Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,415
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 239:
Line 239: − + + + − + − − In this attempt, some seek to create a categorical 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 that type of idolatrous context. Line 281:
Line 281: − Neither any grammatical, categorical division or cultural context polemic warrants relegating these Levitical commands to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, or belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same) which Christians do not literally observe. Rather, the reasons why literal obedience to these is not enjoined now stand in contrast to the reasons why the laws against homosex are upheld:+ + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 323:
Line 354: − Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains 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 all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are used most often to differentiate between male and females in general, and that is the only special significance it provides, and therefore it is used for those in special classes of people. 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). This is a case of a distinction which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests; in fact the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) is used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 00:56, February 26, 2009
, 00:56, February 26, 2009→Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
{{See also|Leviticus 18}}
{{See also|Leviticus 18}}
While most prohomosex polemicists 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,
While most prohomosex polemicists admit that sexual moral codes are transcultural and transhistorical, attempts are made to find grammatical, categorical, cultural and motivatonal 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)
"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)
===tōʻēḇā and zimmâh===
Boswell and most others promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translation ''abomination'' to describe men laying with men as with women, seldom refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics. Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his revisionist 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>
Boswell and most others promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translation ''abomination'' to describe men laying with men as with women, seldom refers to something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft,... but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or printing marks on one's flesh, or against mixed fabrics. Helminiak for instance, claims that tōʻēḇā, means "dirty" or "impure" and that this therefore supports his revisionist 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>
Instead, Boswell asserts 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,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref> like laws against unclean foods, or strange haircuts, simply enacted because they were a distinctive practice of idolatry.
Instead, Boswell asserts 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,",<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. p. 100</ref> 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 like other universally evil practices in its class, 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>
Rather than prohibiting same gender sex in general like other universally evil practices in its class, 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>
However, upon examination it is first 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, and in contrast tōʻēḇā is the word most often used in reference to grave moral abominations, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. And collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. The word which is 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).
However, upon examination it is first 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, and in contrast tōʻēḇā is the word most often used in reference to grave moral abominations, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. And collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. The word which is 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).
The Bible makes these categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually, <ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfil the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited in 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,<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)
The Bible makes these categories discernible, as it lists the type of sins which were ceremonial, (Gal. 4:10; Col. 16,17; Heb. 9:10) while explicitly reincorporating many basic moral commands in the Mosaic code into the New Testament code,<ref>Homosexuality and the Old Testament, P. Michael Ukleja http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/03-Leviticus/Text/Articles/Ukleja-Homsex-BS.htm</ref> upholding basic universal moral laws by type and often individually, <ref>Charles C. Ryrie, "The End of the Law," Bibliotheca Sacra 124 (July-September 1967):246</ref><ref>By this it is not meant that Christians are "under law" as though being saved on account of his works, in contrast to imputed righteousness by faith, (Rm. 3-5), or that we look to the letter of the law as the standard, over its intent and foundational basis, but because of faith in the Lord Jesus, Christian are mandated and rightly motivated and enabled to fulfil the righteous intent of the law (Rm. 8:4), which goes beyond the letter of it (though it is evident that this results in keeping the letter of basic universal moral laws as well)</ref> (Rm. 13:8-10; Heb. 10:28; Ja. 4:11; 1Cor. 10:7; 2Cor. 6:16,17; 1Jn. 5:21; Rv. 9:20; 13:14,15 14:11; 1Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:1-3; 1Cor. 9:8,9) with unlawful sex between outlawed partners or outside marriage being prohibited in 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,<ref>"That Which is Unnatural" Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture by Joseph P. Gudel -ICR http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html</ref> and are only condemned where explicitly mentioned (Rm. 1:16,27) while accompaniments such as simply where to worship or eat would only be contextually wrong. (1Cor. 8,10)
===zakhar===
Another attempt to relegate Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 to a unique cultic context is one that strives to attach a radical significance to the use of zakhar [H2145], which is the Hebrew word normally translated male/males throughout the OT, or the lesser used word for such, zekhur [H2138], by noting that in 90% of the occurrences it signifies those who have a special sacred significance (newborn sons, circumcised males, Levites, soldiers, sacrificial animals, returning exiles, etc.). By which he concludes that this signifies that the Levitical injunctions against homosex only pertains to sex with priests!<ref>http://epistle.us/hbarticles/zakhar1.html</ref>
* 1. While the New Testament defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it even more clearly and abundantly 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.
However, this conclusion derived from the use of zakhar/zekhur within special classes of creatures is shown to be unwarranted, when one realizes that all Israelite males fell into a special class of people, while zakhar/zekhur are strictly gender specific words which are used most often to differentiate between male and females in general, and that is the only special significance it provides, and therefore it is used for those in special classes of people. 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). This is a case of a distinction which makes no difference in what the Levitical injunctions apply to. Moreover, in no place in Scripture are these words used to distinctly signify pagan male priests; in fact the common word for men ('îysh [H376]) is used for such. (Jdg 6:28,30; 1Ki 18:22)
===Other grammatical and categorical attempts===
Others contend or postulates that the grammar in Lv. 18:22 and 20:13 indicates only a prohibition of actual male intercourse, and only condemns the active party, not the passive one, with procreation being causative of the injunction, and or being due to the need for male dominance, but not forbidding lesbian eroticism.<ref>Wrestling with God and Men, pp. 80-93, by Steven Greenberg</ref> Or that it only targets coercive male intercourse<ref>A Time to Embrace, Stacy Johnson</ref>
The focus here is on the words, ''îysh'' (man) ''shâkab'' (lieth) '''êth'' (with) ''zâkâr'' (mankind) ''mishkâb'' (lieth) '''ishshâh'' ''nâshîym'' (women), with mishkâb, usually meaning ''bed'', being restricted to only intercourse. And while that specific action (cf. Num. 31:17–18,35; Judges 21:11–12) is prohibited, yet to restrict "the "bed of love" (Ezek. 23:17; cf. 7:17) to only actual intercourse would appear to be too narrow. It is inconceivable that euphemisms such as "uncover the nakedness, or "lieth with", only forbid adulterous or incestuous intercourse while allowing all else, even if they may be seen as a lesser degree of eroticism. Though the sin of Reuben was that he went up to his father's bed (Gn. 49:4) inferring adultery/incest with his mother, certainly lesser forms of eroticism would not be sanctioned. Gagnon concludes that the idea that ancient Israel would have accepted other aspects of male with male erotic sex is preposterous, which apparently even Johnson is compelled to admit.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasonsCritique.pdf More Reasons Why Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace
Should Not Be Embraced: Part II]</ref>
As regards the idea that only the active partner is targeted in 18:22, as is seen in such places as Dt. 22:22-27, simply because the man is specified does not mean the recipient is not culpable, but a distinction is made in jurisprudence when the latter is not. In contrast, in Lv. 20:13 both parties are presented as culpable. Likewise in verses before and after 20:13 the male is specified though it addresses a consensual act (Lv. 20:10-12,14)
As for procreation being the cause of the prohibition against homosex, this presupposes that is the sole or determining basis for the foundational premise which 18:22 is based upon, that of the design and decrees which uniquely join opposite genders in marriage. And that the lack of need for procreation negates marriage as being uniquely sanctioned for opposite genders. However, the Bible in its entirety evidences as that the complementary union transcends simply procreation, and that even when that is not a critical issue then sex is enjoined only between male and female. While in no place is marriage afforded between same genders.
Nor can male dominance, even if it was the cause for 18:22, disallow it or warrant the inclusion of a radical new sanctioned union between two males, as is it God, not society, that established the headship of the male, and this functional distinction is an intrinsic part of his unique union with the women, based upon creational distinctions (Gn. 1Cor. 11) which exclude same gender marriage.
The issue of lesbian sexual relations is related to the preceding, as the Levitical prohibitions only describe male homosex. Yet to presuppose that the like does not apply to same gender sexual unions lacks any Scriptural warrant, as such are also contrary in principal to the union of opposite genders originally established and uniquely affirmed throughout Scripture, with no principal or precept affording the contrary. In addition, though a phrase like "women lying with women with womenkind" is not specified in the Old Testament, commands and texts which are given to the ''male'' ('îysh) in Lv. 20:13 also can include women, such as in Lv. 20:9; Is. 53:6,11; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 18:12. Most likely sexual relations between females was not a known or at all a prevalent practice then, and thus did not warrant a specific injunction. However, under the New Covenant, both male and female consensual homosex is condemned, as being contrary to the creational design of God, and ordained normality, and thus is a manifestation of idolatry.
Seeing the universal nature of the other laws against illicit partners, some seek to create a categorical 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 that type of idolatrous context. However, as most hold v. 19 to be ceremonial (sex during menstruation), this same logic would relegate adultery to that category. In addition, only Molech in v. 21 is culture specific, while being universally applicable otherwise.
===Psychologically based polemics===
An even more imaginative psychologically based argument on Lv. 20:13 is advanced by Rabbi Arthur Waskow, who renders that to only forbid male with male intercourse when they pretend one is a women, and or that this verse is really mandating a parallel set of institutions for dealing with male with male sex.<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm</ref> That this is a egregious example of "wresting" of Scriptures (cf. 2Pet. 3:16) should be obvious, but such is evidenced elsewhere in prohomosex apologetics. In no place do emotions or imaginations, motives or mental attitude play a part in the prohibitions of sex with illicit partners, whereas when it does within laws regarding marriage (Dt. 24:3; Num. 6:12-31) or killing (Dt. 19:11,12) then it is made explicit. Likewise, the idea that a fundamental prohibition against male homosex, which is manifestly contrary to what God has sanctioned and established by design and decree, is somehow mandating a like means of sanction for it, is seen as utterly without warrant. And that is makes a mockery of the Bible as a coherent authority for even basic human behavior.
Nor is it indicated that "as he lieth with a woman" is making a distinction between an effeminate versus masculine internal disposition of the partner. Rather the simile and euphemism serves to identify the sexual nature (intercourse) of laying down, and would distinguish it from simply sharing the same real estate to lay down on, as with women.
==Summation===
As the following summation details, the traditional position contends that neither any grammatical aspect, categorical division or cultural context warrants relegating the Levitical injunctions against homosex to merely being prohibitory of idolatrous temple homosex, or belonging to the class of ceremonial laws (which are not the same), or only motive-specific.
* 1. The reasons why literal obedience to ceremonial laws is not enjoined now is based upon like evidence for why the laws against homosex are upheld. While the New Testament defines the class of laws which were ceremonial/typological, it even more clearly and abundantly 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 finds unconditional condemnation therein.
* 2. The injunctions against homosex are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, and are upheld in principle and by precepts, in which only the women is 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)
* 2. The injunctions against homosex are based upon creational, not cultural differences, as is manifest by design and decrees, and are upheld in principle and by precepts, in which only the women is 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)
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>
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>