In yesterday’s article, I discussed how scapegoating has been a recurring tool used by those in power to distract from systemic failures and maintain control. This tactic, which has targeted various groups throughout American history, continues today, with trans people like myself being cast as threats to society. However, scapegoating is not limited to political rhetoric alone; it has often been reinforced through the misuse of religious texts. The Bible, in particular, has been co-opted and misinterpreted to justify the persecution of marginalised groups, providing a veneer of moral legitimacy to actions that are fundamentally unjust.
Throughout history, religious scriptures have been wielded as weapons against those who do not conform to the dominant social norms. Whether it is during the witch hunts, the persecution of civil rights activists, or the current backlash against the LGBTQ+ community, the Bible has frequently been cited as a source of authority to rationalise exclusion and oppression. This manipulation of scripture distorts the original messages of justice, compassion, and hospitality that these texts were meant to convey. In today’s article, I will put back on my “comparative religion professor’s hat” and explore how such distortions have reshaped the interpretation of key biblical passages, turning them into tools of exclusion rather than the calls for equity and care that they were intended to be.
Genesis 18-19: From a Lesson on Inhospitality to a Tool of Exclusion
The original context of Genesis 18-19 centres on the themes of hospitality, justice, and the treatment of strangers. In the ancient Near Eastern world, hospitality was not merely a social expectation but a sacred duty, and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a striking illustration of the consequences of failing to uphold this duty. The people of Sodom were condemned not for their sexual practices but for their arrogance, greed, and, most crucially, their violent and inhospitable treatment of visitors—angels in disguise—who sought refuge in their city. This interpretation underscores a profound moral lesson about the importance of welcoming and caring for the vulnerable and the outsider.
However, as Christianity spread through the Roman Empire, the interpretation of this story began to shift, driven by the political needs of the time. In the Greco-Roman world, where sexual morality was increasingly tied to public order and control, early Christian leaders found it convenient to reinterpret the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a condemnation of sexual immorality, particularly homosexuality. This shift was not just a theological evolution; it was a strategic move. By framing the story as a divine judgment against sexual deviance, Christian leaders could align themselves with the prevailing social order, which was deeply invested in maintaining strict moral codes, especially as Christianity was striving to establish itself as a morally superior alternative to pagan religions.
For centuries, this revised interpretation was propagated by a largely illiterate populace who relied on the Church to present and interpret biblical texts. The Church, as the gatekeeper of religious knowledge, reinforced this version of the story, using it to justify the exclusion and persecution of those who did not conform to the accepted norms. The average believer, unable to read the scriptures themselves, had no choice but to accept the Church’s teachings as truth. This dynamic allowed the misinterpretation to become deeply entrenched, with little opportunity for challenge or correction.
Today, with access to original texts and a wealth of cultural evidence from the people who first wrote these stories, we have the tools to set the record straight. By returning to the original Hebrew texts and considering the cultural context in which they were written, we can see that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was not about sexual immorality but about the grave sins of greed, inhospitality, and the mistreatment of the vulnerable. With the benefit of time and historical perspective, we can also understand why early Christian leaders made the change—serving both religious and political ends—but we now have the responsibility to correct this course.
Understanding the original intent behind Genesis 18-19 allows us to see the story for what it truly is: a powerful indictment of injustice and a call to protect and welcome those who are different or in need. By acknowledging the problematic history of its misinterpretation, we can make a conscious effort not to perpetuate the exclusionary version that has caused so much harm. Instead, we can reclaim the text as a force for justice, compassion, and true moral leadership.
The Misuse of Scripture: Modern Examples
In modern debates about issues like trans rights, the Bible is frequently cited as an authority, often by individuals who misunderstand or misrepresent the original meanings of the texts. This misuse of scripture is particularly evident in arguments against LGBTQ+ rights, where biblical references are wielded as weapons to justify exclusion and discrimination. Yet, a closer examination of the historical and cultural context reveals that these interpretations are not only flawed but also a significant departure from the core teachings of the Gospel.
Homosexuality and gender nonconformity were well known in the ancient Near East, long before the events described in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. These aspects of human experience were not specifically mentioned or condemned in the original narrative. The story’s focus was on the sins of inhospitality, greed, and the mistreatment of vulnerable guests, not on sexual practices. The later condemnations of homosexuality and gender nonconformity came from ultra-conservative elements within the early Church, which began to stray from the Gospel’s central message of love, service, and compassion towards one’s neighbours.
As Christianity evolved, especially within the early Church, there was a marked shift towards using religious teachings as a means of control. This shift introduced concepts such as “hell” as a fiery pit and eternal damnation—ideas that were not originally part of the Gospel message but were developed to enforce conformity and obedience. These darker elements of Christian doctrine were tools for maintaining power and control over the faithful, straying far from the teachings of Jesus, which emphasised love, mercy, and service to others.
In contemporary times, these misinterpretations are perpetuated by those who seek to justify their prejudices. For example, opponents of trans rights often cite Deuteronomy 22:5 (which references the Holiness Code, the over 200 rules/ laws found in Leviticus 17-26), which forbids what we would now call ‘cross-dressing,’ without understanding the cultural context of this verse or recognising that the broader message of the Bible is one of inclusivity and love. Similarly, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is often invoked to condemn LGBTQ+ individuals, despite the fact that the original sin of Sodom was about a lack of hospitality and justice, not sexual orientation or gender identity.
Side note on ‘cross-dressing:’ In the ancient Near East, many religious rituals were associated with fertility cults and the worship of deities linked to agriculture, reproduction, and the cycles of nature. Among these were the worship practices of the Canaanites, Babylonians, and other neighbouring cultures, which sometimes included the blending or crossing of gender roles. For example, in some fertility rites, participants might wear garments of the opposite sex as part of their ceremonial roles, reflecting the fluidity of gender and its association with fertility and the natural world.
These rituals were often tied to the worship of deities like Asherah, Ishtar, and other gods and goddesses associated with fertility, love, and war. The ‘gender-bending’ aspects of these rituals were symbolic, intended to invoke the powers of these deities to ensure fertility, agricultural abundance, and societal well-being. However, from the perspective of the Israelite religion, which was strictly monotheistic and centred on the worship of their own god, these practices were seen as not only idolatrous but also deeply threatening to their religious and social order.
Thus, these misuses of scripture serve to alienate and harm, rather than to build the inclusive and compassionate society that the Gospel advocates. By revisiting the original texts and understanding the true intent behind them, we can challenge these harmful interpretations and instead focus on the biblical mandate to love, serve, and protect our neighbours, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. The Greatest Commandment, to love one’s neighbour as oneself, should be the guiding principle in all our interactions, rather than using scripture as a tool for exclusion.
The Camel and the Needle: A Mistranslation with Big Consequences
The phrase “camel through the eye of a needle” is one of the more memorable and frequently cited passages from the New Testament, found in Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25. In these verses, Jesus allegedly says, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” Traditionally, this passage has been interpreted as a powerful warning about the spiritual dangers of wealth, suggesting that the accumulation of riches can create insurmountable obstacles to achieving spiritual salvation. The vivid image of a large camel attempting to squeeze through the tiny opening of a needle has been understood to signify the near impossibility of reconciling material wealth with the pursuit of spiritual righteousness.
However, a closer examination of the original Greek text reveals a likely mistranslation that significantly alters the meaning of the passage. The word “camel” (κάμηλος, ‘kamelos’) is very similar to the word “rope” (κάμιλος, ‘kamilos’) in Greek, differing by only one letter. Some scholars believe that the original text referred not to a camel but to a thick rope. This small but crucial difference changes the interpretation from one of sheer impossibility to one of difficulty that can be overcome with cooperation and effort.
If we consider the possibility that Jesus originally spoke of a rope passing through the eye of a needle, the metaphor takes on a different tone. Threading a rope through a needle’s eye is indeed challenging, but not impossible. The rope must be carefully unwound into individual strands, and with patience and cooperation, it can be threaded through the needle. This interpretation shifts the focus from an absolute condemnation of wealth to a message about the challenges of integrating wealth into a life of spiritual integrity. It suggests that whilst wealth can complicate one’s spiritual journey, it is not an insurmountable barrier—provided that the wealthy are willing to disentangle themselves from their attachments to material possessions and work towards a more cooperative and humble existence.
The implications of this mistranslation are profound. For centuries, the “camel through the eye of a needle” metaphor has shaped Christian teachings on wealth, often used to cast wealth as inherently incompatible with spiritual virtue. This interpretation has led to a binary view of wealth and poverty, where the rich are often seen as morally compromised and the poor as spiritually favoured. However, if the original message was one of cooperation and the possibility of overcoming the challenges that wealth presents, the ethical framework shifts. Wealth, in this interpretation, is not a curse but a responsibility—one that requires humility, generosity, and a willingness to cooperate with others for the common good.
This broader understanding can be especially relevant in discussions about economic justice and the ethical responsibilities of the wealthy. It encourages a more nuanced view of wealth, not as something to be outright condemned, but as something that must be carefully managed in the service of others. Moreover, this example highlights the significant impact that mistranslations and misinterpretations can have on moral and ethical teachings. When religious texts are misunderstood or distorted, they can perpetuate harmful ideas and justify the marginalisation of certain groups. By revisiting the original texts and considering their true meanings, we can correct these misconceptions and move towards a more just and compassionate application of religious teachings.
Final thoughts …
Reclaiming the original meanings of scriptural texts is not merely an academic exercise; it is a powerful tool for social justice. Throughout history, religious texts have been interpreted and reinterpreted, often in ways that serve the interests of those in power while marginalising and oppressing others. However, by returning to the historical and cultural contexts in which these texts were written, we can uncover the true messages of justice, hospitality, and cooperation that they originally championed. This reclamation is not just about correcting misunderstandings but about restoring the ethical and moral frameworks that can guide us toward a more just and compassionate society.
In our examination of scripture, it is crucial to remember that Christ himself was not a Christian. Christianity, as we know it today, was a later invention, developed by people who had never met the person we now call Jesus. Jesus, the historical figure, was an Essene from Qumran, a sect within Judaism known for its strict communal lifestyle and its focus on purity, poverty, and the imminent arrival of the ‘Kingdom of God.’ The Essenes were outliers within the larger Jewish community, and their teachings and practices often stood in contrast to those of mainstream Jewish groups like the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Jesus was also a rabbi—a fact that is often mentioned in the scriptures (e.g., John 1:38, John 3:2, Mark 9:5, John 6:25, and Mark 11:21) but sometimes overlooked in modern Christian discourse. In Jewish culture, the title of rabbi was not bestowed lightly; it required rigorous study, deep knowledge of the Torah, and adherence to certain cultural norms, including marriage and family life. The consequences of falsely claiming the title of rabbi were severe, making it clear that Jesus was recognised as a legitimate teacher and leader within his community. Understanding Jesus in this context allows us to see him not just as a spiritual figure but as a social reformer who challenged the religious and social norms of his time, advocating for a return to the core values of justice, compassion, and service to others.
In light of this, we must critically examine the ways in which religious texts are used in public discourse today. Too often, scripture is cited to justify exclusion, discrimination, and even violence against marginalised groups. Yet, when we peel back the layers of mistranslation, misinterpretation, and cultural bias, we find that these texts originally called for the opposite: the inclusion of the outsider, the protection of the vulnerable, and the dismantling of unjust power structures. It is incumbent upon us to reclaim these true messages, to use them as a foundation for building a more just and equitable society.
This reclamation is not about discarding tradition but about returning to the heart of the teachings that have been overshadowed by centuries of doctrinal development. It is about embracing the values that Jesus himself lived and taught—values that prioritise love, mercy, and justice above all else. As we engage with these texts, we must do so with humility, recognising the limitations of our own understanding and the need for continual learning and growth.
Thus, it’s essential to stand together in critically examining how these scriptures are used today, ensuring they are not twisted into tools of oppression. By returning to the original meanings of these texts, we can challenge their misuse and clarify that they were never intended to support the condemnation of people based on gender identity or expression. This task isn’t just for scholars or theologians; it’s for anyone who values truth and justice. When we look at the Bible in its entirety, in its original form and context, there is no evidence supporting a specific condemnation of modern transgender people—none. After all, we are not priests or priestesses of ancient deities like Ishtar; we’re simply people trying to live our lives without fear of being erased by power-hungry politicians and religious zealots. Instead of allowing these texts to be misused, we should insist on their true messages being understood and respected.
I learned something new from reading your post today. I had no idea about Jesus’s Essem community nor about the mistranslation of the word rope into Camel which makes sense. As always, I appreciate your insightful and informative views regarding the misinterpretation of the scriptures and how people in power use them as tools for exclusion and coercion, obscuring and twisting the Bible’s fundamental messages of inclusion, service, and love. Thanks for sharing.