Focused discussion, Lev. 18:22

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

LinkH said:
Paul wrote to Timothy that arsenokoites are written against in the law.

This provides important evidence for the argument that Paul drew the word from Leviticus.

1Ti 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

1Ti 1:9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις
1Ti 1:10 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται,

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

1Ti 1:9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
1Ti 1:10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine

1Ti 1:9 εἰδὼς τοῦτο, ὅτι δικαίῳ νόμος οὐ κεῖται, ἀνόμοις δὲ καὶ ἀνυποτάκτοις, ἀσεβέσι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς, ἀνοσίοις καὶ βεβήλοις, πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις, ἀνδροφόνοις
1Ti 1:10 πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, ἀνδραποδισταῖς, ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται

In addition there are other examples of the use of -koitais in compound words of this sort.

In a fragment by Hipponax we see him use as an insult (most of his poetry was known to be intentionally insulting and lurid) the term μητροκοίτης, a combination of the word for mother and bed for one who has sex with a mother.Hipponax is believed to have lived around the 500's BC.I did look it up in context in both Greek and English translation, but his work is so inappropriate that I will not link to it.

Another example is found in Vettius Valens Astrologus, an astrological work dated around 150-175 AD. πολύκοιτος is a compination of "many" and "bed" and is used in the noun form and verb form to describe those who bed many people. He is speaking about the impact of the stars on one's birth and the trend of the life based on that, etc.

Other examples are noted by David Wright in his article Homosexuals or Prostitutes, such as the combination of the words for slave and bed for those who have sex with slaves, or the combination of the word for sibling with bed for those who commit sibling incest, etc.

While Paul's usage is the earliest for this particular combination, and it appears to be based on Lev. 18 given the connection to the law in the passage to Timothy, the type of construction is seen elsewhere.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

LinkH said:
In Luke 11, Jesus told of a neighbor knocking and insisting another neighbor lend him bread to feed a guest at night. The man in the house said the children were with him in bed. This isn't what Leviticus 18 is talking about. Clearly the context of Leviticus 18 is sexual.

OKay, that's overkill. Can we all agree that these verses in Leviticus 18 are about sex?

I would say, more to the point, there was already a procedure if someone came into contact with a bed of a woman during a time of menstruation.

Lev 15:19 "When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:20 And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean.
Lev 15:21 And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:22 And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening.
Lev 15:23 Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.

Contrast this with

Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

or as the article she posted renders it:

Lev. 20:13:
“And a man who lays with a male (on) the couches/beds of a woman, the two of them have made an abomination, and dying they will die; their blood is upon them.”

So if we are to take this as two men laying on a woman's bed, then they would be killed for this, but one man who makes contact with a woman's bed during her menstruation would only be unclean until the evening.

The difference is clearly the sexual nature of the two men laying together as one lays with a woman.That was what made it an abomination, not contact with a woman's bed.

mkgal1 · Aug 8, 2015

tall73 said:
I thought you were applying it to the whole section. What is the significance of this holiness code to you? Why mention it? It seems a misnomer to me because they were to be holy in all their actions, and all the law referenced this.

Yes.....they were to be pure and holy---set apart in all they do (true). But.....the Holiness Code has to do specifically with the worship of God (and purity while doing so). There were specific acts attributed to worship (of our living God and the pagan gods). This is the era that was under the "old covenant" (obviously I realize you are aware of that--just sort of organizing my thoughts). You seem to be attributing a lot of things that have sexual references to merely angering God for being out of step with what His standards are for sex. My point, however, is that it's under a larger category of being about following the practices of others and worshiping other gods. The theme to follow there is all the times God was angry/jealous of all people that chose to worship other gods. In my view----He doesn't get angry/jealous because He's a control-freak kind of God, it's because He loves us---and wants us to glorify Him (and not mix our worship for Him with other gods.....causing our devotion to become lukewarm and polluted).

IOW......it's not merely the acts---it's the motive....the reason for those acts and what they were associated with at the time (which was Molech worship). Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel” [The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 130]. That parallel passage I posted earlier--I think---brings a lot more light and understanding to this particular passage read on its own (Isaiah 57:7-9).

mkgal1 · Aug 8, 2015

tall73 said:
Other examples are noted by David Wright in his article Homosexuals or Prostitutes, such as the combination of the words for slave and bed for those who have sex with slaves, or the combination of the word for sibling with bed for those who commit sibling incest, etc.

While Paul's usage is the earliest for this particular combination, and it appears to be based on Lev. 18 given the connection to the law in the passage to Timothy, the type of construction is seen elsewhere.

Again--there's a connection, because that's all attributed to idol worship. In my opinion---a great way to begin to understand the heart of God is to read the OT with the focus on nations and tribes that have turned away from our living God and turned towards idols. Look at Exodus when Moses was away with God for just a short time, and how the rest of the Israelites quickly went to their old ways of forming a golden calf (which, from what I've read, was the image of Molech worship). It seems to be the main battle that rages all through the OT.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
Yes.....they were to be pure and holy---set apart in all they do (true). But.....the Holiness Code has to do specifically with the worship of God (and purity while doing so). There were specific acts attributed to worship (of our living God and the pagan gods). This is the era that was under the "old covenant" (obviously I realize you are aware of that--just sort of organizing my thoughts).

I was asking specifically what the point was of them saying the following, and you also making a point of the holiness code:

“Abomination” (TO’EBAH) is a technical cultic term for what is ritually unclean, such as mixed cloth, pork, and intercourse with menstruating women. It’s not about a moral or ethical issue. This Holiness Code (chapters 17-26) proscribes men “lying the lyings of women.”

What is it about chapters 17-26 make them different than the first 16 chapters? Is the Day of Atonement, in chapter 16, the pinnacle of the Jewish ritual system in regards to removing sin and uncleanness not part of holiness? Of course it is. And it is even spoken of again in chapter 23. Are not the laws on sacrifices part of the laws about worshiping God? Are not the rules in chapter 11 about the clean and unclean animals not about holiness? It is one of the most concentrated repetitions of the word holy in the entire book. Are not the rules on emissions and uncleanness about holiness?

Now apart from that, if you admit there are moral commands even in chapters 17-26, why is it important that they are in these chapters? You have still not clarified that point.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
You seem to be attributing a lot of things that have sexual references to merely angering God for being out of step with what His standards are for sex. My point, however, is that it's under a larger category of being about following the practices of others and worshiping other gods. The theme to follow there is all the times God was angry/jealous of all people that chose to worship other gods. In my view----He doesn't get angry/jealous because He's a control-freak kind of God, it's because He loves us---and wants us to glorify Him (and not mix our worship for Him with other gods.....causing our devotion to become lukewarm and polluted).

a. There are already laws against idol worship and worshiping other Gods. You would be put to death for it, apart from any other of these things. So if the real issue is the idol worship then there is no need to even mention these. That could be taken care of.

b. These are mentioned because they are so egregious that He wants people to know they should not do them and they are sins He is not going to brush aside.And the case of Molech sacrifice if someone did not resist this then they would be cut off from the people. So it went beyond just the act, but the tolerance of it.

c. In chapter 18 we are 21 verses in before Molech, or anything of the sort, are even mentioned. It is not all in the context of Molech worship. It is in the context of wicked things that should not be done because God will punish them.

d. In chapter 20 sacrifices to Molech lead the list. But then there is a break where He says to keep His statutes, and then He turns to other severe offenses that result in death:

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.
Lev 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 20:11 If a man lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Lev 20:12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them.
Lev 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Lev 20:14 If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.
Lev 20:15 If a man lies with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.
Lev 20:16 If a woman approaches any animal and lies with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Now look at that list carefully.

- Do you think that all of those are fine to do, as you are arguing with male on male sex, because it was only in the context of idolatry that they were wrong? Is adultery ok, and cursing parents ok, and having sex with animals ok, and incest ok?

- Are all of those things ONLY done in the context of idolatry?

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
IOW......it's not merely the acts---it's the motive....the reason for those acts and what they were associated with at the time (which was Molech worship). Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel” [The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 130]. That parallel passage I posted earlier--I think---brings a lot more light and understanding to this particular passage read on its own (Isaiah 57:7-9).

1. Molech was not the only one worshiped. In fact some scholars think Molech was not a god per se but a type of child sacrifice, and some think that the Israelites would at times present these children to God, which notion He said never entered His mind. I think there is evidence for and against that, but ultimately the point is that Molech was not the only problem. The tons of various local baals, Ashtoreth, etc. were all worshiped at times, and were a temptation. The reason Molech is here singled out is precisely because of the horrible nature of the act, of killing ones own child.

2. Can you explain which motives would make cursing parents or having sex with animals better?

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
Again--there's a connection, because that's all attributed to idol worship.

In my opinion---a great way to begin to understand the heart of God is to read the OT with the focus on nations and tribes that have turned away from our living God and turned towards idols. Look at Exodus when Moses was away with God for just a short time, and how the rest of the Israelites quickly went to their old ways of forming a golden calf (which, from what I've read, was the image of Molech worship). It seems to be the main battle that rages all through the OT.

a. That post was about the linguistic link between Paul's letter to Timothy and to the I Corinthians, and Leviticus 18. Paul apparently still thought it was important enough to reference to Timothy, who was in Ephesus, a gentile city, overseeing a predominantly gentile church. You say it was just the old covenant. Paul says there is still a purpose to the law if used lawfully--to point out sin.

b.On the larger point, it was not limited to just idol worship settings either. Paul specifically says even the pagans won't tolerate the incest that the church was tolerating in I Corinthians 5--the type prohibited in Lev. 18.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
Israelites quickly went to their old ways of forming a golden calf (which, from what I've read, was the image of Molech worship). It seems to be the main battle that rages all through the OT.

They had just come from Egypt. So some associate it with Apis, an Egyptian calf-diety. It could have been essentially a return to the various Egyptian gods.

Exo 32:4 And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

There were other deities also associated with a calf image. So calf imagery per se doesn't tell us much, and there was clearly various dieties worshiped.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
IOW......it's not merely the acts---

Just to clarify, in light of the information on the bed/couch idiom, the fact that there is already an established penalty for contact with a woman's bed even during her menstruation that does not come anywhere near death, etc. are you ready to say it is talking about sex and not just two men sitting on a woman's bed?

mkgal1 · Aug 8, 2015

tall73 said:
Just to clarify, in light of the information on the bed/couch idiom, the fact that there is already an established penalty for contact with a woman's bed even during her menstruation that does not come anywhere near death, etc. are you ready to say it is talking about sex and not just two men sitting on a woman's bed?

Pardon? I'm willing to say it's about idol worship.....not merely sex between two people.

mkgal1 · Aug 8, 2015

tall73 said:
They had just come from Egypt. So some associate it with Apis, an Egyptian calf-diety. It could have been essentially a return to the various Egyptian gods.

Exo 32:4 And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!"

There were other deities also associated with a calf image. So calf imagery per se doesn't tell us much, and there was clearly various dieties worshiped.

I agree. It could be related to various false gods. But....my point is that idol worship was a continual battle (and pull away from the True God).

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

tall73 said:
are you ready to say it is talking about sex and not just two men sitting on a woman's bed?

mkgal1 said:
Pardon? I'm willing to say it's about idol worship.....not merely sex between two people.

To clarify, I am specifically referring to this earlier statement of yours:

mkgal1 said:
I'm not even convinced-at the moment- that the offense in Lev 18:22 even has to do with sex. It could just mean that the men are lying on the couches/beds that are meant for women (and that would be impure)

Idol worship already had a death penalty. It didn't require the very odd scenario of two men laying together on a woman's bed to enact that.

And the penalty for coming into contact with a woman's bed while she was menstruating was indicated to be that you were unclean until the evening, not death.

The passage appears right next to the prohibition against sex with animals and is fairly parallel to it.

And Paul seems to reference the verse when he speaks of people doing this in his time.

So again, are you still saying that no sex between the men occurred? Notice, I am not asking if you think that this is in or out of the context of idolatry in this question. You previously said you were not sure it involved sex, and I am asking if you are now sure one way or the other. I would like to know what areas are still in disagreement so I can decide whether I should spend time addressing that aspect further, or move on to other aspects. You seem to want to particularly discuss what you feel is an idolatry setting for the passage, but if we cannot agree whether the passage is even talking about the men engaging in sexual acts, that is premature. To my thinking the evidence shows they were, and I am asking if you are still uncertain.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
I agree. It could be related to various false gods. But....my point is that idol worship was a continual battle (and pull away from the True God).

Yes it was. But idol worship was not addressed in the generic in the passages we are looking at. Nor was it the main theme of chapters 18 and 20. A specific type of child sacrifice was however listed, along with a number of other items, as being particularly repugnant and worthy of death.

None of what we are saying is to lessen the fact that idol worship was a constant struggle for the people of Israel. That is more than agreed to. However, inappropriate relationships, apart from any connotations of idolatry were also an issue in Israel, and they were still wrong.

The problem here is that the verses do not say the whole thing was about idolatry. It says the whole thing was about living according to your own dictates, or the commands of God. And God was telling them that some of the things they did would result in their removal from the land because they were abhorrent.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

God does not view them as one thing--idolatry, but as a number of abhorrent things that were done by the previous nations:

Lev 20:22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.
Lev 20:23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

It was a list of particularly horrible things that they did which finally brought God to judgment.

tall73 · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel” [The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 130].

I would say it likely was the most prominent form. However, the text does not limit it merely to that setting, and addresses a wide range of problematic sexual relations, and even things not related to sex such as cursing one's parents.

There is only one reference to a particular sacrifice of children mentioned in the passage, and there were a variety of fertility cults, etc. that were not addressed at all in the passage.

And while you have still not addressed it, Paul found that it was still wrong to sleep with your father's wife even in the NT, and said even the pagans would not tolerate it. He also referenced the term apparently deriving from Lev. 18 for the behavior of male with male sex and indicated it was still a problem, with no idolatrous connection necessary.

LinkH · Aug 8, 2015

tall73 said:
Lev 20:13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.

1Co 6:9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι βασιλείαν Θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσι; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

Lev 20:13 And for those who haven't bothered to learn the Greek alphabet the bold words are
arsenos koiten

1Co 6:9
arsenokoite

I'm not using long vowels. The latter could be transliterated arsenokoitai.

LinkH · Aug 8, 2015

mkgal1 said:
Yes.....they were to be pure and holy---set apart in all they do (true). But.....the Holiness Code has to do specifically with the worship of God (and purity while doing so). There were specific acts attributed to worship (of our living God and the pagan gods). This is the era that was under the "old covenant" (obviously I realize you are aware of that--just sort of organizing my thoughts). You seem to be attributing a lot of things that have sexual references to merely angering God for being out of step with what His standards are for sex. My point, however, is that it's under a larger category of being about following the practices of others and worshiping other gods. The theme to follow there is all the times God was angry/jealous of all people that chose to worship other gods. In my view----He doesn't get angry/jealous because He's a control-freak kind of God, it's because He loves us---and wants us to glorify Him (and not mix our worship for Him with other gods.....causing our devotion to become lukewarm and polluted).

There is a reference to ritual child sacrifice being forbidden in the passage. But look at most of the commandments there.

Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his mother ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his mother ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his mother ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his mother ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his mother ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his living brother's wife ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with his neighbor's wife ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a man to have sex with a donkey ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?
Do you think that it is wrong for a woman to have sex with a bull ONLY if it is an idolatrous act?

If there is no idol worship going on, is it okay to commit incest and inappropriate behavior with animals? If the sin-issue in the passage is just idolatry, wouldn't that be a logical conclusion using your reasoning on homosexual acts?

Why would it be a sin to commit all these other acts if no idolatry is going on, but only homosexual behavior only be sinful if accompanied by idolatry?

The passage doesn't say that a man shall not lie with a man as one does with a woman while worshipping an idol. It says a man shall not lie with a man as one does with a woman. Idol or no idol, it is forbidden.

I have seen in your other posts where you see idolatry as broader than merely bowing down to statues. Can someone be idoltrous by 'worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator' by putting sexual lust before God?

IOW......it's not merely the acts---it's the motive....the reason for those acts and what they were associated with at the time (which was Molech worship). Homosexual cult prostitution appears to have been the primary form in which homosexual intercourse was practiced in Israel” [The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 130]. That parallel passage I posted earlier--I think---brings a lot more light and understanding to this particular passage read on its own (Isaiah 57:7-9).

Maybe so. Who knows? How would the scholars really know unless then had millions of peeping Toms and a very active time machine?

Most murders may have been committed with swords, spears, sticks, and stones. But that doesn't mean that Israelites were allowed to kill each other with poison or by digging hunting pits, putting spikes in them, and covering them with brush. The law forbade murder. The fact that some kinds of murder may have been more prevalent than others doesn't change the law. The law also forbade a man from lying with a man as one does with a woman. It doesn't specify that this was only forbidden in the case of idolatry.

I appreciate the cultural and historical approach. But I see it butchered a lot. What I don't like is when someone says "History indicates X was the case back then, so the actual text of scripture isn't true. It was only true under X conditions." That's the same thing as saying Israelites killed each other with swords, sticks, spears, and rocks so the murder command only applies in those cases and not when using traps or other weapons. It's the same thing as saying most homosexual behavior was in a pagan or prostitution context back then, so the command against homosexual activity doesn't apply in other cases.

tall73 · Aug 9, 2015

LinkH said:
Maybe so. Who knows? How would the scholars really know unless then had millions of peeping Toms and a very active time machine?

Yes, in a society where the practice was discouraged, and at times punished, it would be hard to know how often it occurred.

On the other hand some surveys of law codes and literature of Egypt, the Hittites, etc. suggest it may not have been prohibited there, though at times it was discouraged.

Focused discussion, Lev. 18:22

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Regular Member

Regular Member

Sophia7's husband

Similar threads