Homosexuality and Liminality in Sodom: The Quests for Home, Fun and Justice (Gen 19:1-29)

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Cephas T. A. Tushima
{"title":"Homosexuality and Liminality in Sodom: The Quests for Home, Fun and Justice (Gen 19:1-29)","authors":"Cephas T. A. Tushima","doi":"10.17159/2312-3621/2021/v34n1a6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay explores the first segment of the Lot sub-narrative of the Abraham cycle (Gen 11:27–25:10). The study adopts a narrative close reading approach and canonical theological hermeneutical framework in its reading strategies (with the canon’s reception history undergirding its plausibility structures), aiming ultimately at unfolding the world of possibilities of being-in-the-world in the text, particularly from an ethical standpoint. The study shows Lot, enmeshed in his sense of marginality from YHWH’s repeated covenantal promises of progeny to Abraham, ditch time-tested tradition and embark on a quest for freedom and a home of his own, consequently, assuming significance and security in Sodom (where he sat on the city council at the gate). His initial assumed marginality in Abraham’s home attains reality in Sodom, where the Sodomites desirous of ‘having fun’ with Lot’s angelic guests (who were on a search for justice) reprimands Lot, a mere immigrant—in their view—for his audacity to rebuke them. The visitation of YHWH’s justice on Sodom renders the self-serving Lot homeless, driving him to ultimate marginality, as he inhabits the liminal space of an incestuous cave dweller. A theologico-ethical appropriation of the narrative draws attention, first, to the temptation often to be so caring to outsiders and yet be so unkind to those closest to us (like Lot). Second, tradition is a stabilising force in society and jettisoning it unnecessarily creates cascading disequilibria. Third, alienation from God is the grand source of all liminality. Fourth, inordinate desires lead to choices that bring about a breakdown in the social order. Fifth, like Lot, we need to catch heaven’s heartbeat for the oppressed and become voices for their justice in our time.\nhttps://doi.org/10.17159/2312–3621/2021/v34n1a6","PeriodicalId":19713,"journal":{"name":"Old Testament essays","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Old Testament essays","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/2312-3621/2021/v34n1a6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay explores the first segment of the Lot sub-narrative of the Abraham cycle (Gen 11:27–25:10). The study adopts a narrative close reading approach and canonical theological hermeneutical framework in its reading strategies (with the canon’s reception history undergirding its plausibility structures), aiming ultimately at unfolding the world of possibilities of being-in-the-world in the text, particularly from an ethical standpoint. The study shows Lot, enmeshed in his sense of marginality from YHWH’s repeated covenantal promises of progeny to Abraham, ditch time-tested tradition and embark on a quest for freedom and a home of his own, consequently, assuming significance and security in Sodom (where he sat on the city council at the gate). His initial assumed marginality in Abraham’s home attains reality in Sodom, where the Sodomites desirous of ‘having fun’ with Lot’s angelic guests (who were on a search for justice) reprimands Lot, a mere immigrant—in their view—for his audacity to rebuke them. The visitation of YHWH’s justice on Sodom renders the self-serving Lot homeless, driving him to ultimate marginality, as he inhabits the liminal space of an incestuous cave dweller. A theologico-ethical appropriation of the narrative draws attention, first, to the temptation often to be so caring to outsiders and yet be so unkind to those closest to us (like Lot). Second, tradition is a stabilising force in society and jettisoning it unnecessarily creates cascading disequilibria. Third, alienation from God is the grand source of all liminality. Fourth, inordinate desires lead to choices that bring about a breakdown in the social order. Fifth, like Lot, we need to catch heaven’s heartbeat for the oppressed and become voices for their justice in our time. https://doi.org/10.17159/2312–3621/2021/v34n1a6
所多玛的同性恋与阈限:对家、乐趣和正义的追求(创19:1-29)
这篇文章探讨了罗得亚伯拉罕循环子叙事的第一部分(创11:27-25:10)。本研究在阅读策略上采用叙事细读方法和正典神学解释学框架(正典的接受历史作为其合理性结构的基础),其最终目的是在文本中展现存在于世界的可能性世界,特别是从伦理的角度来看。研究表明,罗得沉浸在耶和华对亚伯拉罕子孙的重复契约承诺的边缘感中,抛弃了经过时间考验的传统,开始寻求自由和自己的家园,因此,在所多玛(他坐在城门的市议会)获得了意义和安全。他最初在亚伯拉罕家中的边缘地位在所多玛变成了现实,所多玛人渴望与罗得的天使客人(他们正在寻找正义)“玩得开心”,谴责罗得,在他们看来,罗得只是一个移民,因为他敢于责备他们。耶和华对所多玛的审判使自私自利的罗得无家可归,把他推向最终的边缘,因为他居住在一个乱伦的洞穴居民的有限空间里。神学伦理对故事的挪用引起了人们的注意,首先,人们常常受到诱惑,对外人如此关心,但对我们最亲近的人却如此不友善(比如罗得)。其次,传统是社会的一种稳定力量,抛弃传统会造成不必要的连锁失衡。第三,与上帝的疏离是所有阈限的主要根源。第四,过度的欲望导致选择,导致社会秩序的崩溃。第五,像罗得一样,我们需要捕捉上天为被压迫者的心跳,在我们的时代成为他们正义的声音https://doi.org/10.17159/2312 -3621/2021 /v34n1a6
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Old Testament essays
Old Testament essays Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Old Testament Essays functions as a vehicle which publishes Old Testament research from various points of view. Its primary aim is to regulate and propagate the study of the Old Testament in Africa. Various fields related to the study of the Old Testament are covered: philological / linguistic studies, historical critical studies, archaeological studies, socio-historical studies, literary studies and rhetorical studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信