Stepping In It – Rewind
Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence. Leviticus 18:22 JPS
Abhorrence – When it comes to the Hebrew word to’evah (abomination, abhorrence), most discussions move immediately to this verse. Why? Because homosexuality is such a hot political/religious topic. The incendiary comments on both sides offer plenty of garbage and confusion. But little progress can be made without first understanding the framework and intention of the biblical concept of to’evot (plural). After you have digested what we will discover, you might want to look at Jay Michaelson’s article claiming a mistranslation of the term (he misses the point of to’evot because he stands outside the culture).
To’evot are prohibitions within the cultural framework of Israel. What is an abomination for those in the household of Israel is what God calls an abomination, period. It doesn’t matter what the other nations do or what other arguments suggest. If you are part of Israel, the things God calls abominations are prohibited to you. Claims that other nations would not call some of these practices abhorrent are correct. Other nations have different prohibitions. But that is beside the point. As followers of YHWH, we are not held accountable to the standards of other nations. We are held accountable to the standards God sets for His nation. In fact, the biblical record specifically demands that the followers of YHWH do not live as the other nations live in all kinds of areas, not just sexual practices. With all of the contemporary fuss over homosexuality, we may overlook that fact that eating pork and forsaking the Torah are also considered to’evot. The Tanakh lists several other practices, some considered perfectly acceptable in contemporary society, as abominations. This should help us realize that we are not dealing with universalized human mores. We are dealing with what God expects of His people. And God expects that His people will not eat certain things, will not worship in certain ways, will not make certain vows and will not engage in certain sexual practices even if the rest of the world does so. In other words, to’evot are marks of distinctive difference; the difference in behavior that accompanies being a citizen of the Kingdom.
Let’s set aside the claim that some people are born with homosexual proclivities. Frankly, it doesn’t matter. The biblical issue with homosexuality is not about DNA, cultural mores or legality. It is about identification with the tribe of Abraham. Just as the tribe of Abraham is distinguished by its dietary restrictions, so it is distinguished by its sexual restrictions. If you want to belong to the tribe, you live by the rules of the tribe. You can live by other rules, but you won’t belong to the tribe. You will belong to the “nations.” You decide. It’s still a choice. It has always been a choice. Of course, living by the mores of the nations ultimately means death, but that has always been the choice too.
Topical Index: to’evah, abomination, prohibition, Torah, homosexuality, Leviticus 18:22
We are called to be a “peculiar people” and a “holy nation”, so says Peter. What is holy? Set apart for God’s use, which also means we are useless for anything else. Um, that would also mean “peculiar”. What we are and do should NOT make sense to the world. If it did, we would be failing our calling in the Old Testament, as well as the New. This is the opposite of ‘fitting in’ and ‘getting along’. We are supposed to stick out like a sore thumb! In fact, when the world sees us, their thumbs are supposed to ache. We are called to be salt and light, but light is what causes roaches to run and hide and reveals dirt; and salt, while it may preserve and correct bad taste, also hurts when it touches the raw wounds of the world’s fracture. Our presence in the world is supposed to make the conditions of the world intolerable. When we walk into a room, something is supposed to have to give. Devils are supposed to cry out and people are supposed to pick up stones to throw, and the sick and cast off refuse of the world are supposed to feel hope.
Truth is the one thing the entire world is united against. Truth is the one thing that can cause the world to drop all its differences and rally against. If we are not causing this kind of tumult; so much tumult, in fact, that the Temple itself complains to the world, like it did with the Apostles in Iconium and elsewhere, we are failing. We should be upsetting all compromises that our formal churches (and synagogues) have made with the world. Human instinct is to want others to look the other way when we practice our faith, and so we negotiate compromises as a way to live ‘peacefully’ with the world. This should be the worst thing of all to any true believer, and we should be making our protests loud and unmistakeable to both the church and the world. (Oh, dear. It sounds like I am trying to start something!) Pork eating? That’s just a conversation opener.
There are six things that the LORD hates,
seven that are an abomination [to’evah] to Him:
haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers.
I used to wonder why these were mentioned in Proverbs as things that were “to’evot,” and yet, the to’evah of homosexuality isn’t in the list. But when we step back, we find that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but it was the failure to follow the two greatest commands (as Yeshua stated) — Love YHVH with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. We read in Ezekiel 16:49, Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. (JPS Tanakh). This tells us what the root cause of Sodom’s sin was; therefore, homosexuality is better described as a symptom of the root cause. When we look around at today’s society, we see the same. If we would deal with the root issue (obeying Torah), then we wouldn’t be dealing with the symptoms. The problem is, we are treating the symptoms and not the sickness.
Interesting Rick, “…homosexuality is better described as a symptom of the root cause.” Yes, I would agree. And what is this root cause? Could it be rebellion against Yahweh since it is clear from the beginning that Yahweh created male and female? That male and female belong to each is evident in distinctive way Yahweh created ‘male to fit female’ sexually (as He does even with the lower creatures). It seems to me that while in rebellion, the rebel has no interest in what Yahweh has to say (Torah). Ezekiel’s lack of comment on homosexuality does not mean it is not a consideration. In fact, what is it but ‘pride’ (the first iniquity mentioned by Ezekiel) that allows one to consider, contemplate, justify and live out a lifestyle which defies basic common sense? Even Paul says so in Romans 1. Perhaps for Yahweh, homosexuality is merely a fruit of pride, pride which leads to acts of to’evah. Of course the seven acts of to’evah mentioned in Proverbs also includes homosexuality. Isn’t that behavior the action of a heart that devises wicked plans?
Thank you Skip and all you bloggers! You keep us thinking and reassessing…
Arnella,
I like your assessment. But I still go back to the understanding that homosexuality is only a symptom. There are those (and I used to be one of them) who always point to Sodom’s sin as homosexuality. Then we look around at all the homosexuality taking place today and say, “See! Just like Sodom!” Unfortunately, we are still looking at the problem through the wrong lens. It isn’t the homosexuality, it is the lack of Torah obedience! The sin was (and is) that the people were (are) not obeying Torah, especially the aspect of not loving one’s neighbor as ourselves (and yes, I know you can’t truly love your neighbor if you don’t love YHVH). When we are so self-focused (what’s in it for me), then we are not loving our neighbor. When we are not loving our neighbor, then we are not loving YHVH. Maybe I can sum it up with an old saying, “Idle hands are the devil’s workshop” which oddly enough is the Living Bible translation for Proverbs 16:27. There’s a lot of good stuff in the Proverbs! (grin)
Excellent observation Rick, we seem to be busy attempting to eliminate lawlessness by passing laws against these things instead of upholding what’s already lawful. I wonder what would happen if we were as busy speaking of things that enhance and build life as we seem to be complaining about the other things. If the given order is a thin skin overlaying the abyss, our adding to the chaos by not speaking and acting according to that order seems to be only helping pull the scab off. 🙂 Sorry that’s so graphic.
YHWH bless you and keep you…..
The root cause of Sodom’s iniquity is absolute immorality, or to put it in another way, immorality at its apex.
Rick, so appreciate “we are treating the symptoms and not the sickness”, as with pharmaceutical medication; whereas, in alternate medicine/healing, it is the treating of root causes- ABBA’s way, not man-made drugs, but through herbs, in a daily process, not immediate cure. Shalom.
Can’t figure out how to EDIT.
I would like to add in to my response above, that The root cause of Sodom’s iniquity is absolute immorality, or to put it in another way, immorality at its apex as well as “pride, fullness of bread, and careless ease” that you mentioned, Rick.
Now I can add in more.. pride has always been the downfall of mankind.
Shalom, Rick, love your comment.
Interesting commentary on the Torah portion for this week about the word ivri, “the other side”, to which Abram was to cross over. It wasn’t just a river, but a spiritual and moral divide between him an the rest of the world. Interesting that G
YHVH didn’t require him to try to reform his old world.
Leviticus 20:10 says a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife , then both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death. Paul says a husband should not divorce his wife and a wife should remain unmarried if she separates. Then you have Jesus’s words in Mathew and Mark. In Mark, there are no exceptions. No divorce. Wouldn’t you say there are a lot of people living in adultery right now? As many people get divorced and remarry. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding. I certainly don’t want to hurt anyone but it seems to me as you said if you want to be part of the tribe, live by the rules of the tribe!
To clarify my point. If you divorce it seems to me if you remarry, you are committing adultery.
Caley,
That is a good observation rarely dealt with but not without an answer.
According to Deut 24:1-2 divorce is allowed for certain reasons but a written bill of divorce must be physically made and given to the woman in her hand. Only then is she sent away, after which she is allowed to marry another man.
The short answer could stop there with the argument that Matt 5:18, “one iota or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all come to pass” guarantees that Jesus was not changing any laws and so God still allows divorce.
However, that does not explain why Jesus said what He said in Matthew and Mark. That takes some lengthy explaining but as you might guess it involves some poor translation by the King James Version. But in a nutshell, in Deut 24, the two important phrases, “divorce” and “send away”, are NOT interchangeable. To “send away” is a simple verbal command of separation, while a “divorce” is a formal written document by which the marriage relationship is lawfully terminated.
But these two different concepts wrongly become ONE in the King James New Testament causing a tremendous misunderstanding.
Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.
In this verse, the “put away” and “divorced” are actually the same Greek word. They should both be translated “put away”. (The altogether different term “bill of divorcement” is correctly translated in the KJV at Matt 5:31, 19:7 and Mark 10:4.)
The point being is that the woman (and man) are only committing adultery because she does not have a bill of divorcement and is just separated (put away) and thus not (yet) free to remarry.
If anyone is interested I can supply my lengthier explanation.
Thank you so much, Dan, for what you did say, and, yes, I, for one, do want the even lengthier version, as you provide the interpretive, and therefore, authoritative, background that is so sorely needed. You still have my email address?
Thanks again.
I will send it directly to Dan Laurita.
Dan, Laurita, or George, will you please me Dan Kraemer’s explanation on divorce at inthemote@hotmail.com? Thanks.
“send” .
So if a wife has been sexually unfaithful, then the husband can send her away without a writ of divorce. But to send her away for any other reason, he has to provide a writ of divorce. Otherwise she and he are committing adultery if they remarry other people. This is what Jesus is clarifying. ?
Please don’t remove the lesson from the audience and the circumstances. This is an intramural debate about technical issues of exegesis between two schools of rabbinic teaching in the first century Jewish culture. Start there and see what you discover.
I am addressing that issue. I was responding to Dan’s explanation of sending away vs divorce. But no big deal. I see it differently. Didn’t meant to step on any toes. But just to be clear I do understand the rabbinic thought being addressed.
Skip, Yeshua goes way beyond the “techncial issues” into the spiritual issues as He always does. This is about how we treat one another. We don’t have to go back to the 1st Century or to Moses’ time to understand that. I understand as you and others have pointed out the writ of divorce was a means of protection for a woman. But the question is what to do today. How do we live today? How do we apply this word for those of us living today as believers?
Are you actually looking at the Hebrew of that verse? “v’et zachar lo tishkav mish’vey isha” also JPS rabbinical Text?
…ואת-זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה
– and (d.o.) male (is) not to lay down bed(possessive) a woman (toevah it is…)
“as” is never used or implied. There is only one word for “man”, or male used in the sentence.
“With”, again never used.
And the singular for “a woman” is used- “ishah” is also the Hebrew for wife.
These words have not been faithfully translated for you- they have been “interpreted” for you with the Sensibilities of 1000c.e. Translators. They are not faithful to the text, and leave room for too much question to stand on those words, as they have been interpreted, as authoritative.
It is perhaps not for me to tell you “what they mean” – but it is important that we look at the actual words, and then make that judgment for ourselves.
Thanks for added this analysis, but I’m not sure why you thought it was important here. The cited text is from the JPS Torah Commentary on Leviticus. It is not my translation. And the only word I was interested in in this verse is “abomination,” (to’evah). I don’t think there is much debate over that word. Did you intend to suggest that homosexuality in the ancient culture of Israel was not considered to’evah?