I realize your post was long, but I don't think that is a bad thing, especially as this is a controversial subject. I happen to believe this was the best post you ever made on the subject and convincing to a certain degree.
Let me start by saying there was a miscommunication. I did understand Lev 20 as applying to ANYONE in Israel, including foreigners. To my mind this is what underscored the difference between 18 and 20. One was referring to practices of Jews when outside Israel (where they will encounter such behavior at houses of worship), and the other about how worship was going to be handled in Israel (or any Jewish temple?).
zealot writes:
I've basically copied Headlines from the Application study. PS. This was the first time I had used this as I prefer to make up my own mind about the text and avoid any bias. In this case, it confirmed my beliefs.
You know what? That was a beautiful outline. I think that it is not an absurd interpretation to defend.
As the Bible is as much about how one interprets as what is actually written, the outline of Lev being broken into two sections is plausible (almost like the 10 commandments having two sections: man towards God and Man towards man).
I am going to grant you that I cannot directly argue against the POSSIBILITY that it is valid.
However I can argue that just because your interpretation is plausible, does not mean that there are no other plausible interpretations.
(FOR EXAMPLE: I do not see the reason to have split Lev where you did, except with an end in mind. Lev 18 certainly seems to follow the same language as those preceeding it. Perhaps a better break would come after 18. That is where the language shifts a bit more into what seems like everyday practices.)
And I will argue that the interpretation I originally described (a holistic Lev for priests) has a bit more support than yours.
I will continue this argument be addressing the points you made in your post...
zealot writes:
Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the LORD your God.
Clear your mind for a second and then reread that statement (especially knowing that abomination is best defined as "ritually unclean"). What this appears to say is that you should keep God's religious ordinances, and not those ritually unclean customs that other faiths in other lands practice.
Since Lev has so far only been talking about actions in the temple or in services to God, I think it is jumping the gun to interpret the statement as moving beyond that. Its use of "ordinance", "abominable", and "custom" in particular suggest parts of ritualized behavior and NOT about personal conduct which might happen to be allowed by nonproscription under law.
zealot writes:
If you look at the difference between the first 17 chapters and chapters 18-20, you will notice that the latter offenses are much more grave, indeed the reason that God 'got rid' of the people in that land.
These are not sins because they are acts performed in a ritual sense, they are plain olf fashioned sexual sins. Indeed God is very specific to point out a ritual sexual deed.
It is true Lev only mentions one specific (ritual with regards to Molech), but this does not mean the rest are not involved in ritual sexual behavior. If anything it may just show that sacrificing one's own child is specific to Molech.
The region is pagan which means many deities. Lev 18 fronts the proscriptions by noting that these are the typse of things the Jews found in Egypt and Canaan. I believe this is the same thing as noting "Molech" in specific with regard to child sacrifice.
Is there a reason to believe differently?
And as far as strictly sexual offences (uncleanliness), this was dealt with earlier and appears to have only involved masturbation and sex with unclean women.
Lev 15:32- This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him, and is defiled therewith;
Clearly seed goeth from him during homosexual intercourse. Why was this then not mentioned during the description of the law regarding when seed goeth from him?
The appearance is that this section deals with the purely sexual acts which make one unclean, and Lev 18 and 20 deal with the ritual acts themselves (sex acts offered to God to gain his approval) which are unclean.
zealot writes:
This first 5 chapters discuss every type of sacrifice, does very little in defining what is a sin, merely the rite of sacrificing.
Actually, doesn't it state that these sacrifices are for breaking commandments? That is why I defined breaking commandments as sins.
zealot writes:
Notice every thing so far that makes you unclean you can rectify either by sacrifice or by waiting x amount of time. Not necessarily punishment for sin, more along the lines of not being clean for worship.
Well somethings are unable to be fixed, but I will grant the above for sake of argument. I think this shows you may not be understanding what my interpretation is getting at.
You are correct that up till 18 it is talking about rituals, and what can be rectified by ritual. 18 is talking about specific rituals found elsewhere and that they are unclean in and of themselves. It is not the same as saying if you become unclean you must do X before entering the temple. It is saying you cannot do these unclean things in the temple at all.
zealot writes:
Not really ‘allowed’ in other nations, more like sins that they have committed. Things God considered disgusting and didn’t want his people to associate with. So yeah, these actions have defiled other nations.
I realize this is a repeat but I think it is important. You have given no support for why we are to switch at Lev 18 to believe it is referring to something other than religious practices. The terminology of "ordinance", "abomination", and "custom" seem more related to religious practice and law than everyday law. I don't believe there is any evidence of cultures having such ordinances as "Everyone in this land is free to have sex with pigs", nor customs of "when entering a farm you have sex with a pig". However there were religious ordinances and customs along these lines. The only homosexual activity which would conceivably fall under "ordinance" and "custom" was religious prostitution.
zealot writes:
They were not just going to have to be taught how to worship, they would also need to know what is right or wrong in daily life.
The commandments told the people what was right and wrong in daily life. Leviticus contained instructions to the priests on how to conduct their affairs (in their temples and services).
In fairness it does instruct priests on guidance/moral teachings to their members, and this is restricted to behavioral guidance that does not require mention of cleanliness or "Pagan"-ness (lev 19).
So to kind of recap, leviticus is for priests... ritual and cleanliness in ritual is a concern for those running the temples (and in Israel... the entire country), so that the help of God is not lost.
zealot writes:
Neither Lev 18, 19 or 20 is specific to ‘Ritual’ cleanliness. As you can see, these are just listing sins.
While I can see this interpretation, it seems to me that Lev states when it is dealing with ritual instruction (it says abomination) and when it is talking about moral guidance (by priests) in every day life (it simply says "Thou shall not X")
Your given examples appear to support what I am saying.
zealot writes:
No Pork for Jews
Well this was kind of my point. What started as ritual cleanliness was broadened into general proscription which creates an identity for the Jewish people. I have already said that some of the authors I read suggested that very possibility, and which may be the reason (practice not theology) which led to later mistranslations.
zealot writes:
when you try in a Christian Church, convince us that God Blesses something He has explicitly degreed as sinfull, we tend to get upset.
But the question remains was it ritual male prostitution that was being condemned or general homosexuality. As it is I do not believe anyone asks that homosexuality be blessed by God, as I am unsure who asks that heterosexual sex be blessed by God.
I have said, given the general negativity toward same sex sexuality, it would seem odd for God to bless a same sex union. Then again David and his pal seem blessed as a same sex union (whether or not sex was involved in their relationship). Thus would God bless a spriritual union between members of the same sex (if it happens to involve sex)? Good question.
The same sex union rituals for the early Xtian church tends to suggest He could.
All of this considered, God does not seem to be CURSING homosexual sex acts, as many modern Xtians seem to want him to do.
zealot writes:
Ask someone with Greek knowlege to translate 'Arsenokoites.
from:
Religious tolerance | 404 Page Not Found
"Arsenokoitai " is made up of two parts: " arsen " means " man "; " koitai " means "beds ." The Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek) translated the Hebrew " quadesh " in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 as "arsenokoitai. " They were referring to " male temple prostitutes " - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought that it meant temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire. One source refers to other writings which contained the word " arsenokoitai: " (Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John; Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum). They suggest that the term refers " to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but no necessarily homosexual sex). "Probably " pimp " or " man living off of the avails of prostitution " would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that " Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word aresenokoitai ."
Is there a reason not to believe this?
zealot writes:
Indeed the word Abomination or Tow`ebah is used just 6 times in Leviticus.
This is incorrect (2 examples I was referring to)...
11:20- All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
11:23- But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
I would hasten to add that the very example you gave of the use of abomination in leviticus 18 (and 20?) show that all the behavior described within is ritual uncleanliness. And again by this I mean not that a person is made unclean by such acts and so must be made clean before attending temple, but that it is unclean ritual.
zealot writes:
Sleeping with your mother does not have to have anything to do with another nations ritual practises. Nor is putting a stumbling block in front of a blind man. God also specifically states Do not sacrifice your seed to Molech. Now that is specific !
Well first of all you are mixing up verses from different chapters. While 19 involves moral guidance to the masses, 18 and 20 do not.
You will note that 18 and 20 are instructions to priests when addressing Israel and the Children of Israel.
In contrast, Chapter 19 is specifically noted as instruction to the priest about what to tell the CONGREGATIONS of the Children of Israel. Is this not extremely suggestive to you? Chapter 19, the only chapter that seems to have simple "thou shalt/shalt not" commandments free of relationship to cleanliness (specifically ritual cleanliness) has the specific word "congregation" which means to the people they are discussing general every day issues with.
By the way sleeping with one's mother can, and has been, a part of ritual sexual practice. Especially in the orgiastic rites incest is not something considered "taboo". Egyptians in particular (though not orgiastic) used incest (yes between mother and child) as part of the religious maintenance of the Pharoah's unique Godlike stature. Heheh, back then a family that prayed together, played together.
Seriously though, I would like you to consider what the beginnings of 18&20 mean, when compared to 19 which is the only one to say "this is for the congregation". The difference in language of the chapter appears to reflect a difference in audience and subject matter as well.
zealot writes:
I still fail to see where you read temple prostitutes in the text from Leviticus. Indeed the only time God mentions any ritual sexual act he specifically states it... The text was not intended to ‘fool’ the people or that only those with great insight could understand the simple commands, these are straight forward commands they could follow.
I think it is overly simplistic to state that because the name of a specific deity is used only once, that that one statement is the only reference to a ritual act.
Lev 18 mentions where the other "ritually unclean" practices may be found. It is a very strong possibility that more than one deity used those other practices... or a particular deity with many names used a variety of practices.
The argument being advanced (by me) is that the text wasn't trying to fool anyone... most notably the priests to whom leviticus is pretty clearly addressed. It states when it is talking about "ritual uncleanliness". It mentions when it is discussing ordinances and ritually unclean customs. I, and many others, feel this distinction is quite clear.
Why would God waste time identifying 19 as having to be told to congregations and not do so for 18 and 20, if they were all to be told to the same audience and for the same purpose?
I hope that I have given you some concrete reasons to review your own interpretation of Lev.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 10-29-2003]
™ Version 4.2
