Focused discussion, Lev. 18:22

[Dave-W]

So....just a random crap shoot then?

Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

 

[mkgal1]

Romans 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

That demonstrates a consistent standard, though....right?

The argument that Tall seems to be making (the bulk of which is in post #325) is that Moses can commit an "abomination" (murder) as King David did (murder and adultery) and God will offer them mercy (and they will be hailed as faithful in spite of those offenses)........yet others will be put to death for similar offenses and will be called "wicked" and "evil" (like King Ahaziah, Nadab and Abihu, and Er and Onan). It seems Tall is offering that verse ("I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.") as an explanation for the disparity in treatment.

My point is that I don't believe God has different standards. I believe He's consistent in His justice and that there has to be something else to it (the disparity). Tall actually mentioned what I believe is the bridge that fills that gap of disparity---"it's by grace you're saved *through faith* ". The accounts of King Ahaziah, Nadab and Abihu, and Er and Onan all demonstrate a lack of faith in God and honor for Him.

The other issue is that incest was on the list of abominations. Tall claims that's all on its own merit (even at the time)....yet Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister and God blessed their union. I'm pointing out there's never any judgement of their union....God even encouraged the sexual behavior by promising them many children. That's the other disparity that Tall seems to be explaining with that verse.

I don't believe God is inconsistent or shows partiality.

 

[mkgal1]

We see the church saying gentiles should not commit sexual immorality.

And people have varying opinion as to what amounts to sexual immorality. Some believe kissing prior to marriage would fall into that category....or a married couple engaging in anything other than the standard position. I believe it's about promiscuity and being "lovers of pleasure instead of lovers of God and genuine love" that's the issue there (which a married person could even be guilty of). But....that's a whole other topic. The other verse that uses the word "homosexuality"? That's a new English word that causes difficulty in the translation. I do believe that has to do with the practice of temple prostitutes.

 

[mkgal1]

***I regret that I'm even allowing myself to engage any further.

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.

I think your idea of "false worship" is a different picture than mine. This is an example of "false worship" and more to what I have in mind for how it affected their everyday life:

Now Ahaziah had fallen through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria and injured himself. So he sent messengers, saying to them, “Go and consult Baal-Zebub, to see if I will recover from this injury.”

3 But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah “Go up and meet the messengers of the king of Samaria and ask them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going off to consult Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?’4 Therefore this is what the Lord says: ‘You will not leave the bed you are lying on. You will certainly die!’ " So Elijah went.

IOW.....whenever there was a crisis....or a decision to be made...or a need to be met---there was a dependence on different false gods to solve the problem.

Daniel (IMO) offers a great juxtaposition of faith---and how to live amongst a culture that's far from God without being disrespectful. To me.....that's what God would have for us (how it's lived out to "love our enemies" and glorify Him). Daniel's behavior resulted in influencing others like this (and I think that's exactly what God desires---for us to be human manifestations of His Spirit):

A person can go from this:

In the second year of his reign, King Nebuchadnezzar started having dreams that disturbed him deeply. He couldn’t sleep. He called in all the Babylonian magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and fortunetellers to interpret his dreams for him

to this:

Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

To my mind....God's entire point of Leviticus was to protect the Israelites full allegiance to Him. "Flirting" with things of their past will only begin their slide back into old patterns of thought. Everything needed to be a whole new direction (leaving their past influences behind).

There's really nothing to compare in our modern day life--because our lives in this culture aren't infiltrated with the rituals and superstitions as they were. If someone became sick in that culture--the belief was that a god was angry at them (that's not what most people think of today---no one I know, anyhow). The only thing I can come up with is how if a person spills salt (I think that's the superstition)...then they take a pinch of salt and toss it over their shoulder. People may do that w/o thinking.....it's just been ingrained in them as everyone around them has always done that. Outside of that superstition-- is there ever a need (or even a wish) to purposely take a pinch of salt and toss it over one's shoulder ? It's not something that's typically done outside of spilling salt.

 

[mkgal1]

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:

I don't see it as the rabbis "changing it to say" anything---I see it more as elaboration or illumination of what's behind the text (the meaning---the spirit of the instruction). Isn't that what all pastors do when they preach their sermons (they elaborate on the text)? Otherwise.....they (pastors) would simply be reading the Bible text and everyone would go home after they've read for 40 minutes or so.

In fact.....the way this meaning has been brought down through the generations may have everything to do with the people "honoring their parents" and the original [spirit of the] message of the text was preserved. In order for Israelites to maintain their purity in devotion to God....there'd need to be unity for generations. Honoring parents (and parents raising children that *will* honor them out of sincere devotion) is an excellent way for there to be community and accountability (and for God to be glorified). One author said, "A child's response to their parental relationship will in large measure determine his later response to broader relationships in society and beyond that to God Himself". That is a large part of building community.

The commandment to honour one's human parents is compared to honouring God.[10][11] The Talmud says that since there are three partners in the creation of a person (God and two parents), honour showed to parents is the same as honour shown to God.[16]

As I've maintained all along---the running theme is to honor God and God alone (I am the LORD your God). And as this article states..."this wasn't a call to individual or private piety but was a holistic and inescapable expectation covering all spheres of human activity."

For modern-day application we can summarize the text as a call to holiness and the final note may be best left at Leviticus 19:18 (as done here)

 

[tall73]

So....just a random crap shoot then? Some get lucky and He lets their offenses slide....others get zapped immediately if God loses His patience for them? (I'm not looking for a response...BTW).

You just quoted an actual Bible text that I had posted, with none of my own words, and disagreed with it.

You are conflating judging of individuals and God working in history. All people are sinners, and all deserve death. Yes, God gives all an opportunity to know Him (see Romans 2), and He also is merciful to those who seek Him. Some do not repent, some have no faith, etc. This is all in regards to individual judgment where faith is the key, as the verses I posted and you agreed with, show. Abraham and David, both heroes of faith, were saved by faith, as sinners.

However, when it comes to God working in history He sometimes chooses to use people despite their problems. A long list has already been provided. That is up to God how He will do these things. The text I referenced is in a section about how God elected the nation of Israel. And that verse was pointing out that it was not based on their superior virtue. God chose Jacob to carry out his will, before he did anything good or bad. That was God's choice about how to use him. And as for Jacob individually he eventually learned faith.

However, God also used other people for His glory that did not learn faith. He used the Assyrian kings to bring about judgment--but they did not combine that with faith. He used Saul to be king, and chose him, but Saul did not combine that with faith.

On the other hand God used Rahab, a prostitute, David, an adulterer and murderer, Sampson a serial womanizer, etc. who did learn faith, despite their sinful nature.

So to say that God could not use Abraham from that perspective does not make sense. All people are sinners, and God uses who He chooses for His ends. Now whether they individually respond to Him in faith and are saved, that is their choice.

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There are no perfect people to use, short of Christ. Yet God uses sinful people to His glory. And in that process they can choose to trust in Him.

 

[tall73]

***I regret that I'm even allowing myself to engage any further.

If you keep posting long enough we are not really sure you are regretting it.

I think your idea of "false worship" is a different picture than mine. This is an example of "false worship" and more to what I have in mind for how it affected their everyday life:



IOW.....whenever there was a crisis....or a decision to be made...or a need to be met---there was a dependence on different false gods to solve the problem.

Daniel (IMO) offers a great juxtaposition of faith---and how to live amongst a culture that's far from God without being disrespectful. To me.....that's what God would have for us (how it's lived out to "love our enemies" and glorify Him). Daniel's behavior resulted in influencing others like this (and I think that's exactly what God desires---for us to be human manifestations of His Spirit):

A person can go from this:



to this:


To my mind....God's entire point of Leviticus was to protect the Israelites full allegiance to Him. "Flirting" with things of their past will only begin their slide back into old patterns of thought. Everything needed to be a whole new direction (leaving their past influences behind).


There's really nothing to compare in our modern day life--because our lives in this culture aren't infiltrated with the rituals and superstitions as they were. If someone became sick in that culture--the belief was that a god was angry at them (that's not what most people think of today---no one I know, anyhow). The only thing I can come up with is how if a person spills salt (I think that's the superstition)...then they take a pinch of salt and toss it over their shoulder. People may do that w/o thinking.....it's just been ingrained in them as everyone around them has always done that. Outside of that superstition-- is there ever a need (or even a wish) to purposely take a pinch of salt and toss it over one's shoulder ? It's not something that's typically done outside of spilling salt.

I think that the text did not put this in the context of false worship and you have imposed that on the text.

I also think that nothing about what you just posted says anything about cursing your parents.

 

[tall73]

I don't see it as the rabbis "changing it to say" anything---I see it more as elaboration or illumination of what's behind the text (the meaning---the spirit of the instruction). Isn't that what all pastors do when they preach their sermons (they elaborate on the text)? Otherwise.....they (pastors) would simply be reading the Bible text and everyone would go home after they've read for 40 minutes or so.

It is changing it. If it was before a prohibition against cursing parents, and it is now ONLY a prohibition against cursing your parents is a very specific formula us used referring to God's holy name, that is a change. And it is not in the spirit of the original command.

A preacher can find different ways to bring across what the text says. That is not the same as changing what the text says.

Now when Jesus talked about the command against adultery He stated that even lusting is adultery. This showed the underlying issue with adultery and expanded it to be even more far reaching. At its base adultery starts with the heart apart from the physical action.

Here they are adding their own limitations, not in the text, to say that they can curse their parents as long as they don't do it in a certain way. To really show the underlying meaning they would say that disrespect of parents in all regards is a problem, not limit it so you can show disrespect in every way but one and still be alright.

 

[tall73]

In fact.....the way this meaning has been brought down through the generations may have everything to do with the people "honoring their parents" and the original message of the text was preserved. In order for Israelites to maintain their purity in devotion to God....there'd need to be unity for generations. Honoring parents is an excellent way for there to be community and accountability (and for God to be glorified).

The commandment to honour one's human parents is compared to honouring God.[10][11] The Talmud says that since there are three partners in the creation of a person (God and two parents), honour showed to parents is the same as honour shown to God.[16]

The things you just stated are saying that we SHOULD honor our parents. Their modification of the commandment simply did not punish further dishonoring of parents if not done in a certain way. They are not the same.

Now, if someone struck their parents, would it only be a problem if they said God's name while doing it?

As I've maintained all along---the running theme is to honor God and God alone (I am the LORD your God).

If the running theme of chapter 18 was to honor God then you have to take that to its logical conclusion. He spells out the things in that chapter that are not honoring God.

Or to put it another way, someone honoring God would not do those things.

Yet you are arguing for doing those things.

You keep avoiding this question, but it is completely related. Would someone who is honoring God have sex with animals? And if not then why would they do the other things listed?

 

[tall73]

My point is that I don't believe God has different standards. I believe He's consistent in His justice and that there has to be something else to it (the disparity). Tall actually mentioned what I believe is the bridge that fills that gap of disparity---"it's by grace you're saved *through faith* ". The accounts of King Ahaziah, Nadab and Abihu, and Er and Onan all demonstrate a lack of faith in God and honor for Him.

Yes, faith is the key to one's personal judgment by God.
However, again, you are conflating this with who God decides to use. God used all manner of sinful people to accomplish His goal. Some had faith, some did not. God acts how He wishes in regards to bringing about His purpose.

The other issue is that incest was on the list of abominations. Tall claims that's all on its own merit (even at the time)....yet Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and half-sister and God blessed their union. I'm pointing out there's never any judgement of their union.....

You are making an argument from silence. Does God condemn Rahab's prostitution? Yet it was not right. However, He still used her, and she still showed faith.

Does God condemn Samson's sleeping with a prostitute? No, but it was still wrong. But God still used him.

God uses sinful people because all people are sinful. And through them He brings about His purpose and glory.

 

[tall73]

And people have varying opinion as to what amounts to sexual immorality. Some believe kissing prior to marriage would fall into that category....or a married couple engaging in anything other than the standard position. I believe it's about promiscuity and being "lovers of pleasure instead of lovers of God and genuine love" that's the issue there (which a married person could even be guilty of). But....that's a whole other topic.

Paul includes incest in it, which is spelled out in Lev. 18 and 20. And the council of Acts 15 is referencing the law of Moses, in which it is spelled out in chapters 18 and 20. So it is not just about kissing prior to marriage. There were things spelled out that equated to sexual immorality, and they knew them.

The other verse that uses the word "homosexuality"? That's a new English word that causes difficulty in the translation. I do believe that has to do with the practice of temple prostitutes.

Since I have made no comment resting on an English translation, and we have already looked at the actual word he used to show it was derived from the language of Lev. 18 this is a red herring.

 

[tall73]

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? (Note, I am not referring to the modern English word homosexual).

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. If all you are saying is that the people doing such things WERE worshiping false gods because everything they did worshiped false gods, then you need to make your meaning plain. If someone is not worshiping false gods can they do everything in that list and be fine? If not, then you still haven't addressed the point of the list.

If the issue was just worshiping false gods and the actions listed didn't matter, there was no reason to list them.

You tried to address the changing of the command to curse parents, but the facts are they still changed it. If it before applied to cursing parents, and now only applies in a narrow set of circumstances, that is a change.