tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post4005523562199547347..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Polyester Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79264191422168118572015-07-02T13:06:26.354-04:002015-07-02T13:06:26.354-04:00I don't think we need to figure out how to har...I don't think we need to figure out how to harmonize Lev 15 with Lev 18 & 20 to address the particular issue at hand. So long as Lev 18 treats intercourse with a menstruating woman as a matter of ritual impurity, and a minor infraction even in that respect, rather than something that's naturally improper or inherently immoral, then that's not comparable to homosexuality. <br /><br />I'd add that in the REBC, Hess has a useful discussion of the homosexual passages. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26526553581825119292015-07-02T00:31:39.369-04:002015-07-02T00:31:39.369-04:00I always wondered whether Lev. 18:19 was a moral o...I always wondered whether Lev. 18:19 was a moral or ceremonial issue. I wondered whether it was moral because it could cause abortions. That is, the egg could get fertilized during a time when the zygote wouldn't be able to attach to the uterine wall. But that was just speculation. For all I know by that time the egg can no longer get fertilized. I never took a stand on the issue. But Steve made a good point about Lev. 15:24. It does seem most likely that Lev. 15:24 does refer to sexual intercourse rather than merely having laid down on the same bed in which a menstruating woman was laying or had lain. Compare with Lev. 20:18; Num. 5:13; Gen. 26:10; 34:2; 35:22; 1 Sam. 2:22.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-16076744741024071762015-07-02T00:28:52.498-04:002015-07-02T00:28:52.498-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65181220334937060752015-07-01T16:48:44.230-04:002015-07-01T16:48:44.230-04:00Thanks for the answer Steve, I heard an interpreta...Thanks for the answer Steve, I heard an interpretation that Lev 18:19 that suggests that here the woman is prostitute which would help explain the much harsher infraction here than in 15:24,<br /><br />Here's what the Expositors commentary on Leviticus says on the issue<br /><br />"There may be, however, a question whether the situation at 15:24 is actually the same as here and at 20:18. The terms are slightly different, and the context and the penalties are considerably different. At 20:18 (not 15:24) the phrase גִּלָּה אֶת־עֶרְוָתָהּ (gillāh ʾeṯ -ʿerwāṯāh, KJV, “uncover her nakedness”) is used. This is obviously a euphemism for sexual intercourse in some degree and is translated by the NIV as “have sexual relations.” It is also used in Ezek 16 and 23 in regard to the spiritual prostitution of Judah. It is used in Lev 18 and 20 of various incestuous connections but never of normal marital relations. It is possible that 18:19 and 20:18 refer to some kind of prostitution complicated by menstrual impurity. The penalty, as previously mentioned, is probably excommunication."<br />Expositor's Bible Commentary<br /><br />In 20:18 the command is expanded on with a rationale that they have "exposed the source of her flow" I think it might be linked to the sacredness of blood found in Leviticus which is fulfilled by Christ. In any case isn't comparable to homosexuality as that command is carried over to the new testament.<br /><br />Unknown what do you think of the fact that this isn't mentioned in Acts 15 for the gentiles? And what do you think of the discrepancy in severity of punishment between Lev 18:19 and 15:24?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84208354511261019282015-07-01T02:53:02.793-04:002015-07-01T02:53:02.793-04:00>>we can't isolate Lev 18 from Leviticus...>>we can't isolate Lev 18 from Leviticus as a whole, or the Pentateuch as a whole, or the new covenant. We must ask how Lev 18 functions in relation to larger literary and theological units. <br /><br />As Kenneth said, Leviticus 18 sets its standards apart as binding on the other nations.<br /><br />>>seminal emissions are defiling, too. <br /><br />Not in Leviticus 18.<br /><br />>>So this was just a pretext to ride your hobbyhorse?<br /><br />Dismissal instead of engagement.<br /><br />>>That's very atomistic. <br /><br />You haven't responded to it. Strange how that works.moriartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033930054197469011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7995307411348435892015-07-01T02:34:00.818-04:002015-07-01T02:34:00.818-04:00Unknown
"Kenneth, couldn't we just ackno...Unknown<br /><br />"Kenneth, couldn't we just acknowledge that, as the most plain reading of Leviticus 18 seems to be, it is immoral to have sex with a menstruating woman?"<br /><br />No, we can't just acknowledge that, for we can't isolate Lev 18 from Leviticus as a whole, or the Pentateuch as a whole, or the new covenant. We must ask how Lev 18 functions in relation to larger literary and theological units. <br /><br />"There are ways the body is meant to be enjoyed and ways it is not."<br /><br />True, but that proves too much in this context inasmuch as seminal emissions are defiling, too. <br /><br />"Well, yes, they should wear head coverings, and even 100 years ago and in many countries and churches today, they still do."<br /><br />So this was just a pretext to ride your hobbyhorse?<br /><br />"Any interpretation that would make this list anything other than universal moral commands would come up against the use of 'toevah' to describe the acts, and would contradict the most plain reading."<br /><br />That's very atomistic. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76034777356789475322015-07-01T02:22:05.917-04:002015-07-01T02:22:05.917-04:00Good question. Hard to give a definitive answer, g...Good question. Hard to give a definitive answer, given loose ends in Leviticus.<br /><br />i) If all we had to go by was Leviticus, I don't think that God expelling the Canaanites for such violations would be the basis we use to determine that the Levitical passages on homosexuality are universal. <br /><br />That's suggestive, but apart from the creation account (Gen 1-2), or Paul's appropriation of these passages (1 Cor 6:9 & 1 Tim 1:10), I'm not sure we'd regard them as universal. <br /><br />ii) I wouldn't begin with Lev 18:19. Rather, I think Lev 15:24 supplies the frame of reference. There, intercourse with a menstruating woman is a minor infraction. It carries no penalty. It requires no sacrifice. The contamination will automatically resolve itself in seven days. At most, the husband must bathe himself–and even that's not specified in this particular case. <br /><br />That alone suggests this is not intrinsically wrong. The husband contracts ritual defilement rather than moral guilt. <br /><br />iii) In addition, the 7-day period of contamination is symbolic rather than natural. That's a stock numerological figure. <br /><br />iv) This, in turn, raises the question of how to harmonize Lev 15:24 with 18:19, where it carries a harsh penalty. Since Leviticus itself doesn't tie up these loose ends, we are left to speculate.<br /><br />a) One explanation is that 15:24 refers to an inadvertent violation whereas 18:19 refers to an defiant violation.<br /><br />b) The fact that the emission in question is blood may intensify the significance of the infraction, given the emblematic importance of blood in Pentateuchal theology. Blood is a complex symbol, for it can signify either purification and defilement–depending on the action. <br /><br />All told, I think intercourse with a menstruating woman was never inherently immoral or sinful. Rather, the agent contracted ritual impurity. <br /><br />As such, I seriously doubt this carries over into the new covenant. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17073958485877342702015-06-30T19:09:18.288-04:002015-06-30T19:09:18.288-04:00Something that should be pointed out is that criti...Something that should be pointed out is that critics of Christianity on this issue do the same thing they're objecting to. We all recognize that traditions, rules, and laws are often meant to serve only a temporary purpose or are meant to be applied only to some people or some circumstances, not universally. If a parent gives his five-year-old child a 9 o'clock bedtime, but doesn't require the child to go to bed by 9 o'clock when he's fifteen, is the parent an inconsistent hypocrite if he treats the five-year-old and fifteen-year-old the same way in other contexts (e.g., requiring the child to go to school or requiring him to clean his room at both ages)? The people who criticize us for supposedly being inconsistent, hypocritical, and such engage in the same sort of behavior in other contexts (e.g., parenting).Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64118934138353938162015-06-30T17:07:29.290-04:002015-06-30T17:07:29.290-04:00Kenneth, couldn't we just acknowledge that, as...Kenneth, couldn't we just acknowledge that, as the most plain reading of Leviticus 18 seems to be, it is immoral to have sex with a menstruating woman? Similar to how it may be sinful to practice anal penetration. There are ways the body is meant to be enjoyed and ways it is not. There are things that are repugnant whether individuals find them so or not. Perhaps intercourse lubricated by blood is disgusting in the same way as intercourse lubricated by feces.<br /><br />The same sort of "But what do we do about _______" argument is used regarding women and head coverings. Sure, we can say that women shouldn't be pastors, but as my liberal professors would say, we'd also have to require women to wear head coverings! Well, yes, they should wear head coverings, and even 100 years ago and in many countries and churches today, they still do.<br /><br />Any interpretation that would make this list anything other than universal moral commands would come up against the use of "toevah" to describe the acts, and would contradict the most plain reading.moriartyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03033930054197469011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67414063893550137172015-06-30T14:03:55.672-04:002015-06-30T14:03:55.672-04:00As usual great article Steve, but I've been st...As usual great article Steve, but I've been struggling with a question<br /><br />In the holiness code of Leviticus 18 part of the condemnations come down in Leviticus 18:19 against a man having sex with a woman who is Menstruating, this is right in the middle of the passages in which after God says in verse 24"'Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled" which is the basis that we use to determine that passages on homosexuality are universal. So what do we make of this? This is a counterargument used against seeing Leviticus 18:22 as applying todayAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com