Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,415
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 251:
Line 251: − + Line 275:
Line 275: − + − − In addition, ceremonial dietary and ritual cleansing laws overall do not target pagan cultic activity. However, there are practices which evidently are a direct expression of formal idolatry, such as temple prostitution (Dt. 23:17), or child sacrifices to a specific idol (2Ki. 16:3, which is Boswell's example of something ceremonially defiling). However, both the proscribed practices of prostitution and literal child sacrifice are wrong in any context (unless Judge 11 is seen as sanctioning it to God, and as a practice). The Bible makes a distinction for the religious practice of such sins, at least partly due to the fact that the morality which is practiced in the Temple set the standard for the rest of society. − − Additionally, there are commands which target amoral things which merely accompany idolatry activity, such as a grove of trees in worship (Dt. 16:21). − − 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)
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 15:46, February 26, 2009
, 15:46, February 26, 2009→Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh
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).
*17. bringing unbelievers into the holy sanctuary of God, and forsaking the holy charge (Ezek. 44:78)
*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.
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.
===Zakhar===
===Zakhar===