for being inhospitable…...head for the roundhouse Katie, they can’t be unhospitable there…...

“I think he was referring to the sin of inhospitality
Which is why, of course, inhospitality is known to this day as sodomy.”

As Lincoln supposedly said (related to being run out of town on a rail); “If it were not for the honor of the thing I just as soon walk.” I can’t think of much that I would consider less hospitable then someone trying to break down a door to sodomize me, as per the Genesis 19 account.

Of course, I am not sure that Lot’s daughters were as thrilled with the idea of his hospitable suggestion of substituting them either…;)

Willfully blind.

“Fr. Matt, you must have had a hard time keeping a STRAIGHT face.” What a question to ask a fellow in such company…

Absolutely unbelievable.

Well handled Matt.

Reminds me of the time I was told (with great energy) that “in the original Greek” (lol), Leviticus doesn’t say that a man being with another man was an abomination… it really said that for man to “go against his nature” was an abomination.

Of course, since homosexuality is now known to be genetic… it is his “nature”. The verse thus not only fails to condemn homosexual sin, but requires it!

There was no need to go into the “greek”. I simply asked him to assume that his interpretation was correct then add that to the fundamental Biblical principle that Man’s “nature” is sin. Taken at face value, his reading meant that the Bible teaches that for man to try not to sin is an abomination.

So if I neglect to fix my houseguest a drink, am I therefore a sodomite?

Honestly, how can anyone say that with a straight face?
Matt+, great job, glad you where there.

Here’s a <a href =“http://www.sorat.ukzn.ac.za/theology/staff/west/west.htm”>
CV</a> for Prof West. it’s hard to believe it takes that much education just to be able to say you don’t know the difference between inhospitality and sexual immorality.

The archbishop called on the orthodox to recognize the push for blessing homosexual behavior as coming from within the boundaries of faithful Anglicanism and Christianity

Whoa!

Cause enough for all in the current AC who recognize, adhere to, and attempt to follow historic, apostolic, Scriptural, faithful Christianity to call for his instantaneous ouster and de-recognize Canterbury as the seat of Anglicanism going forward.

What an abjectly wretched leader this fellow has been!

Q: To Professor West, the points you have highlighted, you seem to miss out on tradition. The bible is read in the context of tradition and leaving it out can also jeopardize ecumenical dialog.

West: The excitement of the moment is that we are able to engage with tradition. The Anglican Communion is no longer what it used to be. It is changing.

Can anyone explain this response?

Kudos to Matt+ for exposing Dr. West as an educated idiot.

Matt:

Well done -

so sorry it has come to this, however.

One legacy of Anglicanism is that it has a history of being interested in the detail of the bible. This can be approached in a variety of ways: from a social, literary, thematic, or ecclesio/theological perspective.

It’s interesting that he omits what I consider two of the four most important methods (historical-grammatical and the form of the writing being the others, which might be included in his social and literary categories): interpreting obscure passages of scripture through clearer passages, and interpreting scripture through the traditions of the church (particularly the writings of the church fathers/ecumenical councils etc, perhaps one might add the reformers for protestants or the schoolmen for catholics).

Perhaps that explains his use a lexicon of which I am unaware where porneia = inhospitality.

“Sodomy” means “inhospitality.” And “Lambeth” means “The Big Lie.” Turn to a pillar of salt? This gang IS a pillar of salt. And ABC’s sodium content is right up there at the top. How stupid do they think people are? I no longer care how Lambeth turns out. It is a sham, worth nothing at all, and at best has wasted money that could have fed the people (since Anglicanism has become nothing more than a feckless social services provider).

Boring Bloke, it tells you something about the 21st century, doesn’t it, when porneia is merely inhospitality.

Fr. Matt, thanks for your live blog. I now shudder to think of what the Lambeth Bible studies have been like.

What you want is a strong house.

I doubt that they will get it. They didn’t include a foundation. I wonder what will happen when the rains fall and the floods rise and the wind beats against the walls of the house.

I’d say “unbelievable”, but I’d be lying ... we’ve listen to this @#$%& for years!  Still, kudos to Matt+.

From this posting, the question: Q: has the church been negligent about the rate of biblical education, has the understanding of the bible been more advanced in some places of the world than in others?

The answer is so obvious, of course, Has the Church been negligent about the rate of biblical education? Yes, and it began when certain parts of the New Testament were removed from the lectionary, I think over a hundred years ago.

Professor West: You have raised a good point that should be taken forward. In the South African context, the bible was used to support Apartheid and the liberation struggle. We embrace the ambiguity of the bible; that it is not self-evident and we struggle to find ways it can be life-giving.

This is the thing I find most disturbing about this take on the Bible. This Ambiguity but yet ability to be used to support almost any “good” position says to me that the Bible is true in every sense, except literally. Literally it can only be ambiguous. It is not self-evident. It is not rue but has truth. It’s absolutely delusional.

Margaret, which parts were removed that long ago?

OMG! Clearly this AB went to a revisionist seminary or lost his way along his journey into the abyss of darkness!
I’m going to work where reality is just that reality!

Matt - I am so thrilled you got that question in there. Both you and I know what the Greek says, and the key work in 1:7 is ‘ekporneuo’. If the writer meant hospitality, he would have used something like ‘philoxenos’and not the former. This is not a matter of hermeneutics; rather, it’s a clear matter of deception and absolutely refusing to accept the belief of the writer of Jude as valid. West essentially said, “Poor old Jude didn’t know what he wrote.  I’m here to correct that and tell you what he really meant.” Incredible. Can the words of Jesus be next in line? The first heap of dirt on the grave of the Communion has been thrown.

My dog chases her tail and gets about as far as this gentleman got.  Nowhere, but very fast.

It is a huge blessing to have this exposed and right out in the open. 

Thank you Fr. Matt for putting his feet to the fire.  Keep it up! 

You and Sarah are in our prayers.  May the Lord be with you both!!!

Festivus, we’ve already had the next President of the United States tell us that the Sermon on the Mount justifies same-sex unions. 

As for all the junk about “did homosexuality as we understand it now exist in the biblical world?”

Considering that we keep being told that homosexualty is genetic and that therefor God made people homosexual, wouldn’t such an argument insist that homosexuality as we now know HAD to have existed in ht Biblical world?

To suggest otherwise is to say that homosexuality as we now know it is largly a product of modern culture, or, in other words, a MAN MADE SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

I can’t recall what Gagnon says on Jude (and I am currently sitting in the sun a looong way from my books) but I do wonder if the Genesis/Enochic story of the Watchers isn’t in the background of Jude. So that the sin, is so to say, not quite or not only homosexuality (same sex desire) but sexual desire crossing the angelic/human created boundary. Of course the angels are represented as male (as commonly in Scripture) so there is a sense in which the desire breaks the boundaries of God’s creation both because it involved angels and humans and because it involves “men” and men.

It’s very hard to avoid seeing that some critique of desires that are contrary to nature is central to the story as Jude interprets it.

And what about “and pursued unnatural desire” as another phrasing Jude gives as the basis for punishment of eternal fire? 

No, of course, the revisionist Houdinis will say, “Those men were hetero by nature and so for them homosex was an unnatural desire, and so they deserved…, wait a minute, they had an unnatural desire to be inhospitable, no, that’s not it!  How dare you be so hateful as to confuse me with the plain meaning of the text that we must instead faithfully interpret through the prism of our contemporary culture and our own urges…, I mean…”

Jim Naughton has posted the latest draft of the reflections document.  It is utter nonsense.  The most that can be said of it is that it is a powerful brief for GAFCON.  Any bishop who allows his name to be associated with this is co-signing the death certificate of the Anglican Communion.

Festivus, we’ve already had the next President of the United States tell us that the Sermon on the Mount justifies same-sex unions.

AndrewA, I don’t recall ever hearing John McCain say that! 

About 5 years ago, I st, slack-jawed in growing disbelief, as +Sauls preached this same “sin of inhosptiality” crap about Sodom.  I couldn’t believe any intelligent person could come up with such a far-fetched stretch to skirt the obvious.  What sane person would think of male rape as an example of INHOSPITALITY!?
To my utter astonishment, my very bright sister, sitting in the same pew, told me she thought the sermon was excellent!

Should have been “sat” slack-jawed.  Sorry.

This is insanity. They need to frame the entire scripture as ambiguous, so they can continue to blithely pick and choose.

Well, I suppose it was sort of inhospitable too.

I really can’t come up with a word strong enough to be able to express the level of disgust I feel after reading this. It’s just waaaaaaaay too screwed up.

Of course, this is an old argument, like the shellfish argument. Matt, you did an excellent job by citing Jude’s reference to the story, which of course makes it crystal clear.

In the end, you cannot endorse sexual immorality without disregarding the Bible, including what it tell us about Jesus, as unreliable.

Side tracking into politics a bit, John McCain doesn’t have snow ball’s chance.  Obama has the press eating out of his hand and the economy has everyone looking to the government for a magic fix, which the socialist-lites are more then willing to promise them.  Combined with the fact that the press has managed to make a whipping boy out of Bush ever since Katrina, the Republicans don’t have much hope this year.

#39 - Obama is the press’ candidate.
And of course it doesn’t help that the GOP has been as conservative as Harry Truman for the past 3 administrations. And as much as I respect Senator McCain, he’s in the same group. Thank you for the ‘Big Tent’, which I now refer to as “The Communion”.

[advertising link deleted]

In the end, you cannot endorse sexual immorality without disregarding the Bible, including what it tell us about Jesus, as unreliable.

Furthermore, you can’t destroy the foundation of Christian sexual morality (Celibacy outside of marriage and fidelity within it) based on the call to be inclusive of people regardless of sexual orientation without eventually opening the door to truly being inclusive of all sexual minorities.  There is are lot of groups out there that are, by the new definitions of inclusivity, being descriminated against by Integrity.  I just wonder if I live long enough to see the current generation of Integrity get hounded out for not being inclusive enough.  I’m pretty young, so I think I will.

^^^ Enlightened:

Gosh!  Isn’t it remarkable how we, as 20th/21st century Western thinkers can realise what the Sin of Sodom was and the Church of 2000 years couldn’t, including the early Church fathers who spoke greek, hebrew, aramaic as first and second languages, lived in the time and many were taught at the knee by the Apostles themselves?!

My, isn’t it great how *we* get to read the Bible so accurately now and the entire Church before us including Augustine of Hippo, Polycarp, Clement, Linus, Ireanus, etc, didn’t?  What a bunch of morons they were eh?

I suppose they should have asked the Jews as well.  After all, they’ve always held that the Sin of Sodom was inhospitality.

I swear, there’s ignorance, there’s blindness and there’s willful blindness.

Next will come the shellfish argument…

My, isn’t it great how *we* get to read the Bible so accurately now and the entire Church before us including Augustine of Hippo, Polycarp, Clement, Linus, Ireanus, etc, didn’t?  What a bunch of morons they were eh?

I would expect TEC to uncover a new covenant - the new new covenant - in the hands of a Native American shaman, except that the PB has made it clear that Native Americans are no longer “in.”

“Prof Gerald West is the president of a seminary in Africa. He has taken part in the writing of the bible studies here at the conference.”

If I were a die hard reappraiser planning the Lambeth Conference and how it could achieve each of my progressive dreams, I would have considered that maybe certain aspects of the conference could be moderate, traditional, and non-controversial.  That way, traditional believers might begin to think that things were not so bad, and that they would not need to be on the alert, sensitive to revisionist machinations behind every move.

Instead, there is something in reappraisers that demands a 24-7-365 full court press of revisionism at every opportunity - including the conference Bible studies.  That is about as subtle as a forward movement publication endorsed by Phoebe Griswold, or Margaret Graham Beers. 

It is almost as if they fear that someone, somewhere will hear the Gospel, be saved, and slip out of their grasp.  Wait a minute…

I’ll admit I haven’t read all the comments so far.  I read the first dozen or so, and thought I should bring something up.

For those who insist on not reading Genesis 19 as it clearly reads, go back to Genesis 18 and read of God’s promises to Abraham to spare the city of Sodom if He found but ten righteous therein.

The meaning is clear:  perversion is unrighteous.

I nominate Dr. West for title of Head Clown Celebrant.  Thank you Matt for challenging this crap.

Sarah - Isn’t Enlightened’s Post against policy here? 

Enlightened I think needs to enlighten themselves to the rules before trying enlighten anyone else about anything else.

Enlightened?

All I can say is that is why, to this day, inhospitable people are referred to as sodomites and people who engage in homosexual sex are referred to as, as, uhm ...

Englightened,

Please don’t insert advertising links into our blog space.  It is against comment policy and we often delete such links whether they are conservative or revisionist.

Post #23, these bible verses are not read through any of the lectionary cycles in the Episcopal Church: Gen 19;1 Cor 5:1-4, 9-13, 6:9-10, Leviticus 18, 20; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:8-10.
1 Corinthians 5:6b through 8 are read.
I think the question I had for my Anglican priest was concerning verses in Romans that were not read and he said they had been revised out a long time ago, possibly the 1800’s. Sorry to be so vague.
Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.

A good online site for finding out when bible verses will be used in the lectionary:
http://satucket.com/lectionary/When_Will_It_Be_Read.htm

Other verses not used (interesting how leaving out some of these may have directly affected the direction of the Episcopal Church in America):
1 Cor 7:1-18; 1 Tim 5 (entirely); Titus 2:1-10; 1 Tim 2:8-15; Eph 5:22-33, 6:1-10, 1 Peter 3:1-7
1 Tim 3 (entirety); Titus 1 (Entirety)
2 Cor 11; Jude (the whole thing); 1 Tim 1:3-11; 1 Tim 4; 1 Tim 6:1-5; 2 Tim 3:1-13; 2 John (all of it); 1 John 4:1-6; 2 Peter 2; Rev 2-3;

Kudos to Matt!

So, “inhospitality” is synonymous with the Hebrew “ra’a” (bad, wicked, evil, repulsive, inflicting physical and/or emotional pain)? Bwa-haaa-haaa!

Lot was perfectly willing to let his virgin daughters be defiled, but the angels had mighty powers of self-defense!

Revisionists: look what happens next! This is God’s punishment for inhospitality?

I’m really surprised that someone would have the ya-da-ya-da-ya-da to drag this old horse in front of the (presumably intelligent) assembled bishops of the Anglican Communion. Where’s Rob Gagnon when you need him?!?!? Wait a second - Matt was there!

(I think Matt let him off too easily, though shooting fish in a barrel isn’t fun.)

Margaret, thank you so much for this information and the useful links.

When he said this, I wish the whole press corp burst out laughing. It really is that ridiculous! He needs to get out into the real world more and face the reactions of ordinary people, who have more raw intelligence and common sense than he seems to possess.

Let’s summarize here.  The liberals, including these two men, want to see same-sex marriage approved in the church.  To accomplish this, they must:

—Make the Bible say what it doesn’t say,
—In the process, devalue the authority of the Bible as “culturally bound,”
—Ignore the clear 2,000-year tradition of Christian teachers, including
—The Apostles who knew Jesus and the Church Fathers who knew the Apostles;
—Reject the clear majority of Anglican bishops from Lambeth 1998,
—Reject the pleas of Anglican conservatives worldwide, and
—Reject the pleas and advice of the Roman and Orthodox traditions.

Other than that, not too many problems.

We mustn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. I seem to recall that some later Jewish texts do interpret the sin of Sodom as inhospitality or as greed or lust in general. Nevertheless some - Philo, I recall - do emphasize, so to say, sodomy as the reason for their judgment. In Jude it seems clear that sexual desires that overstep the creation intention of God (men for angels and men for “men”) are the cause of Sodom’s destruction. It’s not either/or it’s both/and.

Well, what happened at Sodom was certainly inhospitable.  Stopping with that is the problem, because the inhospitability culminated in the attempt to commit male rape, which is another issue.  These guys make it sounds like the Sodomites refused to give the visitors a drink of water.

In Ancient Greece, the imposition of homosexuality on young boys was indoctrination. When I read about Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, it’s clear that the men of the area similarly sought to indoctrinate all men who came to their town into homosexuality. It seems to me that the words and actions of TEC are attempting to do the same.

You really have to see the video of this press conference to get the full extent of West’s dopiness. “Lightweight” gives him too much credit.

Truly amazing that this is the best Lambeth could do for someone to design their Bible studies.

In the video you hear Ruth Gledhill ask a question but then the audio goes out, Dr. West says something ... not aware of ... not terribly clear, then Ruth Gledhill says that her question was about the Bible, and that she was disappointed that someone of his stature wasn’t aware of it.  Did anyone get her question?

The fortunate thing, since this man designed the Bible studies, is that many, maybe most, of the bishops attending are perfectly capable of going to deeper places.

I listened to Gerald West.  You have got to be kidding!  What a bonehead!

Sorry to reiterate, but did Abp. Williams actually say this:  “called on the orthodox to recognize the push for blessing homosexual behavior as coming from within the boundaries of faithful Anglicanism and Christianity”???  Not questioning your hearing or recall skills, but I find this stunning and a total deal-buster.

“The fortunate thing, since this man designed the Bible studies, is that many, maybe most, of the bishops attending are perfectly capable of going to deeper places.” Now, oscewicee, we don’t want the bishops going into deeper places, only being hospitable. DO YOU HEAR ME! BBBBEEEEE HHHOOOOSSSPIIITTTAABBLE OR ELSE!

Well, they’ve been warned about “inhospitality” enough.

West is wrong - but not as wrong as Matt and others would suggest. Yes I have Gagnon’s book. And I agree with it. How about we include that in the conversation? Katherine in #59 almost gets it right. Do not confuse some bland notion of “hospitality” with how that issue plays in the Bible. It is not the revisionist who confuse hospitality with a glass of water - it is in fact the conservatives/orthodox who go ballistic when a liberal says the sin of Sodom was “inhospitality”. To them male rape is so much worse and more serious than just failing to put on some coffee - so it can’t be “inhospitality”. But what if the sin of Sodom is part of a larger picture - that either is (less likely) or includes (more likely) issue of hospitality in the robust biblical sense (how one treats the Other who is different from you).I consider myself a conservative/orthodox in this whole dog fight. But frankly sometimes the dogs on “our” side go a bit overboard - with bad counterarguments (for a correct position), overreactions, nastiness toward liberals, sloppy arguments, and so on. Sometimes.

Oops - thanks to #58 who does get it, I think.

On a related note (to the biblical scholarship issue), there’s this.

Given the bulk of the condemnation of active homosexuality in the scripture, it’s an extremely weak attempt to imply that the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was “inhospitable” behavior. Seriously, TEC isn’t going for a wider interpretation of inhosbitable, they are looking for a narrow one.

I stand by my belief that TEC are attempting to disrupt any and all legitimate discourse on the issues. The latest bomb dropped, was Bishop Rostam’s attempt to make a racist and pointed dig at the African Anglican bishops, so as to divert them from speaking out on their legitimate concerns, keeping them on the defense.

We need to put them on the defensive, it has to be done. They must be challenged on their hypocrisies, refute their claim of legitimacy, by citing their attempts to persecute, harass, discriminate, and yes their hatred and greed. It’s not an act of love, or compassion to bully and persecute, to hold aid money as bribe, or to deny it so as to threaten those who will not betray their deepest held beliefs.

The ABC oushing for his agenda again, but openly instead of stealthily as per his usual non-action:
“called on the orthodox to recognize the push for blessing homosexual behavior as coming from within the boundaries of faithful Anglicanism and Christianity”.

Faithful homosexualism, perhaps?  Not faithful Anglicanism in the two millenia Tradition of the Church.  Not faithful Christianity in the two millenia of the Church.  Not faithful to the First Covenant Judaism for 4 millenia.

Saved throwing off the pretense for the big show, didn’t he?  Why not invite Gene on in on his personal arm?

JAMBOREE is too dignified a term for this melange of revisionists in clerical garb that pretend to leadership.  To use it now, after this, casts aspersions on the Boy Scouts.  Please, could we just say, “DEBACLE”?

#68 - Rick in LA - read the Greek. There is no word for hospitality/inhospitality that is in that text. None. For comparative purposes, you might read 3 John 1:9.

For Genesis, Greek wouldn’t be the original, would it?

Baby blue has the video up here:

http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/

Professor West’s answer was somewhat more involved than I recorded or remembered. I had to stop live blogging for the exchange so recorded it by memory. In any case, Jude, he says, was referring not to homosexuality but “male-rape” which is, I think his point is, quite inhospitable.

Had the angels simply been less narrow and willing to try new things then it would not have been “rape” and the whole town would have been spared because instead of male sexual violence and inhospitality, God would have seen consensual acts of same sex love.

So really, it’s all the angels’ fault. Their puritanical prudishness led to the deaths of hundreds of villagers.

One must emphasize that in rabbinical thought penetrative male “yada” is defiling, degrading, abominable, etc. That’s why there are so many fences around these Levitical prohibitions.

Look at Gen 18:17-33. There’s a lot of info there.
1. Sins - plural. Lots of sins. Not just one. There’s no such thing as “the” sin of Sodom.
2. Abram tries his best to talk God out of destroying the cities. They agree on the number 10. Ten righteous (tzaddikim) people. To be a tzaddik is very special.

At that point, the 2 angels come to the city to check things out, no doubt looking for the requisite 10 tzaddikim. Lot convinces them to go home with him.

The Hebrew is crystal clear (Gen 19:4): “Before [the angels] laid down, the men (specifically, males) of the city, the men of Sodom (Sodomites in the Greek LXX translation) from the young to the old, went around the house, all the people.

Note: all the people. Outside of Lot’s house, there wasn’t a single righteous person in the whole city. (Uh-oh!)

Then in Gen 19:5, the Sodomites ask Lot to bring the men out so that they might “know” (yada’) them. This isn’t a hospitality crew - the Greek LXX uses “sugginomai” - which, Friends, is much more explicit. The Sodomites then go on to refuse Lot’s offer of his virgin daughters, thus making their “orientation” or “preference” quite clear.

I don’t see the word “hospitality” either in the Greek LXX or Hebrew Torah, at least not in the editions I have. Yet, ONE of the sins of the Sodomites is indeed a lack of hospitality. (Only in certain places in the world would a guest in someone’s home feel welcomed by a gang rape, and Lot’s home was NOT an S&M;gay bathhouse in San Francisco. Well, I don’t think so. Scripture is actually silent on that.)

In any case, Lot does say (RSV, and the Greek LXX is a reasonable translation), “...only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” So, there’s the hospitality theme. But, a lack of hospitality would hardly be “the” reason for the nuking of Sodom.

In any case, even for a seminary prof on crack, no exegesis of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah could in any way promote the cause of self avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals. There is no passage in all of Holy Scripture that in any way affirms same-sex relationships. Nothing. Nada yada.

But, Friends, the boneheads can say whatever they want. I still can’t figure out why this guy picked that passage. Oh, well.

Matt, speaking of boneheads, be sure to get someone to find out which of the bishops go to the ho-mo-no-mo show - there’s one Wednesday and another on Thursday.

See:
http://a_musing.blogspot.com/2008/07/blogging-from-lambeth.html

I just realized by Lambeth feels the need to put on a lavish spread for the bishops.  They are afraid of getting the fire and brimstone treatment if they settle for mere lunchmeat sandwiches.

No - he’s mistaken.

Jude verses 6 - 7 (NRSV)

And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgement of the great day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

The context is clearly the improper crossing of God given boundaries firstly by angels having sexual relations with human women. Here Jude draws on the Genesis 6/Enochic story of the angelic Watchers taking human wives and being punished by being imprisoned until the day of judgment.

This is followed by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in which human beings cross God given boundaries by attempting sexual relations with angels. Note Jude’s explanation that the citizens of Sodom are judged for “going after/pursuing strange flesh” (NRSV translates this as “pursued unnatural lust”). It’s not rape that is in view here (wicked as that is) but crossing God given boundaries.

The whole point in Jude of making these points is to condemn ungodly teachers who have “infiltrated” the community to teach immorality - which is to say, to encourage people to cross God given boundaries. These false teachers are just like the angels and the men of Sodom, and just like them stand condemned by God.

In short the problem being addressed is not rape (terrible as rape is) but more general - crossing God given boundaries. It’s for this reason that Jude can describe his purpose as “to fight for the faith that was once and for all handed over to the saints”.

Kind of appropriate, don’t you think.

driver8, how is it that only the major sin here is men trying to have sex with angels, since the angels had, even before this incident, declared that Sodom would be destroyed?  Furthermore, where is the evidence that the men of Sodom knew that Lot’s guests were angels and not men?

I should say the person I think is mistaken on Jude 7 is Professor West.

Jude1: 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication , and going after   strange flesh , are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I think he was referring to the sin of inhospitality

i ‘m not english but….. sin of inhospitabilty = fornication, going after strange flesh?

18 Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: 19 That say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it! 20 Woe unto them that call F32 evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

AndrewA your argument is with Jude - not with me. It’s his inspired (I take it) interpretation of the Watchers and the Sodom story that I exegeted.

I would welcome additions and correction but simply asking how Jude could think such a thing is beyond my pay grade.

There’s a great story of St. Thomas Aquinas fasting and praying to help him understand a passage of Scripture. After two days he called in his secretary in the middle of the night and began to dictate. The secretary was curious and asked the saint what had happened. The saint, reluctantly confided that St. Peter and St. Paul had appeared in a vision and explained the passage.

I tend to think a bit more fasting and praying would do us all a world of good.

In short the problem being addressed is not rape (terrible as rape is) but more general - crossing God given boundaries. It’s for this reason that Jude can describe his purpose as “to fight for the faith that was once and for all handed over to the saints”.

driver8, thanks for the exegesis. And I agree about the praying and fasting.

Let me add that the boundary crossing is certainly connected with Jude’s perception of sexual immorality for the Watchers, for the men of Sodom and for the ungodly “infiltrators”. So whilst his tales seem to focus on godless angelic/human coupling - the stories function as “examples” of the consequences of crossing God given boundaries.

So if we say that the concentration is on the improper desire to cross God’s boundaries as exemplified in the Watchers and the Sodom narratives - ISTM that doesn’t mean that the story thinks that other forms of crossing God given creational boundaries are any less serious or any less improper.

Indeed the point of using the Watchers and Sodom stories as examples is to argue that since the ungodly “infiltrators” are teaching immorality, against the faith handed once for all to the saints, and so encouraging the crossing of God given boundaries, they too stand condemned by God.

Has anyone taken note - I’m not reading all 84 comments above - that West comes from a nation that has written same-sex marriage into its Constitution?

Cardinal Kasper evidently spoke to the bishops at Lambeth today:

“Vatican official: Anglican Communion must stay true to Scriptures

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS)—The Anglican Communion needs to find a way to affirm the dignity of all people and encourage the active role of women in the church while remaining faithful to the Christian tradition and Scriptures, said Cardinal Walter Kasper.

The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, spoke July 30 at a session for bishops attending the Anglican Communion’s Lambeth Conference, which is held once every 10 years, in England.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803911.htm

# 76 So you see Matt - there’s no sense of coercion in the Watchers tale (either in Genesis or Enoch) - the angelic Watchers simply decide to come to earth and take wives. Consent is apparently no defense against knowingly breaching God ordering of creation - not even for angels.

These may sound like a really stupid questions so let me apologize up front before I pose them.
But the story of these angels in Sodom do not say what type of angels they are do they? I mean Satan/Lucifer was an angel and a pretty high ranking angel before his fall from grace, and I’m pretty sure he took a few legions of angels with him did he not? So what kind of angels are these in this story? I think that would be helpful…at least for me it would be.

driver8,
In the story of S & G in Genesis, did the men know that those were angels. i think not?

#89—You can infer by context that these angels were faithful to the Most High God, for they’re mission is that which Abraham bartered with the LORD in Gen 18 and they give Lot his instruction to be spared from the judgment to come and they seem to have no interest in processing anyone such as the fallen angels we meet with Jesus driving them out.

Hosea,
Thats true. But then the issue of strange flesh in Jude; does this mean Jude was alluding to angels?

Next, i will say that the men of Sodom wanted to have homosx with the visitors, illustrated by their rejection of the daughters.

#92 I was answering ODC independent of your discourse.

Don’t forget, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was the field trip that took place immediately after the Circumcision.

The field trip was a lesson to reinforce what the ceremony of circumcision symbolized - a complete change of identity, behavior and lifestyle, differentiating Abraham and his lineage from the world, flesh and devil.  It was a foretelling of the Cross and the believer’s crucifixion of the flesh.

In cutting off the excess flesh, Abraham was putting Himself and all his future on the line under God’s dominion.  Circumcision showed he was willing to risk, submit and change his physical appearance, pleasure, power, prosperity, progeny to be obedient to God, to be a holy people.  God even gave Abraham and Sarah new names with the H sound from His Name in them. 

The Lord’s displeasure with Sodom and Gomorrah reinforced Abraham’s ability to discriminate between good and evil.

Thank you Hosea6:6,
But are we not told that angels do not have a human form in terms of male and female, save in Gensis where we are told that God said we will make them in <u>our image</u> in the image of male a female. So do they have a human sex form or not?

  God even gave Abraham and Sarah new names with the H sound from His Name in them. 

Thats intersting…

In think the reasons to think that the exemplary focus in Jude v.7 is on inappropriate desire for sex with angels is:

1. The parallelism with the story of disordered angelic desire for women (Genesis 6) in the preceding verse (Jude v.6)
2. Jude’s description of the sin of Sodom, comparing it with the son of the Watchers and describing it as “in the same way [as the Watchers]...pursuing/going after different flesh”. 

Let me say again - in Jude these stories of crossing creational boundaries are exemplary - that is they exemplify what Jude thinks is God’s condemnation of all boundary crossing behaviours.

So whereas progressives often argue that the Sodom tale as Jude sees it is really about “rape” or “inhospitality” and so not about “sexuality”, I think it is about God’s condemnation of those who knowingly cross the boundaries of creation, as powerfully exemplified in ungodly sexual acts.

We mustn’t forget the implication - for Jude uses these examples to argue that those who teach others to cross God’s creational boundaries, are just as subject to God’s condemnation as the fallen Watchers and the men of Sodom.

The “our image” is the Trinity discussion. All things are created in Christ by the Holy Spirit. He wasn’t talking to the angels.

“inhospitality as demonstrated in male rape”

Perhaps the most disturbing thing in this article is the fact that a prominent religious figure can euphemize the crime of rape as “inhospitality.”

Besides the archangels mentioned in the Bible seemed to appear in male form although there are layers of different types of angels and functions. Gender is only denoted by names in the Bible of the archangels: Michael, Uriel, Gabriel, but they do take on the appearance of man as the visitors to Abraham and in the Garden of Gethsemane, after the Resurrection and the Ascension and in the wilderness.

driver
while i agree with you on crossing Gods boundaries, i do not agree that Jude was necessarily alluding to angels having sx with humans in vs 6. iT can mean simply the rebellious angels including satan.

Also it should be noted that the men of Sodom prefered homsx rather than straight sx in Gen 19

driver8, your exegesis makes a great deal of sense to me, especially in the mainstream-Anglican context in a southern hemisphere Commonwealth nation.  The notion that S&G;‘s sin was inhospitality, not specifically rape nor crossing God-given boundaries for behavioural morality, is one of the most popular re-interpretations of an OT story going in these parts - same as in ‘Sooth Effrika’, I gather from the video of Gerald West - I may have heard it a dozen times in various study groups and sermons…..

1.I take Jude v6 to refer to the Watchers story because of Jude’s evident concern with the Book of Enoch - including a quotation - and because being chained until the day of judgment is not quite what Scripture teaches about Satan (1 Peter 5.8) but it is what Enoch says about the Watchers.

2.I claim no originality for the exegesis - I think I first came across it in Richard Bauckham’s Jude commentary.

driver
Thanks for the clarification

driver8, yes, my tongue was in my cheek

#95 Angels have a strange form ... in Hebrews we are told some have entertained angel unaware (thus look just like you and me) but in other cases they appear in terrifying creatures which can strike dead thousands (I was thinking after David’s illegal census but Revelations works too). About the last millennium there was a great discussion about what substance angel are made, because they can have substance and interact with this world but also appear and disappear like post-Resurrection Jesus, irrespective of matter, thus the concept of meta-matter. So how many angels can sit on the head of a pin was a real discussion (though I think that makes angel more like ‘precious moments’ figurines than the Scriptural illustration of frightening creature (and I’m talking the good ones, remember often the first words are “fear not” which gives an impression that the humans have cause to be afraid at the angels appearance). Today we “know better” and dismiss meta-matter as middle age superstition, that’s why today very learned people are looking for the missing mass of the universe call it ‘dark matter’ not ‘meta-matter.’

driver8, I don’t think your interpretation is adequately supported by the canonical Biblical texts. 

The “sins of Sodom” that led to its destruction happened BEFORE the angels visited there.  The encounter with the angels was not the root cause.  It was only a demonstration.

There is nothing to indicate that the men of Sodom thought the angels were anything other than regular men.  Nor does “strange flesh”, often translated as unnatural desire, necessarily indicate angel sex.

I agree it is about transgressing against God’s laws.  But there is nothing to indicate that it was about an angel fetish.

Honestly the other logical train of discussion on this thread confused me on who was saying what and I really was not that interested in figuring it out, but Andrew summary was clear enough, that I’d have to agree Sodom’s destruction was slated by God in Gen 18, Abraham barters with the LORD to ten righteous men, the angels are there based on that God’s deal of looking for ten, the text indicated that Lot knows something but the men do not reference anything but they wish to gang-rape men not supernatural beings. A case could be made that Sodom was chalked full of pornea (Lot’s daughters warped thinking once they escaped) but Sodom’s destruction was not inhospitality if it were predetermined before the angels arrived (as in Gen 18).

Something that just occurred to me:  I wonder how many people of the “Sodom’s sin was inhospitality” line of thought actually believe that the story in Genesis is a real, historical account of God smiting whole towns rather than a metaphorical, allegorical expression of the values of the early Hebrews.

Monkeys could interpret the bible better than this “professor”

#105. Yes - but the Canonical context includes Jude.

As I said above I take Jude to be inspired interpretation. I’ve tried to show why Jude does seem focused on boundary crossing angelic/human sexual desire. In supporting the claim, I made reference to the structure of Jude v.6-7 and the detailed Greek wording of v.6 and v.7 which I think is a prerequisite of any adequate interpretation.

So - again - it seems to me that your argument is with Jude - unless you can give a better detailed account of Jude v.6 - 7 structure and the words the saint chooses to use.

Should be #107 referenced in my post above.

driver8, if you want to say that my argument is with your understanding of Jude, that is one thing, but when you present a fairly recent interpretation of Jude that draws upon assumptions not present in the text, and is not widely accepted by the church Catholic, I don’t see why I am obliged to agree with an anonymous poster on the Internet anymore than I am obliged to agree with Dr West.

Are you saying that there was no homosexual intent or desire on the part of the men and Sodom, and that they were destroyed simply because they tried to have sex with angels?

Of course you still haven’t provided evidence they knew they were angels or had past sexual encounters with angels.

I don’t desire to compel you to do or think anything. I am attempting to persuade you that the exegesis I have argued for, submits to the text of Jude in a way that is closely attentive to the words and structures of the text. That’s just as it should be IMO. The joy of Scriptural interpretation is that I would love you to pay similarly close attention and persuade me by giving a better account.

I am not trying to persuade you that Jude is right - I take that for granted. Jude is inspired - thus if the Spirit uses him to interpret the Sodom story in this manner it is inspired interpretation. Thus my repeated point that IMO your argument is with him rather than with me.

I’ve made a fairly traditional historical critical case (largely dependent on the work of one of the very best conservative biblical scholars - Richard Bauckham) because I think it is consistent with the Rule of faith. I am open to persuasion that the case I have made is in conflict with the Rule of Faith - in which case the interpretation is clearly in error - but you have to make it - you can’t simply assert it.

FYI it’s just not true that there is a single interpretation of the Sodom narrative either in Intertestamental Judaism or in the Fathers.

If all I have done is stirred you to disagreement and sent you back to Holy Scripture straining to listen ever more attentively to its words then that’s fine by me.

#68 - The word philoxenia (oh dear Rick reads Greek?) does not need to be present in Jude for us to ask to what extent hospitality (in the deep, full, robust biblical sense) is an issue operative in the Genesis text. If you want to interpret Genesis one should start with Genesis - not Jude. Then bring in Jude and ask how Jude (inspired) appropriates the text to make a point.

Hebrew does not have a word for “hospitality”, pretty dang close would be something like ‘ahab (ha)ger “love the stranger/foreigner/Other”. Hospitality clearly is an issue in Genesis 18 even though “love the stranger” is not present. This is how Abraham treats strangers. And how do they treat strangers/foreigners/Others in Sodom? Homosexual rape - in order to humiliate them, subordinate them, and so on. (See Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexuality.)

drive8 is exactly right. Hospitality is an issue. Hospitality not in the bland American sense of “putting on coffee and setting out nice dishes” but welcoming, caring for, protecting the Other/stranger/foreigner. West is half right. But also half wrong - because he fails to acknowledge that same-sex relations are also an issue.

What is harder to discern precisely is which is “the” issue of which the other is a part? Homosexual rape is part of inhospitality? Or these people are also inhospitable (cruel to foreigners - not merely failing to serve nice tea) but what really sets them part is sexual immorality? Even Robert Gagnon does not seem to take a specific stand on that question. And yes I can provide a quote.

Let me be blunt. Sometimes orthodox/conservative go a little too far in their zeal to defend Christian truth from the depradations of liberals. Liberals are not always completely totally wrong about every last point. You don’t have to throw out (as drive8 says nicely) the baby with the bathwater.

driver8,

I like Bauckham’s point, though his a priori argument that Jude didn’t write Jude leaves me scratching my head.

One thing that we must keep in mind is that the boundary crossing between angelic beings and female humans must have included sex, if they were taking them for wives and having children by them.

Jude’s point is likewise the men of Sodom crossed a boundary by seeking to forcibly take the men (angels in disguise) at Lot’s house to have sex (that we may know them—yada) with them.  Apparently this was a custom for the men of Sodom.

I conclude then that both boundary-crossings are set and anchored in the creation story.  Angelic beings shall not marry and have sexual relations with human beings.  Human beings shall not marry or have sex with other human beings of the same gender.