Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,415
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 262:
Line 262: − + − + − + − + + + + + − + Line 279:
Line 283: − + − + Line 287:
Line 291: − + + + + + + + + + + + − +
Homosexuality and biblical interpretation (view source)
Revision as of 03:42, March 6, 2009
, 03:42, March 6, 2009→Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh
====Tōʻēḇā and zimmâh====
====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 A Reformed Response to
Boswell and most other polemicists promoting homoeroticism contend that the Hebrew word ''tōʻēḇā'', usually translated ''abomination'' as in Lv. 18:22, 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 A Reformed Response to
Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</ref>
Daniel Helminiak's Gay Theology]</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 that of strange haircuts.
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 laws against illicit partners, Boswell and like revisionists generally assert that these Levitical injunctions against homosex (and even all the sins of Lv. 18 and 20) were only given to make Israel distinctive (“team colors”), and only prohibit pagan temple prostitution. Or that they were concerned with the wasting of reproductive seed,<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> though even prohomosex author Scroggs thinks these latter ideas are conjecture which is best not to speculate about.<ref>The New Testament and Homosexuality, p. 73</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, in support of the traditional position, examination of the use of tōʻēḇā in the original language text reveals that it 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 (versus the Egyptians), and in contrast, tōʻēḇā is the word most often used for abomination in reference to grave moral sins, including those which are unmistakably universally sinful. Collectively it is used for all the sins of Lv. 18 + 20. As idolatry is the mother of all sins, tōʻēḇā can be directly used for such. (Dt. 32:16)<ref>[http://ariyl.com/AbominationOfDesolation.swf Anchor Bible Dictionary, Abomination of Desolation]</ref>
The word, which, when used, always denotes ceremonial abominations is ''sheqets'' (Lev. 7:21; 11:10-13,20,23,41,42; Is. 66:17; Ezek. 8:10), and then ''shâqats,'' from which it is derived, which itself is only used in Leviticus for dietary violations, (Lev. 11:11,13,43; 20:25) and a "cursed thing in Dt. 7:26, and an abhorred cry in Prv. 22:24.
As for zimmâh, when used sexually, it is another word, used less frequently, 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 ) 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.
Majority of specific sins which are said to be tōʻēḇā
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)
*1. idolatry or idols (Dt. 7:25,26; 13, 2Kg. 21:2-7; 23:13; 2Chr. 33:2,3; Is. 44:19)
*2. empty, vain worship (Is. 1:13)
*2. empty, vain worship (Is. 1:13)
*3. witchcraft; occultism (Dt. 18:9-12)
*3. witchcraft; occultism (Dt. 18:9-12)
*5. remarrying divorced women (Dt. 24:2-4)
*5. remarrying divorced women (Dt. 24:2-4)
*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)
*6. marriage with unbelievers (Ezra 9:1,2)
*7. male homosexual and (collectively) heterosexual immorality (Lv. 18:22; 18:27-30; 20:13; )
*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)
*8. temple prostitution (1Kg. 14:24; 21:2,11)
*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)
*9. offerings from the above (Dt. 23:18)
*10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)
*10. cross-dressing (Dt. 22:5)
*13. dishonesty (Prov. 12:22)
*13. dishonesty (Prov. 12:22)
*14. dietary violations (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18)
*14. dietary violations (Dt. 14:3; Jer. 16:18)
*15. stealing, murder, and adultery, breaking covenants, (Jer. 7:10),
*15. stealing, murder, and adultery, breaking covenants, (Jer. 7:10),
*16. violent robbery, murder, oppressing the poor and needy, etc. (Ezek. 18:10-13)
*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)
*17. bringing unbelievers into the holy sanctuary of God, and forsaking the holy charge (Ezek. 44:78)
Boswell and Helminiak look to the Greek LXX ([[Septuagint]]), an interpretive work of many Greek translators, for support here, arguing that its use of "bdelygma" in translating tōʻēḇā in Lv. 18:22 and other places, indicates that the Leviticus passage should be interpreted as a violation of ceremonial impurity. They further postulate that a Greek word, ''anomia'', would be used if it were a violation of moral law<ref>Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. pp. 100-102</ref><ref>What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, Daniel Helminiak, pp. 64-65</ref> In support of the traditional position, James B. De Young and others show the inconsistency of this argument in the light of more extensive research<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ZXAVf8m_HKgC&printsec=toc&dq=online+lxx+bdelygma&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0 Homosexuality, Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law, pp. 65-69]</ref><ref>http://pursuegod.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/homosexuality-an-abomination</ref>
It appears that Hellenistic Jewish translators of the LXX (for whom the ceremonial laws were imperative commands, to be obeyed when possible) sought to use βδέλυγμα and derivatives for violations of the Holiness Code, while giving it a broader meaning in wisdom literature, (Prov. 11:1,20; 12:22; 15:8; 15:9,26; 16:12; 20:23; 21:27; 27:20; 29:27); though it is used for cheating in the market by using rigged weights in Dt. 25:13-19. However, traditionalists point out that only part of the holiness code is ceremonial, and that its type places it within the moral catogory.<ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702 What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Gregory Koukl</ref>
In contrast to the LXX. the Hebrew uses ''sheqets''' and ''shâqats,'' almost exclusively for ceremonial laws such as regulate diet, while using tōʻēḇā primarily for moral abominations. The LXX does not translate those words consistently, as comparison shows,<ref>http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Toevah+LXX.html</ref> sometimes translating both tô‛êbah, sheqets or shâqats as βδέλυγμα, and using βδέλυγμά for both dietary violations (Lev. 11:10,13) as well as for morally illicit marriage in Dt. 24:4 (in place of tōʻēḇā).
The LXX uses three words in Lv. 18 for abomination/abominations: βδέλυγμα (Lv. 18:22), βδελύγματα (Lv. 18:27) and βδελυγμάτων (Lv. 18:26; 18:29), with the latter references collectively condemning as abomination all the forbidden practices of Lv. 18, and it is certain that laws against illicit sex partners, of which they primarily consist, or against child sacrifice, were in no way seen as part of ceremonial law under the New Testament.
As regards, anomia, 24 Hebrew words are variously rendered by this, and while anomia is a word that describes violations of law, it is most always used in a general sense, often like the Hebrew word ‛âvôn, and is rarely used to specify a particular sin, which in contrast is often the case with tōʻēḇā in the Torah. Yet anomia is used in many verses where tōʻēḇā later occurs in the Hebrew. (Eze. 8:6,9,13,17; 12:16; 16:2,47,51,58; 18:13,24; 20:4; 22:2; 23:36; Zec. 3:4) As it is normally used in a general sense, when anomia is used in passages as Lv. 16:21; Is. 53:1, it is referring to all the transgressions of Israel, not simply those in the moral class, while in passages such as Lv. 22:16; 26:43; and Jer. 16:18, it refers to things which Boswell classifies as mere ceremonial purity.
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 with previous attempts, fuller examination reveals that demanding a more specific word in place of another word which evidence shows can denote the same, and to which the context and or structure testifies, is unwarranted in Scripture. Insomuch as these grammatical have any weight, the traditional position evidences the Hebrew tōʻēḇā as best indicating the moral classification of Lv. 18 and v. 22 in particular, while the LXX does not relegate it to being a mere ceremonial law, which categorization is best determined by the type of prohibition rather than the word used to describe its loathsome nature. In regard to this, Boswell classifies idolatry, such as making idols to worship, or offering one's child as a literal sacrifice to a false god, (Boswell cites 2Ki. 16:3) as merely being part of ceremonial laws of separation, rather then being practices which are universally wrong today. (1Cor. 10:20,21) In contrast, traditional exegesis works to substantiate that homosex is not simply a corruption of a practice such as eating, which is contextually sanctioned, as the sanctioned context for homosexual relations is (conspicuously) never established. As historical scholarship sees right worship being established by having the God of the Bible as its object, so it sees sanctified sexual relations as also established as being between eligible opposite genders, while homosex is revealed as a consequence of making God into an image of ones own liking, formal or informal. (Rm. 1)
====Zakhar====
====Zakhar====