Metropolitan Community church is built on the errors of John Boswell
 |
| The Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah, a painting by John Martin (painter), died 1854, thus 100 years. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The evidence does not substantiate his distinction. Some references cited (Deut. 7:25–26; Isa. 44:19) do use the term bdelygma to refer to idols or idolatry, male shrine prostitutes (3 Kings 14:24 [1 Kings 14:24]), and child sacrifice and idolatry (4 Kings 16:3 [2 Kings 16:3]). Yet, in Jeremiah 16:18 both Greek terms occur, with anomia rendering toʿeba and bdelygma rendering šiqquṣ. To explain this reversal, Boswell claims that toʿeba is the “more general and serious” term. This assertion begs the question: “Why on this occasion does the Hebrew term take on a different significance?” The logical conclusion is that the terms are synonymous, as the NIV recognizes, translating the terms as “vile images” and “detestable idols” respectively.
In Ezekiel 7:20, the LXX renders both toʿeba and šiqquṣ by the one word bdelygma in a context of idols. In Ezekiel 16:36, anomia renders toʿeba in reference to idols in a context of Israel’s spiritual harlotry (“detestable idols”). Finally, Boswell draws attention to the juxtaposition of Ezekiel 8:6 and 8:9, but here anomia renders toʿeba in a context of idolatry (vv. 5, 10–18) within the very temple precincts in Jerusalem. The distinction claimed for anomia is unsubstantiated.
Boswell claims that Paul uses anomia (or a cognate) for sin or injustice in general (“lawlessness”) and bdelygma for violations of Jewish ritual or idolatry. Hence we should expect anomia in the Epistles to be addressed to audiences largely gentile. Yet, in Romans 2:12, the Mosaic Law is probably in view by contrast to “without Law” (anomos, twice), and Romans 4:7 is a quote of Psalm 32:1 and probably represents David’s, not Paul’s, use. In Hebrews 1:9 anomia, contrasting righteousness, occurs in a quote of Psalm 45:7.
Boswell does not cite Romans 6:19, where Paul twice associates anomia with akatharsia: “slaves to impurity and to lawlessness.” He also omits Titus 2:14, where Paul links it to katharizō: “redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself a people.” If Boswell considers Hebrews to be Pauline, as he apparently does, he omits 8:12 and 10:17. In these quotations of Jeremiah 31:34, anomia is parallel to hamartia. This is a very Jewish writing, with a Jewish audience, and the context is the New Covenant made with Israel—yet anomia occurs.
Paul uses anomia nine times. Elsewhere it occurs six times in Matthew and 1 John. It refers to those Jews who were depending on works (Matt. 7:23), the “weeds” to be gathered at the end of the age (13:41), the inner being of the Pharisees (23:28; “full of hypocrisy and lawlessness”), and the lawlessness of the last days (24:12). Finally, it occurs in 1 John 3:4 twice: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.”
The cognate anomos occurs ten times. Christ was numbered with the lawless (Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37—quoting Isa. 53:12) and was nailed to the cross by the hands of the lawless (Acts 2:23); the Gentiles are lawless without the Law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:21—four times); the lawless one is yet to be revealed (2 Thess. 2:8); law is made for the lawless (1 Tim. 1:9); and Lot was tormented by lawless deeds (2 Peter 2:8).
This last reference is particularly significant. A Jewish author, Peter, is describing Lot’s experience in Sodom (cf. vv. 6–10), using anomos to describe the works of Sodom. The only work singled out as causing the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19) was the attempted homosexual attack on the visitors.
These twenty-seven uses of anomia and its cognates might all stress universal sin or injustice, but for some of these texts that is a doubtful understanding, especially among the Old Testament quotes. The reference in 2 Peter directly contradicts Boswell’s identification of homosexuality as a violation of a Jewish ritual alone.
When one considers the usage of bdelygma, the position of Boswell is even less convincing. The term and its cognates occur nine times; Boswell cites only Paul’s two uses (Rom. 2:22; Titus 1:16—both in reference to Jews). It also occurs of the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14), a truly Jewish concept. In Luke 16:15, it occurs in a more universal sense (“That which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God”), especially in comparison with Matthew 23:28. In Revelation 17:4–5, the reference is to the great harlot who has a cup “full of abominations [bdelygma] and of the unclean things [akatharta] of her immorality”; she is the “mother of harlots and of the abominations of the earth.” We can hardly limit this last occurrence to Jewish impurities! Finally, 21:27 refers to the New Jerusalem: “Nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying” shall exist there. Instead, the “abominable” will go to the lake of fire (21:8). Again, we cannot limit this usage to Jewish ritualistic uncleanness.
It is unwarranted to say that “this division is maintained in the New Testament.” Paul does not appear to be wholly supportive, and why Boswell equated Paul’s usage with the total witness of the New Testament is not clear. At times the distinction seems to hold, but the Jewish writers of the Bible viewed life holistically. They did not compartmentalize behavior into sacred and secular. The Jews viewed violations of their ritual, especially relating to monotheism, as violations of law and justice. They viewed ceremonial violations as less serious. Violations of moral precepts had the most serious consequences.
Boswell cites only a few Old Testament references, leaving one to ask how thoroughly he has explored his contention that the LXX makes a special distinction in toʿeba by using anomia for violations of law or justice (intrinsic wrong) and bdelygma for offenses of ritual impurity or monotheistic worship.
A survey of the use of anomia in the LXX shows that this translation uses it broadly. It occurs in later books, especially the Psalms, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, occurring but twelve times in the Pentateuch. It renders twenty-four Hebrew terms, the most frequent being ʿawen and especially ʿawon.
Forty-nine uses of anomia occur in Ezekiel. Only the Psalms surpass this number, with about eighty occurrences. In Ezekiel 16 the word occurs seven times, and its frequency is also high in chapters 8 (seven times), 18 (six times), and 33 (eight times). It translates ten Hebrew terms in Ezekiel.
The term toʿeba occurs about 115 times and is the source of anomia only in Jeremiah 16:18 and Ezekiel (25 times). In Ezekiel 16 toʿeba is the source of anomia seven times (16:2, 36, 43, 47, 51 [twice], 58); no other Hebrew term occurs as the source for anomia in this chapter.
This survey reveals that the use of anomia for toʿeba is limited. Yet, Boswell must come to terms with the word’s high frequency in passages relating to Jewish ritual. Indeed, references in Jeremiah 16:18 and Ezekiel 16, where anomia translates toʿeba, point both to ritual in the sense of idols, idolatry, and “abominations” and to the practices of Sodom (16:47). The cognate anomos translates toʿeba only once, where it describes again the deeds of Sodom (16:50; cf. 2 Peter 2:8)!
In the LXX, Leviticus most frequently uses anomia (five times, never with toʿeba as its source). Various rituals are in view, including confession of sin on the Day of Atonement (16:21), harlotry (19:29), iniquity for eating holy gifts (22:16), and violations of the sabbatical year (26:43). The only use where an “intrinsic wrong” is apparent occurs for incestual bigamy or polygamy (20:14); here it renders zimmah.
This pattern confirms the use of anomia to translate toʿeba. The text equates lawlessness with acting contrary to ritual. In addition, the text, including 2 Peter 2:8 in the New Testament, designates Sodom’s sins as lawless. The term may refer to specific acts or a general condition. There may be direct connection with the law; more often it refers to sin. It is oriented to the command of God. The text assumes rebellion against God’s standard.2
On the other hand, Boswell maintains that bdelygma is the ritualistic term. It occurs about 109 times to render any of seven Hebrew terms. It appears most frequently in Leviticus (fifteen times), Deuteronomy (nineteen times), Proverbs (eleven times), Jeremiah (nine times), and Ezekiel (twenty-one times). It renders toʿeba and ta>ab sixty-nine times, by far the most prevalent use. It occurs in Leviticus 18:22, 26, 27, and 29 and 20:13. In Ezekiel 16 it does not occur in the LXX, but it does occur as an addition in Codex Alexandrinus at verse 22.
Comparing the usage of the two Greek terms, the “less-cultic” anomia renders toʿeba in Ezekiel 16 more frequently than the “cultic” bdelygma (seven times compared to none in the LXX, except for Codex Alexandrinus). Yet, this chapter highlights Jerusalem’s special perversity in spiritual harlotry.
In broader perspective, the “less-cultic” term occurs more frequently in Ezekiel than the “cultic” term (forty-nine occurrences to twenty-one). Toʿeba occurs in Ezekiel as the source of anomia twenty-five times and as the source of bdelygma thirteen times.
It appears that no one supports Boswell’s distinction based on the two terms—at least to the degree that he desires. In his significant study, Werner Foerster makes no such distinction. He believes that bdelygma expresses the attitude and judgment of God toward things He hates. In the legal parts of the Bible, the reference may be to things cultically and aesthetically unclean, including idols. The prophets extend the idea so that the term becomes parallel and equated to anomia. In the Wisdom Literature, the word simply denotes God’s hostility to evil. Indeed, the natural, aesthetic element and the religious element in the word are “inseparable.” In the New Testament, Foerster observes, various shades of ideas from the Old Testament may occur, but in general the word breaks free from its national, natural, aesthetic, or cultic connotations.3
Boswell’s claim to see a usage of anomia distinct from that of bdelygma in rendering toʿeba is unfounded. Arguments based on word usage are always tenuous; context must be decisive. Infringement of ritual purity frequently implied violation of God’s law or His standards of justice. In such a case either term would be appropriate, depending upon the emphasis intended.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 65–68). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
