Bible leviticus homosexuality
Why Care What Leviticus Says About Homosexuality?
Joe Heschmeyer:
Welcome assist to Shameless Popery, I&#;m Joe Heschmeyer. I hope to talk today about the old law and what its role is for Christians. Is the Old Testament law still binding, the Law of Moses? So, historically people say there&#;s laws in the Law of Moses. That number is Maimonides, it&#;s kind of controversial whether that number is even accurate or not. But needless to speak, there are arguably hundreds, although the exact number may be debated. But hundreds of different rules and regulations, things that you should do or in many cases not do in the Rule of Moses. And the question becomes, for Christians, are we still bound by that? Are we bound by any of that? What&#;s its role? And now, that conversation historically has come up in a lot of different contexts. One of the first places it came up was, should we still circumcise converts to the faith?
Because that was a big deal. Another is, well, should we worship on Saturday or Sunday? But these days, if I had to guess the number one place this debate seems to come
Lost in Translation: Alternative Definition in Leviticus
Most traditional English translations interpret Leviticus as a divine condemnation of erotic, same-sex relationships. However, careful philological, literary analysis of the imaginative Hebrew shows another interpretation: a divine condemnation of same-sex rape. The authentic Hebrew is more ambiguous than the traditional English translation. Instead of practicing the principle of lectio difficilior probabilitor, “the more difficult reading and more likely reading,” modern translators dispel ambiguity by making the translation as straightforward as possible.[1] However, the translators’ attempts to clarify the Hebrew text presents a reading that is not only harmful, but incongruent to the context of Leviticus. This essay focuses on three main points in K. Renato Ling’s literary analysis of Lev. that provides a holistic interpretation. First, the addition of propositions within Lev. by English translators alters the verse’s interpretation. Second, the reoccurrence of the rare Hebrew synonyms miškevēwithin Gen. presents a philological nuance that i
Leviticus
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”[1] It is not a surprise that this verse seems to say that gay male sex is forbidden in the eyes of God. The dominant view of western Christianity forbids queer relations. This verse is one of the clobber passages that people cite from the Bible to condemn homosexuality. This essay first looks at the various ways the verse is translated into the English Bible and then explores some of the strategies used to create an affirming interpretation of what this corridor means for the LGBTQ community. More specifically, it presents the interpretation of K. Renato Lings in which Lev. refers to male-on-male incest.
While Lev. is used to condemn homosexuality, we must realize that the term “homosexuality” was only recently coined in the English language. So did this term occur in ancient Israel? Charles D. Myers, Jr. confirms that none of the prophets in the Hebrew Bible talk about homosexuality.[2] He also contends that in ancient Israel homosexual relations were viewed as an ancient Near East obstacle. The anc
The Bible on Homosexual Behavior
One way to argue against these passages is to make what I call the “shellfish objection.” Keith Sharpe puts it this way: “Until Christian fundamentalists boycott shellfish restaurants, stop wearing poly-cotton T-shirts, and stone to death their wayward offspring, there is no obligation to listen to their diatribes about homosexuality being a sin” (The Gay Gospels, 21).
In other words, if we can disregard rules like the bar on eating shellfish in Leviticus , then we should be allowed to disobey other prohibitions from the Old Testament. But this argument confuses the Elderly Testament’s temporary ceremonial laws with its permanent moral laws.
Here’s an analogy to help understand this distinction.
I remember two rules my mom gave me when I was young: hold her hand when I cross the road and don’t drink what’s under the sink. Today, I include to follow only the latter rule, since the former is no longer needed to preserve me. In fact, it would now do me more injure than good.
Old Testament ritual/ceremonial laws were like mom’s handholding principle. The rea