Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Deuteronomy

[Chill Out]

First off, I just wanted to say I appreciate the amount of research you're willing to put into the discussion.

> From my reading I gather that long-term, intimate homosexual relationships were unheard of in the ancient world.

I'll grant you that ancient writings may not attest to many (or any) such relationships, but it seems like you're claiming that gay humans were somehow fundamentally different several hundred or thousand years ago and didn't desire love and such relationships never happened.

I think the rest of your argument boils down to "killing gay people is moral because my holy book says it is" and then you provide some personal interpretations of how you feel that men and women complement each other better than men/men or women/women.

Let's imagine some third party is trying to convince the two of us that his god is true and is perfectly moral, but that his god commands that any married couple who chooses not to have children should be executed. When we point out that there's no moral justification for this, he could simply point to his holy book that contains the command and explain how having children is his god's divine plan. Having children reflects the image of his god and parents/children complement each other spiritually, intellectually, and morally. We both (I assume) would find that to be utterly insufficient justification for killing another human.

[jimwalton]

> but it seems like you're claiming that gay humans were somehow fundamentally different several hundred or thousand years ago and didn't desire love and such relationships never happened.

What I'm saying is that on the basis of my research it seems that long-term love relationships between gay men were neither part of their practice nor part of their worldview. I haven't come across evidence of it.

> I think the rest of your argument boils down to "killing gay people is moral because my holy book says it is" and then you provide some personal interpretations of how you feel that men and women complement each other better than men/men or women/women.

Oh, no, no, that's not fair. I do everything possible to research the culture and the biblical text to determine not only what it says (letter) but what it means (principles, themes, reasons).

The Levitical text is casuistic law case law of hypothetic examples), not apodictic law (inviolable commands). The law codes of the Torah (Pentateuch) are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands or lists of rules to be obeyed. They are not legislation. It is better to view them as legal wisdom, to give judges ideas about how to handle particular kinds of cases. They are therefore not intended to be read as rules, but as wisdom to circumscribe the bounds of civil, legal, and ritual order. They are hypothetical examples to illustrate underlying principles (much as we use word problems to teach math). The purpose is not to teach about trains, buildings, running, or apples, but to learn trigonometry.

But the underlying principles are not moral commands either. It is wisdom to guide, not a list to identify a moral code. When fans read the baseball rulebook, it's not to follow them but to understand what is happening as they watch the game. We don't expect a referee to show up at the house to penalize spectators; we also should not expect God to show up handing out judgments on individuals or institutions because they have not behaved according to the principles that were set down for Israel. This legal wisdom was to shape Israelite society, not to provide a set of instructions by which anyone in any place or time can construct God's ideal society.

There is no, I repeat, NO, detailed scene of stoning to death in any ancient literature. The only incident recorded in the Old Testament is in Numbers 15.36. If the ancients didn't kill gays, then I'm not arguing that it's OK to kill gay people because my holy book says it is. Also, those laws were for Israel in the time of their theocracy and do not apply to any other culture or any other time. So, please, that's not what my argument boils down to.

> you provide some personal interpretations of how you feel that men and women complement each other better than men/men or women/women.

The argument of complementarity is not an argument the Bible makes. We are not told why homosexuality (or adultery, or incest, or any other sin) is regarded as an abomination. We are left to speculate. All we know is that they were considered to not conform to the character of God. I used the word "possibly" to couch my statement. It's not just "some personal interpretations." Deep study has been made on this subject in the Bible.

>Let's imagine some third party is trying to convince the two of us that his god is true and is perfectly moral, but that his god commands that any married couple who chooses not to have children should be executed. When we point out that there's no moral justification for this, he could simply point to his holy book that contains the command and explain how having children is his god's divine plan. Having children reflects the image of his god and parents/children complement each other spiritually, intellectually, and morally. We both (I assume) would find that to be utterly insufficient justification for killing another human.

Please. I didn't go here. I feel unfairly pigeon-holed. Civil law (the capital crimes) was intended for Israel as a theocratic state. When Israel/Judah fell (586 BC), the civil law became defunct with it. The civil law was not intended to be carried out by every government in history. It is no longer something secular governments are responsible to carry out, or that Christians would even consider carrying out.

The NT doesn't have the job of either affirming or disaffirming the information from the OT. The NT is there to reveal Christ, and therefore it's not a criteria for determining OT law. The more pertinent question is "What is the nature of the OT law?" First of all, it's pertinent to ancient law. Secondly, it's situated in the old covenant, and pertains to that covenant. It's telling how Israel should act based on the culture of the day. Third, it pertains to sacred space. We can't extract the law from those contexts. Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time. It doesn't legislate for us.

[Chill Out]

> The Levitical text is casuistic law (case law of hypothetic examples), not apodictic law (inviolable commands). The law codes of the Torah (Pentateuch) are not lists of God's mandatory moral commands or lists of rules to be obeyed.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Your position seems to be that the above isn't a moral command that must be obeyed. The prima facie interpretation of this verse would be "apply this punishment for this crime." What is the case law interpretation of this verse? Were the Israelites free to allow homosexuality under certain circumstances? Can you provide an example of when homosexuality was to be punished with death and when it wasn't?

> Also, those laws were for Israel in the time of their theocracy and do not apply to any other culture or any other time.

Let me clarify that I'm not asking you whether you think the OT laws should be instated in today's culture. I'm asking you whether killing gay people is moral. You seem to be saying that the morality of killing gay people is dependent on the culture you're in. In Israel's culture at the time it was moral, but in other cultures and time periods it is immoral. I don't know how else to read that, so please let me know what you think.

[jimwalton]

> Casuistic, apodictic, and Lev. 20.13

All of the law of Moses (Ex, Lev, Dt) lie solidly in the camp of casuistic law. The "Book of the Covenant" (Ex. 21.1-23.19) is probably the oldest example of casuistic law in the Bible. They are laws, for sure, but they anticipate a wide range of life situations. they regulate business, marriage practice, and personal responsibility, but all from the worldview of casuistry. While the text certainly seems to be making rules, they are always in the context of case law, not apodictic commands. Even what we call "The Ten Commandments" are not viewed that way in the Bible. In the Bible they are called the 10 words. The tone of the Mosaic law has to be seen in its cultural context and in their worldview, which was that they were principles, not orders. As I said, they are not legislation, but legal wisdom.

Regarding Lev. 20.13, an ancient judge would see very clearly the intent behind the law, but would have the judicial freedom to do what he deemed appropriate. We see the same kind of thing in Matthew 1.18-19. Even though the prescribed penalty for adultery was death by stoning, Joseph "had in mind to divorce her quietly." And that was his prerogative. They understood the law to be casuistic.

The biblical ban on homosexual acts must be considered in the context of all other forbidden behaviors.

> Your position seems to be that the above isn't a moral command that must be obeyed.

That is correct. This command would be what was considered to be the fullest extent of the law, but the judge was able to render his own sentence. You see, the mindset of the ancient world was completely different than ours. They thought in terms of order, disorder, and non-order. We think in terms of science and math. They thought in terms of honor and shame. We think in terms of guilt and blame.

> What is the case law interpretation of this verse?

In Israelite society, the concerns were order vs. disorder, honor vs. shame, the covenant, and the family/clan. Their judgments would come against what would defile the people and land, thus repudiating the covenant and forcing God to withdraw his presence. Homosexuality would be treated with intolerance because it was viewed as undermining the family (and thus the community), and it jeopardized the presence of God, as did adultery. My guess is that a person would be shamed into keeping his gayness to himself, and that person would even be married off to a woman in the community. If he refused that, my guess is that he would be excommunicated and expelled from the community and clan and sent down the road. In that way he would become "dead" to the clan.

> Can you provide an example of when homosexuality was to be punished with death and when it wasn't?

As I mentioned, we have no record that anyone was ever killed for it.

> You seem to be saying that the morality of killing gay people is dependent on the culture you're in. In Israel's culture at the time it was moral, but in other cultures and time periods it is immoral. I don't know how else to read that, so please let me know what you think.

I guess I'd agree with this, but I'm always reticent to let other people put words in my mouth. It almost always gets me in trouble. In Israel homosexuality was a capital crime, yes, and the laws of Israel apply to no one else anywhere else in any other time.

[Chill Out]

Honestly, you're inferring so many things I don't see any scriptural support for at all, that I have no idea what to say. I'm dumbfounded by the assertion that "they are to be put to death" is code for "they are to be shamed, forced to marry a woman, or excommunicated."

[jimwalton]

> Honestly, you're inferring so many things I don't see any scriptural support for at all

I don't know what specifically you are referring to here. Most of what I said is that the law of Moses is casuistic. This comes from OT scholars like John Walton, Jacob Milgrom, Keil & Delitzsch, and Brevard Childs.

> I'm dumbfounded by the assertion that "they are to be put to death" is code for "they are to be shamed, forced to marry a woman, or excommunicated."

I didn't claim it was "code" at all. I fear you've missed the point. Case law gives hypothetical situations to guide judges in how to render verdicts and issue sentences. Judges discern the principles, evaluate the evidence, calculate the threat to the community, and render what they consider to be a fair verdict and sentence. Even in our country and culture murder was for many years considered to be a capital crime, but not every murderer was executed. The judges were allowed to imprison for life if they wanted, for instance (still "taking their life" away, so to speak). The judges could even set them free later if they wanted, if they felt the perpetrator had been reformed (as we witnessed Leslie Van Houten, from Charles Manson's group, paroled). This was also the case in ancient Israel. "They are to be put to death" isn't code for anything else. It's case law.