Focused discussion, Lev. 18:22

Mkgal, I notice you made no mention of the references I posted about incest, sex with animals, etc. in Egypt and the middle east apart from any association with pagan worship.

It was not limited to pagan worship.

But you have not shown your primary source material for your conclusions. And yet you are reading in a whole context based on it.

mkgal1 said:

You're right--the text doesn't. However, the people whose ancestors this was written to (the Israelites) have written that's what this was pertaining to. Considering that a major part of being Jewish is memorizing the first five books of the Bible and understanding the meaning (and that's handed down from generation to generation)---I'd tend to side with their interpretations.

Click to expand...

Lev 20:9 For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.

The text says what it says, despite what some rabbis in the second temple period changed it to say. The issue was a serious action against one's parents.

Note also the following command where striking your parents also resulted in death, as a serious affront to your parents:

Exo 21:15 "Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.


There is no context of false worship in either case, and the issue is clearly drastic dishonoring of parents.

And lest we forget, honoring parents is still mentioned in the NT as well:

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
Eph 6:2 "Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise),
Eph 6:3 "that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land."

It is in no way a principle only for Israel or for Egyptians or the previous inhabitants of Canaan.

mkgal1 said:

So....I sure hope you're not wearing mixed fabric clothing.....or are trimming your sideburns and beard....or eating shellfish....or planting seed mixes like wildflowers.

Click to expand...

The church discussed whether the gentiles had to keep the whole law of Moses. It was found they did not.

Act 15:5 But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."
Act 15:6 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.


Act 15:19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
Act 15:20 but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.


The church only required a few essentials:

Act 15:23 with the following letter: "The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings.
Act 15:24 Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions,
Act 15:25 it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act 15:26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act 15:27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act 15:28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:
Act 15:29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

While trimming sideburns didn't make the list, sexual immorality was included among the things gentiles were to avoid. Lev. 18 and 20 is where the various types of sexual immorality are spelled out.

We see that Paul continued to uphold these notions in I Corinthians 5 where he condemns a man having his father's wife as sexual immorality, and prohibited.

mkgal1 said:

I cannot believe that Abraham & Sarah would be guilty of an "abomination" (continually--all through their marriage) yet God would let it slide for them--even encouraged them by promising them many children-- (yet He'd "vomit out" a nation and call for the death penalty for the same behavior by others).

Click to expand...

We are not bound by your notions of who God would use. And we have already cited God using two murderers to lead his people, Moses and David. David was also an adulterer.

And the case of Manasseh was mentioned who turned a whole nation to idolatry, sacrificed his son in the fire, filled Jerusalem with blood, consulted mediums, and necromancers, etc.

But God still brought him back to be king again later, using him again.

God still uses sinful people at times. It does not make sin into righteousness. It just shows that God can use sinful people to His glory.

mkgal1 said:

Used Manassesh how, though? He was never raised up as an example of faith. I don't believe his name is mentioned in Hebrews (as Moses and Abraham were).

Click to expand...

Brought back to be king over God's people.

But here you have painted yourself into a corner. Moses and David were included as examples of faith, but Moses was a murderer and David a murderer and adulterer ( adultery was referenced as abomination in Lev. 18 and 20).

God still used them.

My point about that I'm trying to make is that *no where* is there any mention of Abraham & Sarah's or Jochebed & Amram's unions being "abominations" or "wicked" or even just sinful. The verse I quoted earlier about Abraham being blameless (different than "perfect") and God's covenant with him? There were key words in that: "walk before me faithfully and be blameless. then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." To me---that implies that there was a condition for Abraham to "walk before me faithfully" and to be "blameless" in order for the covenant to be enacted (and we know it was).

Click to expand...

The relationship was started long before God called Abraham. Moreover, I don't see a condemnation of Moses' murder either, but it was clearly wrong. And God still used him.

mkgal1 said:

The Bible *does* make it clear that Manasseh's behavior *was* wicked and idolatrous.

And again---there is a close tie shown there of "abominations" being associated with idolatry and all the practices associated with the worship of false gods.

Full timeline of Manasseh: Bible Hub's title is Manasseh's Idolatrous Reign in Judah

Click to expand...

Of course it was wrong. But so was David's adultery and murder, and Moses' murder. Was Moses' murder not wrong?

God still uses who He chooses. As to abominations, the things he did were abominations. We have not claimed that many things dealing with worship of false gods are NOT abominations. We have pointed out that things do not have to be associated with them to be abominations all on their own, and examples have been cited in Scripture.

mkgal1 said:

So what if their union was started long before "God called Abraham"? God is not limited in His knowledge by time. If this union were truly "wicked" (as you two are suggesting)--then it just doesn't make sense to me

Click to expand...

You cannot base theology just on what makes sense to you.

Rom 9:10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac,
Rom 9:11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—
Rom 9:12 she was told, "The older will serve the younger."
Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Rom 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

that God would encourage it further (especially up against the death penalties that applied for abominations and wickedness)....and in the specific way that would encourage the sexual behavior (promising them many children). Wouldn't that make them actively and continually being "wicked" (not just something that was part of their past that they've turned away from)?

Instead, what we see in the text is God blessed that union and promised them many children (quite the opposite of the treatment from God of Lot's wife

, Er and Onan, Nadab and Abihu, Nabal, King Ahaziah, and Jehoram).

The main thread or theme (again) that applies to all of this is in Leviticus 10:

Click to expand...

God has used a whole assortment of people listed in Hebrews 11 with issues.

- Noah became drunk
- Abraham's deceived Pharaoh
- His son Isaac deceived a king in a similar fashion.
- Jacob was a deceiver and stole the blessing of his brother. And I already quoted the text where it says God chose him before he did anything good or bad, but you ignored it.
- Moses was a murderer
- Rahab was a prostitute
- Samson consorted with prostitutes
- David was an adulterer wand murderer
- Gideon made an ephod that became a snare to him and his family

God uses all kinds of sinful people. Your argument from silence about what God should have done does not overrule plain statements about what He thinks about given actions.

God may well use sinful people again. But that does not allow you to bless things that God says are wrong.

Hence Paul still sees it as wrong in I Corinthians 5. Hence the council still tells the gentiles to avoid sexual immorality in Acts 15.

mkgal1 said:

Speaking of death penalties: that could be why we hear nothing of judgement about Moses killing the slave master. It was following the slave master's mistreatment of a fellow Hebrew. Maybe that was a justified killing? You seem to wish to take the verse just as it stands about the death penalty applying to one "curses their father and mother"....so why couldn't this death of the slave master be justified? It seems this slave master was mistreating Hebrew slaves. It's not as if Moses just went on a random killing spree.

Click to expand...

Because even in the law beating a slave, as bad as that is, is not a death penalty crime. Moreover, vigilante justice is not bringing about God's righteousness.

Even the reaction of other Hebrew slaves calls into question this action:

Exo 2:13 When he went out the next day, behold, two Hebrews were struggling together. And he said to the man in the wrong, "Why do you strike your companion?"
Exo 2:14 He answered, "Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?"

It seems that you're so intent on making your own point you are completely missing mine. As I mentioned earlier---any more attempts from me to try to clarify are probably futile.

Click to expand...

Your point is a point from silence. You are arguing what God should do based on your thoughts about how He works. Yet when we look at how He did work with people, even adulterers like David, we find He does not always do what you would expect.

That does not change what is right and wrong. And in the NT we still see Paul condemning incest and homosexuality. We see the church saying gentiles should not commit sexual immorality.

If God did not use sinners He would not have anyone to use. When calling out someone from Ur He had a choice of a bunch of sinners, and He chose a sinner who's heart was still open. Yet if a nation continually turns away from Him and He says He judged them for x,y, and z, you are not at liberty to re-define x,y and z based on what you think He should do.

mkgal1 said:

There were many wicked kings that ruled over Israel/Judah....that's different than the people that are mentioned in the Bible as being "faithful" and "blameless"

Click to expand...

Many wicked kings were not said to be expressly brought back by God to rule after a record-setting wicked reign.

2Ch 33:13 He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the LORD was God.

When God uses wicked people the glory goes to Him.

(as Abraham was described) and given credit for conquering kingdoms, administering justice, and gaining what was promised them by faith

Click to expand...

Yet Abraham was not blameless, certainly not in the deception of Pharaoh. Yet God used and blessed Him for His own ends.

Both Abraham and David were sinners saved by grace:

Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

(as King David was)

Click to expand...

David was an adulterer and murderer. But He repented. And God still used him.

or given the credit for acting by faith up against the anger of kings and choosing to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the fleeting pleasure of sin (as Moses was).

Click to expand...

Who was also a vigilante murderer. But God still used Him. And God still knew the sincerity of Manasseh and brought him back according to His will.

mkgal1 said:

Actually.....I'm not painted in a corner. I've maintained that all along: that there's something unique about the Holiness Code--Leviticus chapters 17-26th (and I've maintained it has to do with purity and the worship of false gods).

Click to expand...

Actually you have maintained a whole list of strange things about the holiness code in this conversation, and the list could be posted again if need be.

However, there was nothing about David's adultery or murder that had to do with worshiping false gods. But it was still wrong.

There was nothing about the man in I Corinthians incest that was about worshiping false gods. In fact the pagans wouldn't tolerate it. But it was still wrong.

That would explain why Abraham & Sarah; Jochebed & Amram; King David; and Moses *weren't* described in the way that Manasseh, King Ahaziah, Nabal, Nadab and Abihu were. I think that's also an explanation as to why King David was disqualified from building the temple.

Click to expand...

Except David was spoken of as deserving death but God spared him. So there goes that. And Manasseh was forgiven and still used by God. So there goes that. And the plain scripture was already shown to you on David's disqualification which cited his being a warrior from birth. But you ignored that.

You can wish all day to determine how God should act. But He already spelled out how He did act, and it was not always how you would. And He already spelled out what was objectionable to Him.

The fact that He shows mercy to those who love Him, despite their sins, does not change morality.

Mkgal, you still haven't addressed the material regarding Acts 15 and the command to abstain from sexual immorality.

You still haven't explained why incest would be wrong in the NT in I Corinthians 5 if your view is correct, and why Paul would call it sexual immorality.

You still haven't explained why Paul would reference a word that refers to the Lev. prohibition of male on male sex in a list of sinners, which he states comes from the law. Why would he do that if it still did not matter?

You still haven't explained why John the baptist would still reference the law against incest if it only applied to false worship.

You still haven't addressed the primary source material that Egypt and the near east practiced some of the forbidden things referenced OUTSIDE OF worship of false gods.

You still haven't addressed why you are inserting cursing God's name into a curse on parents, or how a curse on parents has anything to do with false worship. And honoring parents is also still important in the NT.

So far you have two main arguments.

a. God didn't kill Abraham. Yet God used all kinds of sinful people, including David, and adulterer (also included in the list). And Abraham and David both are said by Paul to be saved by faith, not works, because they have nothing to boast about before God.

b. That this must be referring only to the context of false worship, because that was where these things were done by the previous nations. But the primary source material does not uphold that.

The primary basis for your argument to this point is the context of false worship where these practices took place, according to you.

mkgal1 said:

That verse was prefaced with the text explaining that these rules were so the Israelites didn't follow the practices of the Canaanites and Egyptians. Then we need to know what those practices are.

Click to expand...

Along that line the article you posted states:

Therefore, if we can determine what type of homosexual behaviour was common among the Canaanites and the Egyptians, we will better understand what these verses in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were meant to prohibit.

I posted primary source material showing that some of the activities took place outside of this context in those nations as well. And in fact it showed that they were prevalent enough that they had to forbid them in some cases. In other cases they were not forbidden but allowed. And in one case in Egypt the person thought it a positive thing to deny to a deity that he had ever had sex with a man. And in one code a person was not allowed to be a priest if they had sex with an animal. So that is not helping your case that this was only in the context of false worship.

The whole basis of your argument, that these actions took place only in context of false worship, is simply not true. They happened outside of that as well. And even though some ancient law codes thought sex with a horse was OK, God did not agree, and listed that sex with animals was not OK.

If you refuse to address these primary source references when they undercut your entire argument, how can we take that argument seriously?

There was no statement of the context of these actions that God was condemning in Lev. 18 and 20. And in fact in the instances when these actions were prohibited in prior law codes there was no reference to the context either.

You read in a context that was predicated on your characterization of the customs of these nations. However, the primary source material does not agree with your assessment of these customs.

mkgal1 said:

My main point was: if someone brought up those things (carving pumpkins, dressing in costume, and going door-to-door asking for candy) as a combined list you'd know what that was in reference to.

Click to expand...

Yet an item on the list doesn't match . The command against cursing mother and father doesn't match the notion of it only being about false worship.

And the primary source material shows these actions were occurring even outside of the context of false worship. These things were part of the general practice of these nations, not just their worship. So the list is about just what it says--the things the previous nations did that they were judged for.

We are still waiting on your answer to this:

tall73 said:

Please state which of the following are A (acceptable in any context) B (acceptable outside of devotion to false gods) C (never acceptable in any context)

- adultery
- male on male sex
- sex with animals
- cursing your parents
- sex with your father's wife.

Click to expand...

We can now expand the list of far-fetched solutions you have floated in this discussion.

- only ritual concerns were dealt with in the holiness code (a misreading of your source)
- the holiness code was only for priests (a misreading of your source)
- that the word abomination meant only "ritually unclean" and if the author wished to refer to a moral violation he would use a different word--found by the usage to be untrue
- there were different words in Hebrew translated abomination (though all the ones referenced were the same underlying word in Hebrew).
- abomination changes definition in this passage, without really any reason to say why
- that abomination was limited in such a way that it could not include lying, stealing or murder, shown by the Scriptures to be untrue. And then asserted again that murder was not called that, after it was shown to be untrue.
- that since the land was made unclean these were ritual, not really abominations, though the text said they were abominations.
- practices means somehow only rituals in the context of false worship, when that is certainly not a commonly accepted meaning of the word.
- that the phrase really had nothing to do with sex at all but was about two men sitting together on a woman's bed.
- rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur, that it cannot be done on a woman's bed.
- that the issue is a lack of full devotion to Him, while you admit that some acts listed would never be acceptable in any context.

Now added:


- You stated that if God just wanted to condemn the practices in general He would not speak specifically of Egypt and Canaan. Yet this misses the point that the people had been in slavery in Egypt, and were going to Canaan, and these were the people they were familiar with and influenced by. And their practices included these practices in contexts other than just false worhip.
- that the actions couldn't be that detestable or that it would not have to be commanded not to do them, as everyone would be repulsed by it. Of course this is silly. Most people today are repulsed by some horrible things, but some few will still do them.
- that the command against cursing parents must really be about using God's name though the text does not say it, and you admit the text does not say it.
- That all of Leviticus was given to Israel so it doesn't apply to anyone but the assembly of Israel. But that ignores that these actions were also what He judged Egypt and Canaan on, and the context of 18 and 20 spells out the actions of other nations, not just Israel
-Milgrom says it only applies in the holy land to Israel and its prior inhabitants. But this ignores that God speaks of Egypt as well, which is outside of the holy land.
- Milgrom tries to say that homosexuality might only be prohibited if part of an incestuous relationship, but of course the text does not say this and there is a contextual break between the passages as Gane pointed out.
- One of the scholars in your article suggested this could be about mistreatment of prisoners. Well certainly some sources say Egypt did this. But then that again takes it out of the context of false worship and into another context, where it would still be prohibited.
And of course, we would agree that would still be wrong as well.
- The anglican article you cited tried to draw out the meaning of this provision of the holiness code by looking at lots of passages not IN the holiness code at all, which certainly doesn't help their argument that it is all about the holiness code.
- one of the scholars in your article references male shrine prostitutes being noted in Israel, and goes into depth about the term. Great! then that shows that God certainly knew the term to use if He meant just male shrine prostitutes. But He did not use that term, and did not limit it to that.
- One of the scholars even put this punchline in there: The passage actually refers to a heterosexual male who is forcing himself to fantasize that he is having sex with a woman in order to be able to complete the act.

How does it help your position to post so many obviously flawed arguments, many of which do not even agree with each other on the "solution" to the "problem" of male on male sex being prohibited?

Basically you have thrown stuff against the wall to see what sticks, even if much of it is so baseless that you should have seen the problem before even posting it.