“But What Does the Bible Say?”
“But What Does the Bible Say?: Reflections after the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling”
Kevin DeYoung wrote a column with the title above that was published in Eternal Perspectives, Fall/Winter 2105. In the article he argued that the Bible is God’s revealed word about ethical and moral conduct. Citing several verses, he claimed that “love is not the same as unconditional affirmation,” “the disciples of Jesus will be hated,” “Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” and “marriage is between a man and a woman.”[1] Along the way he makes comments like, “Paul who at one time opposed everyone and everything he later came to love and defend,” and “Any Christian who really believes the Bible must believe all of the Bible.”[2] While I certainly appreciate the intention of DeYoung’s argument, I have some trouble with the inherent duality of his position. I am not going to argue against the biblical definition of marriage. DeYoung is certainly correct that this is the biblical view. But there are some fundamentals in his argument which, in my opinion, render it inconsequential and perhaps hypocritical.
First, we should recognize that the claim “Jesus came into the world to save sinners” is evangelical, not biblical. Jesus (Yeshua) tells us quite pointedly why he came into the world in his conversation with Pilate—and it was not to save sinners. YHVH is perfectly capable of that, and has been doing so since before the foundation of the earth. Yeshua came into the world to establish a kingdom without end, to conquer the last and final enemy of defilement, death. Read John’s account if you are skeptical. Christian theology seems to have ignored what the Messiah actually says in order to promote an agenda of recruitment. So let’s put this aside.
Second, we should note that technically Paul did not oppose “everything he later came to love.” What Paul originally opposed was the claim that Yeshua was the Messiah. He did not oppose the Jewish way of life that Messianic believers practiced. He practiced the same. He might have opposed the inclusion of Gentiles who were not proselytes, but we don’t know this from the text. Paul did not convert to Christianity so there is little point in suggesting that his behavior after Damascus offers a better ethical guide than his behavior before Damascus. The Jewish way of life was established by Moses and it has always opposed homosexuality as a sexually legitimate choice.
Third, the claim that a Christian must believe “all of the Bible” is almost laughable coming from the mouth of a Christian pastor. Does this mean that all of the Ten Commandments are to be followed? It certainly seems so. Then why do Christians reject the Sabbath? Does this mean that the dietary regulations, the purity rituals and the sacrifices are to be practiced? Apparently. But not by Christians. It is simply hypocritical so suggest that the argument against same-sex marriage is based on a commitment to all of the Bible and at the same time split the Bible into “Jewish vs. Christian” thinking. Unfortunately, DeYoung is doctrinally bound, not biblically accurate. I am more than happy to endorse his general position. Yes, all the Bible is what matters. But if that is the case, then it is time to abandon Christianity and get biblical. Until that time, no appeal to some of the Bible (as interpreted by the Church) will cut it. The Bible is not a hunt-and-pick smorgasbord of convenient texts. It is a way of life. If you embrace it, you embrace it. You do not decide that a large percentage of it doesn’t apply—unless, of course, you want your critics to tell you that what applies to them is a different dish from the table.
Finally, while I agree that the biblical idea of marriage is the standard for those who practice a biblical faithfulness, it seems clear enough that the world at large does not practice even the slightest form of biblical faithfulness. By the way, Christian practice falls under this same criticism. What this really means is that biblical morality is a choice. It is not legislation. The idea that the society at large must adopt a biblical view without transformation of the heart is ludicrous. This is imposed morality and even the Bible recognizes that imposed morality does not meet the requirement of honoring God. The bottom line is that we live in Babylon and Babylon does not embrace or endorse the way of life that God revealed. So get used to it! Make a choice to live according to the instructions of God—all of them—and stop whining about what the rest of the pagan world decides. You can’t make people love God and do what pleases Him.
[1] Kevin DeYoung, ““But What Does the Bible Say?: Reflections after the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling,” Eternal Perspectives, Fall/Winter 2015, p. 4.
[2] Ibid.
Very well said Skip! Thank you!
Legislated morality is the most dangerous of oxymorons. The devil is going to be found in ALL those details. Thank you, Skip.
Correct and eloquently dished up.
The seriousness and model of marriage goes right to the top. Not Obama. The heavenly family: Father / Mother / Son.
Met the “youth pastor” of the church I used to go to yesterday … his body-language (primary roll model impression) is homosexual.
What a terrifying world to be born into?
Especially if you do not have a family.
The lbgt movement is a pill that thinking sabbath abolitionists and swine eaters must swallow. They are forced by their own inconsistency to be consistent.
“The bottom line is that we live in Babylon and Babylon does not embrace or endorse the way of life that God revealed. So get used to it! Make a choice to live according to the instructions of God—all of them—and stop whining about what the rest of the pagan world decides.”!!!!!!
Bottom line- ” You can’t make people love God and do what pleases Him.”
If your response Ester I couldn’t agree more with that last line repeat. Wasnt the point i was trying to make.
‘Abandon Christianity and get biblical”. Pithy, poignant and pious. A great bumper sticker!
“Jesus came into the world to save sinners” is evangelical, not biblical.”
Oh?
And Calvary was what?
The Lamb of God does what?
The Son of man has come to what?
Oy.
Carl,
Calvary was where DEATH was defeated.
We have imposed upon the text a meaning that was not implicated initially.
Yes, Death was defeated at Calvary. But this is only a partial truth, – there is so much more. Death, Sin, the Grave, and HaSatan – every one of these a thoroughly defeated foe.
Just the Facts [M’am]
~ But in fact, Christ has been raised from the dead. He is the first of a great harvest of all who have died ~ But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man (Adam) came death, by a man (the Second Adam) also came the resurrection of the dead..~
This “event” was threefold. A Death, A Burial. A Resurrection. This is the pattern for those who belong to Him. We will die, we will be buried (or burned) somewhere and then? There will be (O glorious Day!) a resurrection.
As the scripture states – “But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when He comes, those who belong to Him.” (1 Corinthians 15.23)
And? ~ And everyone having this hope (this eager expectation, this “blessed assurance” in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure ~ (1 John 3.3) Why?
because it may be today!! We certainly “missed” His first advent, – are we prepared and ready for His next appearance? But we must also remember, meanwhile, back on this green planet, we have work to do! HIs words? “Occupy till I come.”
Read the conversation with Pilate again. Yeshua is quite straightforward about why he came as Messiah. We have added the rest.
Calvary is where Yeshua conquer death, Yeshua picked to be the lamb from the beginning of the foundation of the earth and he came to establish a everlasting kingdom!
Yes, just about everyone has some excuse for not keeping all the Scripture. Some people hold sabbath on the wrong day. Some refuse to condemn usury. There are some who refuse to insist on money by weight. And then there are others who refuse to wear tassels. 🙂
All – yes all – legislation is an imposed morality. Now which is the correct moral code that ought to be legislated?
“Jesus came into the world to save sinners” is evangelical, not biblical.
If YHVH is opposed to human sacrifice, how is it that he offers his human son, Yeshua, as a human sacrifice?
A question i struggle with myself, Michael. Pieter had a stunning response for me, i would not do it justice.
Heb. 10:11 -14
And behold every [Aaronic] cohen in every day, sacrificed offerings and served the service of Elohim often times, which are never able to atone for sin.
But this One [Melkizedeq – Ps.110:4], who was offered once, abolished sin forever: and sat at the right hand of Yah.
And He is established [there] from that time, until His enemies are made His footstool. [Ps. 110:1]
For by one offering, He has perfected the heart forever, of those who are Set-Apart.
The tree (cross) was a Prophetic Explosion:
Yahshua died the death (on behalf) of the ‘adulterous bride’;
He died the death (on behalf) of the ‘rebellious son’;
He died the death (penalty) for the breaking of The Covenant (Gen.15) at Sinai;
He died as the spotless lamb of YHWH (necessary) to ratify the ‘New Covenant’;
He died as Red Heifer to provided the “ashes” for the “Holy Water” to purify the living and the dead from death.
The Climax:
He rose to defeat death enabling eternal life and the opportunity to be saved.
He ascended to present His blood in the Heavenly Holy of Holies to make atonement for sin so that we are cleansed and have access to YHWH.
The Mystery:
He was slain before the foundation of the world on behalf of those whose names have been written in the Book of Life [Rev. 13:8].
I can follow your translation of the passage in Hebrews, but the extension and interpretation that you offer requires a lot of theological assumptions, not least of which is a penal theory of atonement. I find nothing that suggests your conclusions OUTSIDE of a prior paradigmatic commitment to a particular way of reading the text. The idea that he had to rise from the dead to “enable the opportunity to be saved” ignores most of the view of the Tanakh that YHVH alone saves (from the beginning) and does not require a death-sentence recompense in order to do so. As far as ratification of the “New Covenant,” I don’t see any text that demands such a view. Clearly Jeremiah’s comment on the “new” covenant says nothing of such a requirement.
Back to you. 🙂
Thanks.
I agree. I am working from a supposed Aramaic Translation and am increasingly being disappointed. Have just checked the NASV and it looks like additional words has been added or removed.
I am not a theologian so maybe the assumptions are inspirational 😉
“penal theory of atonement” – Do not quite understand what you mean. Atonement seems to be procedural: Even though Chesed trumps, certain actions are required to oblige YHWH – I expect these are technical to deal with Geburah (the feminine side), which humanly is incompatible with Chesed.
I profess reading with subjective spectacles but these are being refocused from Christianity and beyond Judaism… hopefully.
I fully agree that YHVH (the Father therein) alone saves… period.
Again, the death element I understand to be procedural, to placate Geburah? How or why I do not know (yet).
“As far as ratification of the “New Covenant,”” – If you agree that Covenants are ratified by blood (animal sacrifice, cutting of handpalms, etc. – indicating the necessity for bloodshed when broken), then Luk.22:20; Gal.3:15; Heb.10:29; Rev.12:11, may support this. There is another reference I fail to find. But I have to agree, it is mostly implied (in the white fire of Torah).
It’s the Red Heifer response, the one that you sent in the email, that i found the most enlightening. It made perfect sense to me and totally obliterated, for me, any way, the whole ‘died for our sins’ discussion.
I’m not cerebral to the point that it would obliterate any place for faith to step in and accept something as ‘an’ answer and i do not hold that everyone, or anyone, needs to accept or believe as i do.
One would need to delineate what Torah says about child sacrifice and human sacrifice of which there are many instances. Being sacrificed against one’s will or sacrificing the innocent needs considering. Was the Son of God a child when “sacrificed?” Was it forced upon him or was it a willing action on his part? If Yeshua willingly sacrificed himself for others (us) how could an apparent sinless (innocent) person’s death be effected to others (us)? And if is truly is for our benefit, effectively, why do we even have to acknowledge it, isn’t it still effective regardless of any assent? What, then, is the difference in the evangelical answer and the Hebraic one, the former without Torah, the latter with it?
It was an execution: For blasphemy (according to the High Priest and Elders – upon a false accusation); For adultery (of Israel); For breaking Covenant (as substitute / kinsman redeemer for His bride / family); etc. But His death then provided the sacrifice for the New Covenant; fulfill the requirement to be able to remarry; set the stage to conquer death and re-establish the possibility of eternal life; explain the Red Heifer mystery; etc.
YHWH does not accept human sacrifice… it is a grevious sin.
We also need to resolve and apply Romans 12:1,2. Human sacrifice of our very lives has a valid and substantial meaning and manner to reflect with our own lives. It would necessitate having something to do with following, willingly, the path of right or correct living which would be explained with Torah. Finding our way by following Torah is life as opposed to being “lost” in unrighteous ways (anti-torah), that is, death. I have a difficult time swallowing “once saved, always saved” when I can visibly watch people reject, as a continual and willful way of life, torah in their daily lives. It is the ways of death, yet it is portrayed as life?
If one’s sins are atoned for how can one then continue in sin and label it life?
A fearful endeavor in my mind if the stakes are understood at all.
Let us dissect the human:
The Body… a temple – cannot sacrifice … would be sin.
The Instinctive / Animal mind … seat of sin – sacrifice immediately
The Mind / Will … your own – sacrifice !!!
The Mind of YHWH (Torah) … follow.
The Spirit … YHWH’s – treasure.
I am fortunately not saved !?!? … last time I checked, I was still alive.
By Chesed, when I pass over, I will be clean / righteous and set apart, enabling my mind to enter paradise and not being held in sheol for judgement. My spirit would have returned to YHWH.
This is a bit too cryptic for me to follow. Especially the dissection of the human. Where does the division of human in to Body, Mind and Spirit come from? Paul? But Paul wasn’t a Platonist. Are we not responding to the impossibility of translating nephesh (and its related synonyms) into Greek categories where no Greek equivalent actually exists?
Adapted from Judaism. Modified by clinical experience. I consiously try to remove all Greek thinking from my mind but it tends to steal in covertly.
Body is the physical material entity.
[Soul / nephesh refers to a combination of body and spirit. But probably better seen as life, otherwise how does one explain the reference to YHWH’s nephesh]
Instinct / animal / primitive / survival mind is in your midbrain / amygdala and deals with survival responses, including breathing, heartbeat, but also fear (except “fear of YHWH”), anger, lust, greed and other negative emotions. This disappear upon death as it’s function is then superflous.
The cognitive mind is your seat of will / character / thoughts which you need to align with the mind of YHWH (comprising the elements of wisdom / knowledge / understanding).
Only your mind and spirit remains after death. The spirit is supposed to go back to YHWH, but I think this is an oversimplification because it seems unlikely that shadim, who are spirits, will be able to enter the presence of YHWH.
The mind exists and functions (again clinical experience) somewhere but may be “outside time”, meaning that a day is 1000 years and vice versa. Judaism teaches Pardes for the righteous and Sheol for the wicked.
Hope this is better.
Just a quick comment here. Husserl did a philosophical piece, The Phenomonology of Internal Time Consciousness. You might find it interesting.
Thanks. Will have a look. However I am a bad reader of philosophy… Still not done with G T and the L of O.
but does the spirit think w/out the mind? mind = soul, correct? Soul = character, and remains w/the spirit. Otherwise, the spirit is a non thinking entity.
In Greek, mind (nous) is NOT soul (psyche), neither is it body (soma). In Hebrew it is a lot less distinct. Heart (lev) and “person” (nephesh) are often synonyms along with other word like neshamah. And basar (flesh) is never used for “person” like it might be in Greek. The linguist topography is not equivalent.
#overmyhead
The terminology is very confusing. That is why I stick with: Body / Instinct (animal) / Mind (cultural) / Spirit. Most people understand these.
I try to interview everyone I can that have “died”. There are 2 distinct experiences: One with “moving down a tunnel” and one ” floating above your body”. The second one is the “real” one to me; the first is probably neuro-chemical induced.
These people will all relate an experience of floating near the ceiling above their bodies, thinking typical thoughts congruent with their personality, whilst looking at their body. They will often have a feeling of “peace”. If directly questioned, they agree that it is an absence of the “fear of dying”. Their instinct has been terminated as it is no longer needed to protect them from dying.
But the cherry on top, which I only grasped about 5 years ago, is that they experience observing themselves (as they call it… I call it their mind) from another place in the room. But I had to ask carefully and deliberately about this as everyone seems to miss it, until it has been pointed out. This “entity” (which I think is their spirit) doing the observing, is more objective.
Fascinating stuff!
I’ve done both, the ‘tunnel’ when i was 15. I floating down a dark tunnel chasing a red balloon, at the end of the tunnel was a grassy garden like area, i could see sky and clouds, just beyond the balloon, just as i was about to grab the string, an entity stepped between me and the balloon, sending me back: “it’s not your time, you have to go back”.
I hesitated, it repeated “you have to go back”.
I did, i was laying on the floor in a medical facility w/a nurse yelling “we got a pulse”.
The second time was also in a medical facility, i was being prepped for a surgery that last ten hours. I was hovering over my body, but i wasn’t focused on my body, i was focused on an entity standing off and to the right of my body (from my perspective). I was looking down on him, he was looking at me, nodding, as tho to let me know it would be ok.
I believe the entity to be Messiah. I could see him, his being, and the outline of his face, but not his face in detail.
I lived.
Brilliant
Sorry, forgot to add…
Yes, I think the spirit does. And does so independently from the mind. Ever felt someone / thing in your mind is telling you not to?
Maybe the Yetser Ra is your Instinct and Yerser Tov is your spirit with the Mind deciding between the two.
I’m a hard sell on the ‘nephesh’ concept that the spirit and body are one. #justsaying.
#myexperiencebeatanytheory
Your “privilege” proved to you the reality of the afterlife. An Orthodox Jewish definition of ‘faith’ is the ‘confirmation of fact’. You can never be stripped of your Emunah (trust) [I cannot stand the word faith… it Greeks me out].
I like that, and i think i agree w/you on the trust over faith. 😉
Per definition, the nephesh is but a term for the combination of body (matter) and Yah’s spirit, which results in life.
That is why I prefer to organise it into something that I can understand.
This is what i remember, and i think it is sublime.
But what about Luke 19:10. The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost.
“lost”? What does that mean? Does it mean “lost in sin, going to hell, not saved” or does it mean “without direction regarding God’s instructions for living”?
It doesn’t say ‘die for the lost’, right?
I looked at Luke 19:10 and noticed that one translation was to the effect that Yeshua came to save people. Another translation said read like it was “something” he came to save instead of “someone”. I looked at 27 different translations and they were pretty evenly divided. Twelve implied it was “someone” and 15 that it was “something”. A general observation was that the older or more conservative translations were in the “something” column and the newer, more modern translations were the ones who implied “someone”.
It seems to me that modern believers have trouble seeing what Yeshua did in any other terms but “personal salvation” terms. In other words most of what I hear taught/preached now is individualistic in nature, about our personal relationship with God. I got to wondering if Yeshua might have meant something other that saving the lost? I know he came for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”. But what if it was “something” he was referring to? And if so what could he have been referring to? The kingdom? Maybe he was talking about restoring the kingdom to Israel.? Along the same line could he have been talking about the Davidic dynasty that was lost? The kingship? Maybe the relationship with YHVH that was lost when Adam made a wrong choice and lost that closeness with the Father? Could it have been that Torah observance was lost? Or at least the proper relationship to Torah? The prophets of old were constantly calling Israel back to the Torah to restore the proper relationship with YHVH. Could Yeshua have been doing the same? We have learned from Skip and others that Yeshua’s teaching properly understood was Torah instruction empowered by the Spirit of God. And since he was given the Spirit without measure he was the perfect example of Torah obedience. The Torah made flesh.
I’m just guessing and some of the rest of you may have some other ideas on this. I don’t know Greek so some of you scholars may have some other ideas about this. I just wondered if there was a reason that the older translations seemed be saying he came to save “something” that was lost and the newer ones seemed to saying he came to save “someone” who was lost? Other ideas?
The Greatest Thing in the World
(The best things in life, aren’t things!)
EVERY one has asked himself the great question of antiquity as of the modern world: What is the summum bonum—the supreme good? You have life before you. Once only you can live it. What is the noblest object of desire, the supreme gift to covet?
We have been accustomed to be told that the greatest thing in the religious world is Faith. That great word has been the key-note for centuries of the popular religion; and we have easily learned to look upon it as the greatest thing in the world. Well, we are wrong. If we have been told that, we may miss the mark. I have taken you, in the chapter which I have just read, to Christianity at its source; and there we have seen, “The greatest of these is love.” It is not an oversight. Paul was speaking of faith just a moment before. He says, “If I have all faith, so that I can remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.” So far from forgetting, he deliberately contrasts them, “Now abideth Faith, Hope, Love,” and without a moment’s hesitation, the decision falls, “The greatest of these is Love.”
And it is not prejudice. A man is apt to recommend to others his own strong point. Love was not Paul’s strong point. The observing student can detect a beautiful tenderness growing and ripening all through his character as Paul gets old; but the hand that wrote, “The greatest of these is love,” when we meet it first, is stained with blood.
Nor is this letter to the Corinthians peculiar in singling out love as the summum bonum. The masterpieces of Christianity are agreed about it. Peter says, “Above all things have fervent love among yourselves.” Above all things. And John goes farther, “God is love.” And you remember the profound remark which Paul makes elsewhere, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” Did you ever think what he meant by that? In those days men were working their passage to Heaven by keeping the Ten Commandments, and the hundred and ten other commandments which they had manufactured out of them. Christ said, I will show you a more simple way. If you do one thing, you will do these hundred and ten things, without ever thinking about them. If you love, you will unconsciously fulfil the whole law. And you can readily see for yourselves how that must be so. Take any of the commandments. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” If a man love God, you will not require to tell him that. Love is the fulfilling of that law. “Take not His name in vain.” Would he ever dream of taking His name in vain if he loved Him? “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Would he not be too glad to have one day in seven to dedicate more exclusively to the object of his affection? Love would fulfil all these laws regarding God. And so, if he loved Man, you would never think of telling him to honour his father and mother. He could not do anything else. It would be preposterous to tell him not to kill. You could only insult him if you suggested that he should not steal -.how could he steal from those he loved? It would be superfluous to beg him not to bear false witness against his neighbour. If he loved him it would be the last thing he would do. And you would never dream of urging him not to covet what his neighbours had. He would rather they possessed it than himself. In this way “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” It is the rule for fulfilling all rules, the new commandment for keeping all the old commandments, — Christ’s one secret of the Christian life.
~ A new commandment I give to you, that you should love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another ~ (John 13.34)
Author: Henry Drummond
How blessed it would be to live in a culture where the expectations for my behavior were in line with the commandments of God, where it was the cultural norm to keep Sabbath, the feasts, to eat clean, etc. It just takes a visit to Israel to know how much easier this all could be! As long as expectations of the culture for what is loving perfectly matches the expectations of God for what constitutes love (obeying His commandments), a person can use commonsense to figure out what is loving. But we do not live in a culture like that – not in a culture of our nation or in the culture of Christianity – and thus, we need the Word of God to take us back to what those commandments specifically are – so that our loving is actual loving of God and not just self-defined by how we were raised.
While I think your comments are good Skip, if we are honest without ourselves, it seems even the Torah observant approach the Torah cafeteria style. For example, would you or any Torah observant person you know support execution of the following passages for your own daughters?
But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 22 “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel. 23“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. 25“But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26“But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27“When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.
Remember the CONTEXT of this instruction. Israel is about to enter the land. Purity and upright moral character are critical for these people who are to represent God on earth. Sexual morality is primary as the analogy between God and Israel. Let’s then suppose that these instructions are delivered to the community. What is the effect? Serious warning and compliance. Is there any record of this every being carried out? You could have picked a few more stringent commandments, like the one in Proverbs about stoning a rebellious son. But in each case, as far as I can remember, there is no record of any execution of these commandments. Perhaps they act more like stern warnings than justification to perform.
The other issue is application in our time and circumstances. We don’t live in the land in the 13th century BCE. But we do expect moral purity of those who claim to follow YHVH. If we actually observed this commandment as applicable, would that make a difference today? Even if there were no enforcement. Remember, it is instruction ONLY for those who follow YHVH. This is not legislated morality for the outside population.
Remember, it is instruction ONLY for those who follow YHVH. This is not legislated morality for the outside population.
While I understand your stance quite well, this statement begs the question, “what about Sodom and Gomorrah?”
This incident was long before the “coding” of law as given to Israel, and yet they were held responsible for a list of grievous sins. One doesn’t just have to “suppose” that part of our responsibility in this gift of life given too us by YHWH is to warn and decry those issues in our society that will (and do) bring judgment (justice) on the societies we live in. I understand that the biggest question is “how” we do that, but that we’re called too it is, without doubt, not debatable.
Or…. I could just say, “let me know how that works out for ya!” (lack of compassion) 🙁
YHWH bless you and keep you……
And then, Robert, there is always Ezekiel 16:9, Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (KJ, yet another of my weaknesses)
Says nothing of the long focused on sexual sins, but focused on their treatment of the lessors, or as you have succinctly stated, lack of compassion.
Evidently YHVH has little tolerance for that.
Yes, and He still has little tolerance for what is supposed to be a “natural” human reaction to the needs of others.
Yeah, and doesn’t that scare you in light of our present society, just a little? It would seem that even in the “good” things our institutions engage in, the end result is not freedom, but rather even more dependency on those same institutions. I’m NOT saying that it’s an “on purpose”, all the time, only that the net result is the same. We seem to be enslaving people not freeing them. That won’t go to well in the future.
YHWH bless you and keep you……..
What was the “sin” of Sodom? Take a look at what the prophets say about it? Then ask if it was really about sexual morality?
I wouldn’t suggest that the “sin” of Sodom is in anyway limited to sexual immorality, as you stated, the prophets explain the issues quite well. And ( 🙂 ) while I hold an opinion on the sexual immorality that was displayed in that particular passage of Genesis, my original point was that not all the commands as given in the “law” are only applicable to those who are under covenant with YHWH. (perhaps because in some sense, we all are. Whether we like it or not) Beins’ that’s the case, we have a direct concern with the lifestyle choices our societies deem “acceptable”. If I follow the connection between the account of Sodom and what Paul declares in Romans concerning illicit sexual conduct, it proves out that Sodom was already under judgment for their “other” sins. Laurita is probably correct, the attack on what was obviously a supernatural event was the proverbial straw on the pile.
The other question that surfaces in regards to this is, obviously, where does that leave us and our present society? Interesting times we live in!
YHWH bless you and keep you……..
Do you really believe that these instructions represent our Creator’s highest good?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve yet to meet a Torah observant person who supports muslims stoning fornicators and adulterers. Few people think it’s a good thing for a mob of religious men to exact “God’s justice” upon their children on their front porch.
If we are honest without ourselves, it too easy to endorse Deut 22:13-28 as Godly so long as we’re exempted by another time and place. Yet most readily practice less culturally offensive commandments also assigned to “the Land”. Let’s be completely honest without ourselves and others – anyone see the inconsistency?
I see that Skip. However, there are many other commandments also assigned to the context of being “in the Land” which the Torah observant readily teach and do. Double standard?
Keith,
I find your reference to rape to be shortsighted.
I speak from the vantage point of being a woman and having not only personally experienced things i do not discuss, but also from walking with other women as the unraveled experiences THEY would rather not discuss;
The 16 year old who took and accepted a purity ring at 12 in her grandfather’s church who was raped at 14, by her best friend’s boyfriend, subsequently discovered she was pregnant and, terrified, told no one but said best friend’s mother who took her over the state line to have a late term abortion, which she actually observed through a drugged haze that the medical personnel assumed was complete.
It was not and she remembered.
Her family and her friends were alternately horrified and skeptical of her side of the story, any part of it, leaving her bereft, over having lost a child she only marginally grasped she was carrying, to the events leading up to that, where she was in a state of trauma and shock and trying to PROTECT those involved in her youthful version of honoring relationships, and out of fear the threats that the young man made against her and her family if she told anyone.
The mess, save YHVH’s presence, was insurmountable.
And, again, I speak for the young woman who joined the military to serve her country, excited and delighted to have found a supposed profession where she could use her talents in an arena of continual service. Less then six months later another male service member made his way into her room and brutally raped her, for hours, leaving her, again, a bloody mess and pregnant.
She didn’t discover she was pregnant for years. But the medical personal that she went to, in pain a fear, a few weeks later, did and they, also, didn’t believe she was ‘raped’, because, seriously, why didn’t she speak up earlier (do some research on the stages of shock/trauma, self explanatory).
Their response was to do a complete hysterectomy on her, removing all evidence of the rape (the child) and never telling her, even white washing the medical records they gave her so that it was not until she came out of her drug induced haze (coping mechanism) some 20 years later and started pressing for justice someone inadvertently sent her the untampered records. This put her in yet another traumatic tailspin of trying to deal with events she had no control over.
Oh. and for the record, she was a very attractive young lady, the guy who got into her room was given a master key by a friend of his who was on ‘guard duty’, when she went to that person to report the incident, he invited her to go ‘another round’. This response totally shut her down, she didn’t speak of it again until pain sent her to sick bay.
You have no idea how closely society and judicial system actually adheres to the Scripture you quoted. You are using it as a battering ram to make a point you are (obviously) not qualified to make.
I am qualified to make the statement that society, religious and non-religious (the 14 year old grew up in the church, the 20 year old did not) TOTALLY adhere to your Scripture, both in spirit and practical application.
Your post hit a nerve. I’ve walked to close to the topic to allow it to go unresponded to.
PS: i met the ’16 year old’ when she was 16, the initial rape took place at 14, the abortion took place shortly after her 15th birthday, i met her almost a year later. For clarification.
For me the most important issue to deal with is such cases, and usually ignored, even by spiritual councillors, is the following: If the girl was a virgin when this happened, she will have an inexplicable spiritual bond with this man until he (or she) dies. And that, I believe, is an important reason YHWH instructed even before Sinai… either death or marriage.
Under the New Covenant we do not stone but shun. However, in cases of forced intercourse, I support swift execution of the perpetrator to release the victim’s spirit.
Pieter; While i do understand and agree w/the soul tie concept i do not agree that it has to be ‘forever’, i believe in YHVH’s mercy in his response to the prayer that those be broken. I personally have prayed that prayer, and walked in freedom, and have prayed w/others who have experienced like freedom.
Keith, No harm, no foul, thank you for your compassionate and non-defensive response.
It must be breakable, I agree. But I want to caution.
I do not really know much about the concept of soul-ties but having intercourse witha virgin invokes a “blood” covenant. This is one of the reasons (a blood covenant between Abraham and Yah) Yeshua had to die … if there was another simple / obvious way, YHWH’s chesed would have provided it and let the cup pass.
I seldom do psychotherapy nowadays but can still remember my frustration with some situations that was unmanagable on a psychological (soul) level.
Yakob (James) reminded the believers: “For the service that is pure and Set-Apart before Eloah the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their afflictions distress (opression)”.
I do not think this refers to material support. What I rather see is the necessity for spiritual covering for the fatherless and husbandless. What I mean and what I see is that in the material situation, the most important intervention is to (re) establish and support the spiritual bond between the woman / girl and her father. If she has no father, her kinsman redeemer. If not either, the elders of the worship-group.
This is not happening in practice and my explanation for the delicateness and incompletion of the restored state.
It’s really too deep and personal to go over here, on a VERY public forum, but you have points i agree on and points that i hesitate to agree on.
YHVH has to be sufficient or each man and woman. period. Because otherwise those that break away and choose him alone, say those w/out the benefit of computers or any way to connect w/others, would have no hope.
I’m not into any kind of nunnery, seriously, but i would choose such a Torah oriented lifestyle over being married to anyone, again, who believed that in his ‘covering’ me i had to walk his walk and think his talk.
I won’t do it.
Prov.30:1 The words of Agur the son of Yakeh: the burden. …
2 Surely I am brutish, unlike a man, and have not the understanding of a man:
3 And I have not learned wisdom, that I should have the knowledge of HaKadesh. …
18 There are three things which are too wonderful for me, yes four, which I know not: … THE WAY OF A MAN WITH A YOUNG WOMAN.
No more for now!
I’m sorry to hear of such tragedy and of course, none of us know for certain how our words might be received by others, so I apologize for any harm caused by my question. That was certainly not my intent.
I would think, Robert, that we have at least one clue about S&D, and that is the amount of ‘righteous’ people to be found in the place, presumably as light and salt, as per the conversation between Abraham and the Visitors. Also seems the limit got reached when they attacked the heavenly messengers..
I would assume that it was supposed to be “S&G”, but I think S&D is probably just as applicable! 🙂
LOL. You’re right, I can’t use initials. But Robert, while we are on a roll, don’t you think we still have a few more in the alphabet soup? We shouldn’t leave out S&M either…
It’s all about the patterns, huh?
Skip, I do like reading your and the others post. Most of the time I gain new and clear insights, on others I must mull them over for several days. But on this one I do have a question as to why you make the statement: First, we should recognize that the claim “Jesus came into the world to save sinners” is evangelical, not biblical. (?)
In 1Timothy 1:15 Paul writes to Timothy: Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners–of whom I am the worst.
An excellent point, but one that requires some penetrating inquiry. First, some echoes from the Tanakh. Matthew 1:21 contains a similar statement, perhaps paralleling Psalm 130:8. France concludes that the Matthew statement must “in the first place denote Israel.” This collective idea is common to rabbinic thought in the first century and consistent with the message of the Tanakh. Furthermore, it asks us to consider the passages that clearly claim YHVH is the only savior. So we will have to reconcile these apparently conflicting ideas. Secondly, the text of 1 Timothy 1:15 presents some difficulties. The word hamartolos (translated “sinners”) is actually an adjective, not a noun, although it is accusative. What are we to make of this in translation? Is it as usually translated “into the world to save sinners” treating the accusative adjective as the direct object of the verb sozo, or is it “into the sinful world” treating it as a descriptive of the noun kosmos? The Greek text places hamartolos before the verb, so in my view, the latter translation seems preferable, i.e., “into the sinful world.” Of course, that makes the rest of the sentence concerning Paul more difficult.
But finally, I would point to Yeshua’s own words in John 18. He clearly states that he came into this world to establish the kingdom. His statement is strikingly absent of any indication about salvation, especially “personal” salvation. So now we have to reconcile Paul’s claim with the actual words of Yeshua.
More work to be done.
Good morning Skip, just a quick question. Isn’t “personal” salvation wrapped up in the establishment of the kingdom? In other words, in my accepting and abiding in His kingdom, I can be (or am) “saved”.
Am I off base here or is this a proper equation?
I am not sure we can truly find the idea of “personal” salvation in Scripture. I could be wrong, but it seems to me at this point that salvation is a corporate event, brought about by YHVH at the end of the age. It is about Israel, not about the individuals. However, as we participate in Israel (not the current geopolitical state), we are swept up into YHVH’s salvation, rescue from death and sin. This is the promise of the Kingdom. Citizens of the Kingdom enjoy its benefits, but they must be citizens of the Kingdom, not pretender without evidence of transformation. Unfortunately, “personal” salvation is too often a cognitive assent without adoption of the Kingdom expectations. A form of religion without the power. I am quite sure YHVH deals with individuals, but it looks like that is always within the context of the community.
Back to you.
Thank you for taking the time to respond and your response as well.
That’s about where I’m at with my understanding as well, It always surprises me (although it shouldn’t) at how deep the rabbit hole goes. Even though the translations often need to be corrected, it’s more often the paradigm that it’s read in that turns out to be the larger issue. Maybe it surprises me because it reveals a hidden splinter of “modern dispensationalism” stuck in my soul.
I was just reading Matthew, where Yeshua was explaining to the disciples why he spoke in parables. We are often taught that the reason is that he was hiding (didn’t want them to know) the kingdom from them, while in truth, he was revealing it to them in a way that circumvented what they were taught as truth by those who claimed authority. It works well if you want to create a division between “us and them” (Jews and Christians) but it certainly hinders the truth if you’re seeking God’s kingdom.
I’m not saying that this is what Yeshua was addressing, only that modern commentators explain it as such. 🙂