The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality

[wwalkeriv]

So what is the hermeneutic, then, for determining whether a particular law is "ritualistic" or "moral"?

And what if one also throws in a third category: neither "ritualistic" nor "moral," but "administrative" (practical/useful, but not universally imperative)?

As it relates to the "administrative" category: I don't know. I suppose this could be true.

As it relates to what hermeneutic: The way I determine it is by asking "was this commandment / law given because the thing was an abomination / goes against God or was it given to set Israel apart from the surrounding pagan nations?"

Applying this hermeneutic I would conclude that homosexuality is an abomination. It was an abomination in the old covenant and it is still an abomination. The same would hold true for idolatry, murder, stealing, bearing false witness, etc. On the other hand keeping the sabbath, circumcision, wearing clothing weaved from two fabrics, eating of shellfish or pork, etc would be ritualistic or commandments given to set Israel apart. These commandments or laws don't have anything to do with the nature of God or go against Him in anyway that I can see.

The point I was trying to make is that when the book of Leviticus states homosexuality is an abomination, it wasn't just an abomination in Old Testament times as Matthew Vines stated, It is an abomination for all times.

That's a good question. I've never really understood this idea that the distinction between the laws in the old/new covenants was a moral one. They're both moral laws. If we were still under the old covenant (Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that's your position) then breaking the ritualistic laws would be immoral. Or, said another way, there's no such thing as an amoral law from God. Breaking his law is always immoral.

I wasn't trying to say there was a distinction between the old/new covenant laws in terms of morality. I'm saying the old covenant contained ritualistic laws given to Israel as part of their "end of the deal". The new covenant fulfills those requirements; therefore, they are not part of our end of the deal. However, there were laws given in the old covenant that have to do with God's morality and those laws are for all times. We will naturally obey them if we love God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind and love our neighbor as ourself.

[Perry]

As it relates to what hermeneutic: The way I determine it is by asking "was this commandment / law given because the thing was an abomination / goes against God or was it given to set Israel apart from the surrounding pagan nations?"

So by this hermeneutic, if a person makes his living by breeding dogs, he isn't allowed to make offerings from his profit to God? See Deut 23:18.

[wwalkeriv]

So by this hermeneutic, if a person makes his living by breeding dogs, he isn't allowed to make offerings from his profit to God? See Deut 23:18.

Isn't "dog", as used in this context, a male prostitute or sodomite?

[mattrose]

Despite the criticisms against it, I still say distinguishing the laws into categories of moral/ceremonial/civil makes a lot of sense. Of course, if you're looking for some crystal clear method to label all 613 laws, you'll be disappointed. But most of it is pretty much common sense.

[jriccitelli]

(Just a response to the point made on Leviticus)
Seems to me most all are moral laws, and said another way still; "then breaking the ritualistic laws would be moral?"
All the Laws have a basic moral principle; 'Obey God', and live.
This one is pretty clear though, God destroyed nations for Homosexuality that were not even 'under' the Law. (Not to mention Paul's writings on it…)
Principles of weaving fabrics, marrying foreign women, touch not the unclean… all have moral principle… Sabbath keeping is a moral principle to restrain employers from abusing workers etc... But circumcision is certainly moral, for the act was symbolic of cutting off the flesh - cutting off all sin, and significantly sexual sin - which was demonstrated and done completely when Jesus was cut off - the death of the flesh - and we are only in him if you have cut off your own flesh by 'dying' to yourself. So we have crucified the flesh with all its sins and passions…

[wwalkeriv]

(Just a response to the point made on Leviticus)
Seems to me most all are moral laws, and said another way still; "then breaking the ritualistic laws would be moral?"
All the Laws have a basic moral principle; 'Obey God', and live.
This one is pretty clear though, God destroyed nations for Homosexuality that were not even 'under' the Law. (Not to mention Paul's writings on it…)
Principles of weaving fabrics, marrying foreign women, touch not the unclean… all have moral principle… Sabbath keeping is a moral principle to restrain employers from abusing workers etc... But circumcision is certainly moral, for the act was symbolic of cutting off the flesh - cutting off all sin, and significantly sexual sin - which was demonstrated and done completely when Jesus was cut off - the death of the flesh - and we are only in him if you have cut off your own flesh by 'dying' to yourself. So we have crucified the flesh with all its sins and passions…

Maybe, we are just discussing semantics here, but just in case allow me to ask the folowing: Do you believe the old law has been fulfilled in any way? If so, are we still obligated to adhere to any portion it? What about things like cloth woven from different fabrics or meat in it's mother's milk or shellfish, must we abstain from these things? If not, why and what would differentiate these commands and, say, the command to not steal? If we no longer have to follow one, why the other?

[Perry]

Isn't "dog", as used in this context, a male prostitute or sodomite?

Is it? I hadn't heard that. It sure would make the reference to a "dog" more contextually consistent. Can you elaborate on how "dog" can be interpreted that way?

[Perry]

I still say distinguishing the laws into categories of moral/ceremonial/civil makes a lot of sense. Of course, if you're looking for some crystal clear method to label all 613 laws, you'll be disappointed. But most of it is pretty much common sense.

I think it makes sense too. However, Emmit's challenge is not without justification. An appeal to “common sense” may be fine as long as you and I indeed hold that sense in common, but it's not very helpful when we don't, and it's nothing at all like a hermeneutic.

The idea that the old law was done away, well, all except for the moral ones, sounds good at first blush, but it leaves me with an uneasy feeling that we're cherry picking.

Jesus said that all those dusty old laws hung on the concepts of love for God and love for each other. This answer was given in response to a question about the comparative value of those same old covenant laws. “Which one is greatest?”

[wwalkeriv]

Is it? I hadn't heard that. It sure would make the reference to a "dog" more contextually consistent. Can you elaborate on how "dog" can be interpreted that way?

From e-Sword, the NASB+ word for "dog" in this passage is:
H3611
כּלב
keleb
keh'-leb
From an unused root meaning to yelp, or else to attack; a dog; hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute: - dog.

From Wesley's notes:
Deu 23:18 The hire of a whore - This is opposed to the practice of the Gentiles, who allowed both such persons and the oblations they made out of their infamous gains; and some of them kept lewd women, who prostituted themselves in the temples, to the honour of their false Gods, and offered part of their profit to them. Or the price of a dog - It seems to mean, of a whoremonger or sodomite. Such are called dogs, Rev_22:15. And it is not improbable they are called so here. From these God would not accept of any offering.

[Perry]

Thanks wwalkeriv.