When you are wrong about the Bible, people get hurt. This is especially true when you are a preacher. This is even more severe when a teaching of the church is based on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture–Old Testament or New. History is full of examples. Let me cite a few.
Some church leaders were wrong to condemn Nicolaus Copernicus’ finding, that the sun is the center of our universe. Later, when Galileo Galilei published a work supporting Copernicus’ findings, he was brought before the Inquisition in 1633, found guilty of heresy, and confined to house arrest. Why? Because according to that reading of the Bible, the sun traveled around the earth. That of course is wrong. Given the weight off scientific evidence, how could the church maintain such nonsense? It could not; therefore, the teaching had to change. That teaching was, that the Bible cannot necessarily be taken literally.
Another example: well-meaning Christian people used the Bible to justify beating their children. Here is the quote from Proverbs 3:24 (King James version) they relied upon. “He that spareth his rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.” In the minds of many a preacher, this meant “give your kid a good beating when he misbehaves,” otherwise known as “spare the rod and [you will] spoil the child.”
The mistake was in the translations from Hebrew, to Greek, to English. When one examines the origin, it becomes obvious that the English word “measure” would have been a better choice than “rod.” Rod is also a measurement, but it can also mean a straight stick. Preachers and parents may have firmly believed they were Biblically correct when giving out beatings, but they were wrong. Being wrong about the Bible can cause people to get hurt.
The examples above are rather mild. Now consider the victims of slavery and the oppression of women. Slavery was an accepted institution in the Bible. That didn’t make it right. Frequently quoted to justify slavery is Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 6:5, “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ (King James version.)” Also quoted is Colossians 3:22, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything. Don’t work only while watched, in order to please them, but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord (Int’l Standard v).” Not quoted to support slavery is Paul’s letter to the Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ (New International version.)”
Cynically, many believe you can quote the Bible to support just about anything–rendering the Bible meaningless.
It is also unfortunate that Athanasius, who was the Bishop of Alexandria around 325 C. E., made up a story about the monk, Antony, to argue the superiority of the spirituality of his territory. In the story, the Devil was put into the shape of a little black boy from Ethiopia. Many monks of this period and later used this image for the Prince of Darkness–which was a conscious racism. Then, in 340 C. E. the Church Council of Gangra decreed, “If anyone, on the pretext of religion, teaches another man’s slave to despise his master, and to withdraw from his service, and not to serve his master with good will and respect, let him be anathema,” ie., let him rot in hell.
However sincere their beliefs, there is nothing Christian about slavery and racism. Unfortunately, the damage is done. Not being fully embraced by white Christians, black Christians had to form their own churches. Much of this religious segregation still exists. There is still a lot of hurt.
In a similar manner, women have been oppressed and degraded throughout the centuries and today, because of faulty Biblical interpretation. First, consider that the Bible was written by men. Women were neither taught how to write nor given the status to contribute to Scripture. The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, written by men and interpreted by men, has been used to portray woman as the seductress. Proverbs 5:3-6 warns about adultery, “The lips of an adulteress drip with honey, and her mouth is smoother than oil.” But in the end she is “bitter as wormwood, as sharp as a two-edged sword (New American Bible.)” Yes, it is the woman’s fault.
Then there is the famous quote from the letter of Paul to the Ephesians 5:22, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord (King James version.)” From 1 Peter 3:1, we find “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husband; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives (King James version.)”
Finally, there are the Ten Commandments. Yes, so dear to Christians–although they are Jewish. Examine number ten: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’’s wife, nor his male servant, nor is female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.” Obviously, a wife is not as valuable as the house; yet a wife is a valuable POSSESSION! Yes, a wife is the man’s property. That Biblical interpretation has been injurious and very oppressive to women. Regardless of how sincerely-held a belief it was (perhaps still is for some), it is wrong and harmful.
For Christians, a study of Jesus’s interaction with women in the Gospels would reveal that.
Since the Bible has been used in the past to justify the oppression of blacks and women, might we not suspect that it has also been used to oppress homosexual people? I’m not saying the oppressors are not sincere in their strong beliefs regarding homosexuality. However sincere they may be, they are not necessarily correct.
Those who preach the Bible have a moral obligation to be sure they are absolutely correct in their interpretation.
Frequently preachers will quote Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, such a thing is an abomination (NAB),” as a condemnation of homosexuality. But is it? Leviticus was a liturgical handbook for the Levitical priesthood, to direct their cultic practices. It was intended to drive home the idea that a good Jew is one who is holy in every aspect of his/her life. It is not a book of ethics; it is a book about cultic practice. As such, it condemns all the practices found in pagan sacrifices to their gods; especially by the Canaanites who surrounded them. Anything used in pagan ritual sacrifice to their gods was excluded from the Hebrew diet, such as pork. Their purpose was to keep the Hebrew people separated from the surrounding idolaters. So, Leviticus 18:22 is not a condemnation of homosexuality, as such. It is meant to keep their people from participating in Baal fertility rites or worship. Centuries later, the Apostle Paul would argue eating pork was not an abomination, and genital circumcision was not absolutely necessary.
Speaking of Paul, his letter to the Romans is frequently quoted as condemning homosexuality. Romans 1:18-32 (especially verse 27) says, “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth….” Then Paul describes the punishment: “God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and their males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another (verses 26-28).” Their sin? rejecting truth and God and worshiping false gods. Their punishment? participation in pagan cultic practice. Paul points out that every sin comes with its own punishment.
Being wrong as to what the Bible really teaches also comes with its own punishment. Parents who reject their homosexual children–out of their sincerely-held wrong beliefs–causes pain for them and their children. Where did the parents get their strong, sincere beliefs? I think they come from preachers who are too lazy to keep up with Biblical scholarship. We should never assume that we completely understand the Bible. We always have more to learn.
We might ask, “How did Jesus handle the issue of homosexuality?”
Many would probably say it wasn’t an issue in Jesus’s time, and Jesus didn’t address the issue. Yet, if we ask that constant What would Jesus do? (WWJD?) question, we might find an answer. Read Matthew 8:5-13: “When He had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to Him and saying, ‘Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.’ And He said to him, ‘I will come and cure him.’ The centurion answered, ‘Lord, I am not worthy to have You come under my roof, but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed (New Revised Standard version.)'” Jesus praised the centurion for his faith and healed his servant.
What is so unusual about this is that a Roman soldier in command of a hundred troops occupying Jesus’s homeland, who is a gentile and, as a soldier, must pay at least lip service to the Roman gods, dared to ask an itinerant Jewish preacher from Galilei to heal his servant. The centurion must have loved his servant very much, because in the Roman world of that time, servants were plentiful and cheap–easy to replace. Furthermore, it was not uncommon for Roman officers to have male servants that also provided sexual favors. What inspired Jesus to heal the centurion’s servant? Was it the centurion’s love for this man, who likely provided sexual favors, and his faith in Jesus’s ability to heal?
Today we have preachers and Christian people of strong beliefs who insist that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, one at a time. Why? They claim the Bible says so. Does it? The patriarchs had wives, slaves, and concubines. Did not Jacob have two wives, Leah and Rachel? Did not Abraham have children first by his wife’s servant, Hagar, and then by Sarah? It seems marriage gradually became monogamous.
Perhaps what is needed is less firmly-held beliefs and more faith in God. We need to ask, What would Jesus do? Jesus always did the merciful and loving thing. He healed the centurion’s servant. Look it up. It’s in the Bible.