We don't have to use Lev 18:22 directly. The point is that Paul reaffirmed the Levitical condemnation of sodomy. We're getting that mediated through Paul. Therefore, it doesn't require us to have a general position on the Mosaic law.
I agree with everything you said. The article seems to state the condemnation of male homosexual relationships is because of the common ANE thought about wasted sperm. From that he seems to think that would entail that lesbianism was not condemned.
The other question I had was just on Dr. Heiser's analogy of the Biblical writers to that of a child that thinks the stork will bring their parents a child. He uses that to frame that we shouldn't get outraged by what the child says and tell them they don't understand biology or accept their misunderstanding. We should rather accept the truth that the misunderstanding carries. That being they will now have a brother or sister. That is paralleled to that of the Biblical writers thinking the world was flat or that the kidneys were the seat of our emotions.
Let's bracket inspiration for argument's sake. Even with their prescientific knowledge, they knew that once a woman is manifestly pregnant, it's "wasting seed" to continue having intercourse with her. Likewise, they knew that once a woman is past the childbearing years, it's "wasting seed" to continue having sexual intercourse with her. Yet they didn't think ejaculation in those "wasteful" situations was wrong. So even though they didn't know everything we know about sexual reproduction, they didn't think the sole justification of sexual intercourse was impregnation.
Just commenting on this post to ask your thoughts on the two thing:
ReplyDeleteThis is by Robert Rowe:
https://www.sentinelapologetics.org/single-post/2018/04/09/Homosexuality-Why-Christians-Should-Not-Use-Leviticus-1822
This is by Dr. Heiser:
https://youtu.be/ail8702JY1g
We don't have to use Lev 18:22 directly. The point is that Paul reaffirmed the Levitical condemnation of sodomy. We're getting that mediated through Paul. Therefore, it doesn't require us to have a general position on the Mosaic law.
DeleteI agree with everything you said. The article seems to state the condemnation of male homosexual relationships is because of the common ANE thought about wasted sperm. From that he seems to think that would entail that lesbianism was not condemned.
DeleteThe other question I had was just on Dr. Heiser's analogy of the Biblical writers to that of a child that thinks the stork will bring their parents a child. He uses that to frame that we shouldn't get outraged by what the child says and tell them they don't understand biology or accept their misunderstanding. We should rather accept the truth that the misunderstanding carries. That being they will now have a brother or sister. That is paralleled to that of the Biblical writers thinking the world was flat or that the kidneys were the seat of our emotions.
Let's bracket inspiration for argument's sake. Even with their prescientific knowledge, they knew that once a woman is manifestly pregnant, it's "wasting seed" to continue having intercourse with her. Likewise, they knew that once a woman is past the childbearing years, it's "wasting seed" to continue having sexual intercourse with her. Yet they didn't think ejaculation in those "wasteful" situations was wrong. So even though they didn't know everything we know about sexual reproduction, they didn't think the sole justification of sexual intercourse was impregnation.
DeleteThat is a good point.
Delete