Focused discussion, Lev. 18:22

I don't have the time to go through each point right now, but my main point is that the word "abomination" comes from an original Hebrew word (to'ebah) which means "ritually unclean". If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

There wouldn't be a need to specify or elaborate more to the intended audience of Leviticus--they'd know when this behavior of theirs occurred (and--more importantly-- the motivation behind it, which many believe was all about worshiping false gods). All throughout the Bible---one thing I see repeated over and over again is how God is more interested in a person's motivation....their faith....their devotion to follow Him (more-so than their behavior). What comes to mind is in Jeremiah 7 where the text says:

Jeremiah 7 said:

Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal and walk after other gods that you have not known, then come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, 'We are delivered!'-- that you may do all these abominations?"Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your sight?

Click to expand...

On their own...stealing, lying, even murder wouldn't be called "abominations". It's that they were standing before God...in His house.....acting as if they were pure and devoted only to Him (using their rituals to give them a false sense of purity).

It really seems to be doing these passages a disservice to not recognize the message of idolatry and chasing after false gods that's here (and throughout the rest of the Bible).

National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA)interpretation: The NGPA has produced a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew. In English, with minimal punctuation added, they rendered it as: "And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman; it is an abomination. That is, "... rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply restricts where it may occur." This may seem a strange prohibition to us today, but was quite consistent with other laws in Leviticus which involve improper mixing of things that should be kept separate. e.g. ancient Hebrews were not allowed to mix two crops in the same field, or make cloth out of two different raw materials, or plow a field with an ox and a donkey yoked together. A woman's bed was her own. Only her husband was permitted there, and then only under certain circumstances. Any other use of her bed would be a defilement.~Their essay on Leviticus 18:22 is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/

Some authors to look up (if interested):

• Arthur Waskow, a writer and rabbi
• Rabbi Gershon Caudill, another Jewish writer and rabbi

tall73 said:

You still have not said what motive would make incest, sex with animals, or adultery OK. If motives are the issue, then you need to elaborate on that point.

Click to expand...

What? Why would I support those things? I don't understand where you're going with that line of thought (or where that came from).

If the mixing of/polluting of things like male/female body fluids, materials/seeds/kinds of animals aren't about rituals---then are you following those instructions or do you/did you move to another room when your wife was menstruating, do you only wear 100% cotton or other fabrics (being careful not to mix materials)?

tall73 said:

Stealing:
Pro 11:1 A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight.

Lying:
Pro 12:22 Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who act faithfully are his delight.

Murder:
Pro 6:16 There are six things that the LORD hates, seven that are an abomination to him:
Pro 6:17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
Pro 6:18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil,
Pro 6:19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Click to expand...

I obviously misspoke about that. I'm looking into the difference in wording....but---like I posted earlier---I'm no scholar. I am of the belief (right now) that there is a difference in the original wording/translation here. There was something unique about Leviticus in the original language that signals ritual impurity (if I recall correctly).

mkgal1 said:

I don't have the time to go through each point right now, but my main point is that the word "abomination" comes from an original Hebrew word (to'ebah) which means "ritually unclean".

Click to expand...

In Genesis 46:34, the Egyptians considered sheep-herders to be detestible (to'ebah) to the Egyptians. Do you think they Egyptians found sheep herders to be ritually unclean?

Proverbs 8:7 says,
My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness.

The word shows up in here as 'detest.' An interlinear renders it as 'wickedness to my lips is an abomination.'

Do you think it's okay to have wickedness on your lips? If it's an abomination, just ritual uncleanness, does that make it okay to speak wicked things.

I suspect you don't know Hebrew. I also suspect you read this line of reasoning about to'ebah from someone promoting the idea that gay is okay. Am I right? I've read the argument elsewhere. It doesn't really hold water though. Read through every reference at http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8441.htm if you don't believe me.

If the writer(s) of Leviticus had wished to refer to a moral violation, a sin, he would have used the Hebrew word "zimah."

Click to expand...

That's not true. God could also have had the man who penned Leviticus say that 'thou shalt not' do it. He could also have prescribed a death penalty for it. He could also have let us know that the nations were driven out for such wickedness. He could also have had the New Testament scriptures teach against such activity.

Oh, you know what? He did!

And your argument contains faulty logic. Imagine Ms. Mkgal1 posts on the Internet 'Domestic abuse is a bad thing, no matter who does it.' Then 500 years from now, when no one speaks English, someone digs up a server and tries to decipher the English. Someone reads it and says, in their language,

"Mkgal1 does not mean that abuse is bad. If she did, she would have used the English word 'terrible.' But 'bad' can mean really cool like in the Michael Jackson song. So she did not mean that domestic abuse is bad."

Even if the word referred specifically to ceremonial uncleanness-- and I think the scant examples I gave and the large resource I cited prove that-- it still wouldn't prove your case. If homosexual sex made men unclean, there is still a command against it, it is among activities that was sinful for Gentiles, there was a death penalty for it, and the New Testament teaches against it.




MkGal1, do you think it is only wrong for a man to sleep with his mother or sister or an animal if idolatry is involved? Are these purely Old Testament ritual laws? In Luke 11:7, in the parable, the man is in bed with his children. Probably, a family might all lay on a mat on the floor near each other, which makes sense in a one-room house if you want to keep warm. Was Jesus' parable really about breaking a law about physically just lying down together with your own children? Or could it be that the Leviticus 18 prohibitions are actually about sex like most scholars and most adults who read the passage think when they read the passage?

There wouldn't be a need to specify or elaborate more to the intended audience of Leviticus--they'd know when this behavior of theirs occurred (and--more importantly-- the motivation behind it, which many believe was all about worshiping false gods). All throughout the Bible---one thing I see repeated over and over again is how God is more interested in a person's motivation....their faith....their devotion to follow Him (more-so than their behavior). What comes to mind is in Jeremiah 7 where the text says:

mkgal1 said:

I obviously misspoke about that. I'm looking into the difference in wording....but---like I posted earlier---I'm no scholar. I am of the belief (right now) that there is a difference in the original wording/translation here. There was something unique about Leviticus in the original language that signals ritual impurity (if I recall correctly).

Click to expand...

Why do you believe that? If the word that you think signals ritual impurity is also used of wickedness on the lips, of lying, and various other things we recognize as sin, why would you believe the argument that the use of the word is so narrow? Who told you that? Wasn't it from a book, sermon, etc. from someone promoting the idea that homosexual behavior is okay?

So what about all the other Hebrew scholars throughout history before the gay rights movement who read the passage in Hebrew and did not come to the conclusion that you are coming to?

Isn't it more likely that the homosexual advocates you are reading or listening to have an agenda they are using scripture to promote or that they are suffering from a kind of blindness in their understanding of the word of God?

I encountered some of these kinds of arguments in the very early 1990's on the Internet before the web, back when UseNet groups were popular. One BBS had an article with all kinds of arguments. It started off with arguments trying to argue from Greek and Hebrew. But toward the end, the arguments were based on the idea that scripture wasn't inspired, basically. By the end of it, Paul was just wrong and hadn't seen loving homosexual relationships. Basically, it seemed like the author's agenda was to throw in a stew of any and all arguments that could be used to try to argue against what scripture plainly taught on homosexuality.

Matthew Vine, for example, took some items from this menu to make his video. Many of the arguments are such that a careful reading of English translation can debunk them. Romans 1 talks about men lusting after each other. It's mutual, not rape or oppressing someone into male prostitution, for example.

I'm specifically speaking of verse 22 when I am mentioning cultic idol worship. 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. One example I've read about is the worship of a goddess of love and fertility called Astarte or Ishtar. Sexual acts were done in the temples to please this goddess and other deities. When the Egyptians did these acts (specifically--"with a male lay (on) the couches/beds of a woman; it is an abomination.”) I don't believe it was in the privacy of homes. I believe this other verse (that I've mentioned earlier) is a parallel and that both are in reference to worship practices of false gods:

Isaiah 57:7-9 said:

Upon a high and lofty mountain you have set your bed, and there you went up to offer sacrifice. Behind the door and the doorpost you have set up your symbol; for in deserting me, you have uncovered your bed, you have gone up to it, you have made it wide; and you have made a bargain for yourself with them, you have loved their bed, you have gazed on their nakedness. You journeyed to Molech with oil, and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far away, and sent down even to Sheol.

Click to expand...

http://www.steventuell.net/?p=664

These two chapters come from a portion of Leviticus called the Holiness Code (Lev 17—26). Jewish scholar Israel Knohl neatly summarizes the distinctive message of these chapters: “the holiness of God is emphasized, and this is taken to imply a call to holiness addressed to the Israelites in general” (Israel Knohl,Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995], 2). So Leviticus 19:2 states, “You must be holy, because I, the LORD your God, am holy.”

Obviously, in this priestly worldview, men should avoid sexual relations with menstruating women. But Leviticus 15:24 only states that the man who has sex with a woman during her period shares in her impurity—like her, “he will be unclean for seven days.” Lev 18:19 and 20:18 go far beyond this, however. In the radical view of ritual purity the Holiness Code upholds, sexual contact with a menstruating woman is to’ebah: an abomination to be punished by exile from the community (compare Ezek 18:6; and 22:11, where to’ebah may refer to Lev 18:19 and 20:18).

This command makes the meaning of to’ebah in these two chapters plain. In Leviticus, to’ebah is not about ethics or morality, but about ritual impurity and defilement. Lev 18 and 20 are purity legislation. This is, in fact, what Lev 18:26-28 explicitly states: these are acts which defile the land, making it unclean. Likely, this is the idea back of Deut 22:5 as well: this same chapter goes on to condemn planting a vineyard with two different kinds of seed, plowing a field with two different types of animal, and making a garment with two types of thread, and also requires fringes at the corners of every garment. Clearly these are not moral judgments; they are purity regulations. Like not eating pork (Lev 11:2-8) or shellfish (Lev 11:9-12), these are lifestyle choices that make Israel culturally distinctive.

Click to expand...

Jewish scholar Israel Knol's book on purity and purification in the Bible:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eIHYUC1gS38C&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=israel+knohl+leviticus&source=bl&ots=kDvzLqRTss&sig=g9XCJXnaMq91PInPHVcP2_Pi_ew&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMIgdLzhJGexwIVxz6ICh2TUw4X#v=onepage&q=israel knohl leviticus&f=false

Lev 18:27 says these particular abominations made the land unclean (page 60). There were different words for "abomination" in the original Hebrew.

\