Christianity started 2 milenia ago, and Christians have developed different views of Scripture: a) As history and divine revelation, b) As all or partially instructional for modern life, c) Interpreted selectively by denominational leaders, d) or allowing changes by modern prophets, or a Pope. Yet all agree that each person is spiritually led. Their view on same-sex Biblical marriage may vary. Is it an expression of Christian compassion or permissiveness? Logic and Biblical exegesis can help.
Allegedly, the Bible does not really declare homosexual copulation a sin. Allegedly, homophobic interpretations arrive at that conclusion out of hate or misunderstanding.
Supporters of same-sex Christian marriage have a contorted way of interpreting the Bible. In essence, they have to (symbolically) rip out quite a few pages, if not entire books out of the Old and New Testaments.
First, they admit the book of Leviticus (early Jewish law) does prescribe the death penalty for homosexual copulation, and therefore defines it in no uncertain terms.
Then, they will point out that Leviticus also penalizes other actions such as wearing a garment made of mixed thread, and disobedience to parents.
Then they ask if we are willing to enforce all the rules of Leviticus in modern life. If so, they will tag you as a "literalist", someone who believes the Bible for what it says in plain English - and proceed to call you a "fundamentalist".
At the same time, they will tell you that they themselves approach Biblical interpretation with a much more "progressive" and "intellectual" system of interpretation. They might call it critical thinking, but at some point will say they include the historical and cultural context.
But, if they do so themselves, why don't they include the historical context in the interpretation of Leviticus? Don't they know Leviticus was written for the descendants of Jacob (Israel), a nomadic race, after they escaped slavery in Egypt? At that time, the Israelites had a theocratic form of government, and being nomadic, did not have the recourse of a jail system. Therefore, applying the death penalty in some legal/theocratic cases was practical. But that doesn't mean that we, who live in a democratic society have to abide by the laws of a theocratic society. We make up our own laws, through legislation. The New Testament does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual copulation, but it does instruct that such an act does not follow "sound teaching".
Also, some of the primitive laws in Leviticus refer to what the priests of the nomadic style tabernacle would have to abide by, or be put to death.Those laws did not refer to the requirements on the general population.
Also, Leviticus describes homosexual activity in a story which also includes gang rape, and sodomy (intercourse with animals). It prohibits it for the obvious social consequences.
FURTHER READING: THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUALITY(by Joseph P. Gudel) Caché copy
ReplyDeleteSupporters of same-sex Christian marriage have a contorted way of interpreting the Bible. In essence, they have to (symbolically) rip out quite a few pages, if not entire books out of the Old and New Testaments.
ReplyDeleteFirst, they admit the book of Leviticus (early Jewish law) does prescribe the death penalty for homosexual copulation, and therefore defines it in no uncertain terms.
Then, they will point out that Leviticus also penalizes other actions such as wearing a garment made of mixed thread, and disobedience to parents.
Then they ask if we are willing to enforce all the rules of Leviticus in modern life. If so, they will tag you as a "literalist", someone who believes the Bible for what it says in plain English - and proceed to call you a "fundamentalist".
At the same time, they will tell you that they themselves approach Biblical interpretation with a much more "progressive" and "intellectual" system of interpretation. They might call it critical thinking, but at some point will say they include the historical and cultural context.
But, if they do so themselves, why don't they include the historical context in the interpretation of Leviticus? Don't they know Leviticus was written for the descendants of Jacob (Israel), a nomadic race, after they escaped slavery in Egypt? At that time, the Israelites had a theocratic form of government, and being nomadic, did not have the recourse of a jail system. Therefore, applying the death penalty in some legal/theocratic cases was practical. But that doesn't mean that we, who live in a democratic society have to abide by the laws of a theocratic society. We make up our own laws, through legislation. The New Testament does not prescribe the death penalty for homosexual copulation, but it does instruct that such an act does not follow "sound teaching".
Also, some of the primitive laws in Leviticus refer to what the priests of the nomadic style tabernacle would have to abide by, or be put to death.Those laws did not refer to the requirements on the general population.
Also, Leviticus describes homosexual activity in a story which also includes gang rape, and sodomy (intercourse with animals). It prohibits it for the obvious social consequences.