Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,415
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 235:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 03:43, February 21, 2009
, 03:43, February 21, 2009→Mishnah: Lev. 18:22
Several texts in the Midrashic literature written in the early Christian centuries, such as Beresheth Rabbah 26:5 commenting on Genesis 6:2, also asserted that God is patient with all sins except fornication, and which included homoeroticism. To be continued
Several texts in the Midrashic literature written in the early Christian centuries, such as Beresheth Rabbah 26:5 commenting on Genesis 6:2, also asserted that God is patient with all sins except fornication, and which included homoeroticism. To be continued
==Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13==
{{See also|Leviticus 18}}
While most admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical and cultural aspects that would disallow the injunctions which prohibit homosex. These attempts here, as others, manifest a foundational position on the Bible, contrary to its own statements relative to both its Divine inspiration and transcendent coherent moral relevance and authority. As stated by prohomsex author Richard Hasbany,
"Here again, two interpretive foundations are opposed, that of traditional Judaism which holds that the law of God as understood through the Talmudic literature is immutable, and ultimately higher than man's full comprehension (Ps. 40:5; 92:5), and those who hold that present Western values should influence man's moral interpretation of the Bible."<ref>Hasbany, Homosexuality and Religion, p. 50,51</ref> (cf. Dt. 12:8)
Boswell and most other polemicists promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', which is used to describe men laying with men as with women, usually translation ''abomination'', does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like like eating pork...”, or printing marks on one's flesh Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his position.<ref>Daniel Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, pp. 46 - 47 http://www.reformed.org/social/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/social/hodges_response_helminiak.html<ref>
It is sometimes asserted that the the Hebrew word “zimmâh” would have been used if the prohibitions of Lv. 18:22; was not a mere form of” “ethnic contamination,” like laws against unclean foods, or strange haircuts, simply enacted because they were a distinctive practice of idolatry.
Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general or otherwise universally evil practices, such as the other laws in Lev. 18 against illicit partners do, such revisionists generally strive to conclude that these Levitical injunctions against homosex were given to make Israel distinctive (“team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution, Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed, though even Scroggs thinks these ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</ref> .<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp 100-01</ref> <ref>Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality By Jack Bartlett Rogers, p. 72</ref><ref>Horner, David loved Jonathan, p.73,85</ref>
In this attempt, many seek to create a division between Lv. 18:20, which prohibits adultery, and the next verse, which forbids child sacrifice to Molech, which is supposed to render the next law (v. 22) as only forbidding homosex in the that type of idolatrous context.
However, upon examination it has been manifest that the often repeated initial basis for the attempt to relegate 18:22 to ceremonial law is found to be in misleading, as in the original language the Hebrew word tōʻēḇā is not used in Leviticus for dietary violations, and is only used 2 or 3 times elsewhere to refer to such things as abominable for Israel, while tōʻēḇā is the word most often used in reference to grave moral abominations, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful, and it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20 collectively. In contrast, the word most used, and only used for ceremonial violations, is “sheqets” (Leviticus 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then “shâqats,” from which it is derived, which is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations (Leviticus 11:11,13,43; 20:25; Dt. 7:26; Prv. 22:24).
Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā
*1. idolatry or idols (Dt. 7:25; 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7; 2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 44:19)
*2. empty, vain worship (Is. 1:13)
*3. witchcraft; occultism (Dt. 18:9-12)
*4. illicit sex (Ezek. 16:22,58; 22:11; 33:26)
*5. remarrying divorced women (Dt. 24:2-4)
*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)
*7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:27-30; 20:13; )
*8. temple prostitution (1Kg. 14:24; 2Ki. 16:3; 21:2,11)
*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)
*10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)
*11. child sacrifice to idols (Jer. 32:35)
*12. cheating in the market by using rigged weights (Dt. 25:13-19, Prov. 11:1)
*13. dishonesty (Prov. 12:22)
*14. dietary violations (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18)
*15. stealing, murder, and adultery, breaking covenants, (Jer. 7:10),
*16 violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezek. 18:10-13)
*17. bringing unbelievers into the holy sanctuary of God, and forsaking the holy charge (Ezek. 44:78)
As for zimmâh, when used sexually, it is another word to describe the vile nature of many clearly universally sins which are also categorized as tōʻēḇā, (Lv. 18:17; 19:29; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 22:11: adultery=tōʻēḇā, incest= zimmâh ), though it is not used for An examination of the use of these words reveals that the absence of zimmâh in relation to a sexual sin cannot necessarily negate the intrinsic evil of it's nature, while sins which tōʻēḇā refers to include such. Thus, rather than the injunctions against homosex being in the class of ceremonial laws based upon the use of tōʻēḇā, just the opposite is indicated.
In addition to ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws, which overall do not target pagan cultic activity, a further and necessary distinction is between practices which are a direct expression of idolatry, formal or of the heart, such as sex with illicit partners, versus amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). The Bible makes these categories discernible, with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited as a class under the N.T., (Mat. 5:32; 15:19; 19:9; Mk. 7:21; Jn. 8:41; Acts 15:20; 15:29; 21:25; Rom. 1:29; 1Co_5:1; 1Co. 6:9,13, 18; 7:2; 2Co. 12:21; Gal. 5:19; Eph. 5:3; Col. 3:5; 1Ths. 4:3; Heb. 12:16; 13:4; 1Pet. 4:3; Rev. 9:21; 14:8, 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2) The prohibitions against homosex clearly fit in this category by type, while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8)
Secondly, neither the grammar nor any categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, and belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same), which (they point out) Christians do not typically keep.<ref>Townsley, Homosexuality and the Bible</ref> Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now are the very reason why the laws against homosex are upheld:
*1. While the New Testament clearly defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it just as clearly upholds laws against illicit sexual partners as a class. While literal obedience to the former is not mandated under the New Covenant, sex with illicit partners and any possible mentions of homosex only find unconditional condemnation therein.
*2. The injunctions against homosex are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, which only has the women created for the man, with purposeful complementary physical, functional, and positional distinctions which, as decreed, only opposite opposite gender unions between humans could fulfill, in marriage. (Gn. 2:18-24; 1Cor. 11:3-15)
*3. The issue of sexual unions (with valid partners) is dealt with from the beginning to the end of the Bible as part of moral separation (Gn. 20; 26; 34; 38; Rv. 21:8; 22:15), whereas ceremonial violations are different by nature than moral offenses, being basically that of defilement by touching, tasting, or handling unclean things, including diseased persons (Col. 2:21), and do not deal with sex except insofar as contact with including blood or semen is involved, (Lv. 15:24,33). There is nothing ritually “unclean” about the males in 18:22, anymore than an illicit partner in adultery or incest, rather, any form of fornication makes one morally defiled. (Lv. 18:24; Mk. 7:21-23)
*4. The grammar of Lv. 18:22 is universal, and entirely consistent with other transcultural commands given here which forbid sex with the spouse of another, or near kin, that of the flesh of one's own flesh, with homosex being structurally similar, that of sex with an illicit partner, that of one's own gender. <ref>Gagnon, "God and Sex" or "Pants on Fire"?</ref>
*5. Lv. 18:22 finds no abrogation elsewhere, nor is any context (marriage) established in which the practice of homosex is sanctified, as is clearly provided for heterosexual relations, but which is likewise absent illicit unions such as adultery and bestiality. Nor does allowance or use of polygamy, concubines or Levirate marriage set a precedent for homosexual marriage, as the only structural variance with the Genesis original is in the number of times as man takes a wife, not the gender of the wife, which is what is explicitly specified.
*6. Motive (love, hate, consensuality) does not play a part in determining the forbiddance of homosex,<Homosexuality in the Church, Richard B. Hays, Lev. 18:22; 20:13)</ref> nor whether sex outside marriage or with any unlawful partner is valid in either Testament, in contrast with sexual legislation which stipulates such, (Dt. 22:13; 24:3; Num. 35:20; Dt. 22:23-29). Neither the mention of such or lack of mention of it establishes a factor which may sanctify an otherwise illicit union (adultery, incest etc, and all fornications are unequivocally sinful: cf. Gn. 34).
*7. Ceremonial violations are stated to “be an abomination [sheqets] unto you” (Lv. 11:10), male homosex is stated to be tô‛êbah itself (Lv. 18:22), as other illicit sex sins are, (vs. 27,29,30), and contrary to prohomsex arguments concerning tô‛êbah, that is the word most translated as “abomination” to denote grave moral offenses of universal sins, and is rarely used for ceremonial offenses. (Note: idolatry itself is not a ceremonial sin, nor does it not stop with graven images.)
*8. Attempts to extrapolate other grammatical differences in favor of the prohomosex position critically fall short. Zakhar (mankind) in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 only distinguishes between genders, and does not signify idolatrous priests are targeted here, while mishkâb (lieth) is a metaphor for sexual intercourse, using the place or manner in which it usually takes place, (Ezek. 23:17) And as 20:13 shows, both are guilty.
*9. Male homosex is classified as a first tier offense requiring the death penalty, that stipulates that they shall “be put to death”, which wording is used for other immutable grave sins (though the penalties may require Israel's theocracy), and not for ceremonial/purity laws, except for unholy presumption, and for breaking the Sabbath, the gravest of such (including in principal under the New Covenant: Gal. 1:6-8), while the punishment for ritual purity offenses, such as eating while unclean, is usually to be “cut off ” (which is rarely used by itself for grave most sins).
*10. While types of laws are grouped often together, ancient laws codes are not strict categories of laws. The attempt to negate the universality and transcendence v. 22 due to the culturally specific aspect of v.21 (child sacrifice to Molech) fails, as that law is not restricted to child sacrifice to only one specific idol, and cannot be relegated to merely being ceremonial. Rather, it is based upon foundational moral law (Gn. 9:5,6; Ex. 20:2; 34:15) and is literally applicable in principal and by modification to all cultures and times. In addition, consistently with the prohomosex hermeneutic behind their attempt, v.19 (intercourse during menstruation, which is more akin to ceremonial law) would disallow the intrinsic sinfulness of the next verse (adultery).
*11. As v. 22 is substantially evidenced as being based upon foundational design and decree, just as the forbiddance of bestiality is in the next verse is, in principal its application is not restricted to only male homosex but same gender sex as well. Male sex with another male represents an illicit partner, contrary to all Biblical marriages, just as Molech represents an illicit object of worship, contrary to all statements relative to such, and the respective injunctions against both are universal based upon inherent qualities which disallow the forbidden functions.
*12. When homosex or illicit heterosexual sex as a formal part of idolatrous activity is targeted, then the context makes that evident (Dt. 23:17,18), (“dogs” likely to refer to the manner of homosex relations). The historical fact is that in Canaanite culture, homosexuality was practices as both a religious rite and a personal perversion...Israel's pagan neighbours knew both secular and sacred homosexuality" <ref>Greg Bahnsen p 45</ref>
*13. In seeking to negate the Levitical injunctions hermeneutics are employed which,if applied consistently, would effectively disallow a coherent sexual ethic in the Bible, yet the laws on sexual partners are presented as universal commands and reiterated as a class in a way that presumes they can be understood and obeyed by all, without being open to a vast degree of interpretation which effectively allows them to be negated.
*14. Lev. 18:22 is “part of an interconnected Old Testament witness.” “There is no evidence to suggest that ancient Israelite society, acting in fidelity to Yahweh, would ever have approved of any form of homosexual practice.”
*15. Appropriated by the New Testament. The term arsenokoitai (“men who lie with a male”) in 1
Corinthians 6:9 is formulated from the Septuagint translation of Lev 18:22 and 20:13, which refers to not ‘lying’ (koite) with a ‘male’ (arsen). Paul’s critique of homosexual relations in Romans 1:24-27 also echoes Lev 18 and 20 by using two terms that appear in Septuagint translation of these chapters: akatharsia (“uncleanness, impurity” in Romans 1:24 and Lev 18:19; 20:21, 25) and aschemosune (“indecency, indecent exposure” in Rom 1:27 and twenty-four times in Lev 18:6-19; 20:11, 17-21). <ref>Gagnon, Why the disagreement over the Biblical witness on homosexual practice?</ref>
Joseph P. Gudel states, “God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).”<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture, Leviticus 18 and 20, by Joseph P. Gudel, Christian Research Institute Journal http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref>
Bailey, while seeking to justify homosex, stated, "It is hardly open to doubt that both the laws in Leviticus relate to ordinary homosexual acts between men, and not to ritual or other acts performed in the name of religion."<ref>Bailey, Homosexuality, p. 30</ref>
Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context, in contrast to what the grammar or the context will bear, is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145] which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138] throughout the OT, by noting that in a 90% of the occurrences (by his classification) it signifies a special sacred significance. And with his imagination running wild he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertain to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>
However, this conclusion derived from the use of zakhar/zekhur within special classes of creatures is shown to be unwarranted when one realizes that zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are used most often to differentiate between male and females in general, as well as those in special classes of people, and that is the only special significance it provides. The reason for their most prevalent use being within special classes of males is simply because that is most often the subject, from sacrificed animals to Jews returning from exile (part of his list). While zakhar is used for the descendants of Levi, (Lv. 6:18,29) it is also used for Adam, (Gn. 1:27) and in contrast with Eve, (Gn. 5:2) and for all the men of Shechem, (Gn. 34:22,24,25) for Midianite males, (Num. 31:7,17,18,35; Jdg. 21:11) for idolatrous male images, (Ezek. 16:17) for male men of Manasseh, (Josh. 17:2) for slain male Edomites (1Ki. 11:15) for male children, (Lv. 12:2; Is. 66:7; Jer. 20:15) for fearful men, (Jer. 30:6) for circumscribed males, (Gn. 17:23), and for all the men of Israel, (Num. 1:2), as does zekhur (Ex. 23:17; Dt. 16:16) and for male enemies (Dt. 20:13) or male children (Ex. 34:23). In no place in Scripture are these words used to signify pagan male priests, in fact the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) is used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22) The prohomosex polemicists has simply imagined words which makes a distinction between genders without signifying a difference in what the Levitical injunctions proscribe.
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]