I'm trying to find something for you here. What I wrote above didn't come out like I was thinking. Like things being different for that time frame. Let's say they told the women of that time to cover their heads because the prostitutes are the ones who had their's uncovered. We couldn't actually take that literally for today because that's not the way we are today, but we could take the meaning of that and apply it to today as a woman should not dress whoreish, which in this day and time might be with her breasts hanging all out. That's why all those laws are like they are. It's the same meaning, but not the EXACT thing. But for some things that never change, then that would be EXACTLY for today. Don't commit adultery would be the same for today.
Here is something I found. I didn't know this myself, or what it was called, but I had some concept of it. I will give you the whole site to look at too, but here is an excerpt.
Objection: We are not under levitical law.
This argument states that because we are free to ignore other laws that are listed (such as wearing blended material or eating pork) with those regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament that we should be free to ignore these as well.
Unlike the other examples cited, the New Testament nowhere abrogates the entire book of Leviticus, nor the laws against homosexuality. The prohibition against homosexuality is not part of the ceremonial cleansing code - it is part of the sexual purity laws. Ceremonial examples are not part of God's universal moral law (much of which is repeated in Israel's law). While we are not under the ceremonial requirements of Israel, all people are under His moral law (for more on this issue see Are We Under the Old Testament Law?). There is a distinction between separation laws (those that kept Israel set apart from the nations - such as diet and clothing) and moral laws that are universal and binding on all people. Because God Himself repealed dietary laws (Acts 10) and erased the salvific distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28-29), we are free from these ordinances. This has nothing to do with freedom from universal moral commands. That God's moral laws are universal in scope is obvious from the example of God's wrath against immorality in Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:8). These people were not Israelites and did not have God's written law yet God held them accountable for breaking the moral law that all people instinctively know (Rom. 2). Just in case this last point were not obvious from history, God pointed it out in the very passage under question! (Lev. 18:27). Jesus Himself quoted Leviticus as containing one of the most important of all commands (Mt. 19:19 quoting Lev. 19:18). Thus, although parts of levitical law do not apply to people today, the moral law contained in it certainly does. If this argument hold any water then the homosexual should also allow bestiality and incest, which are also outlawed in this same section and not repeated in the New Testament.
Objection: Levitical laws applied only to religiously unacceptable rites.
This revisionist reading of Leviticus claims that only in cases where homosexual behavior is linked to idolatrous practices is it forbidden.
It is true that the Hebrew term qadesh refers to something set aside as holy (e.g. 1 and 2 Kings), it is not even used in the levitical passages under question, yet Moses clearly knew this term (Dt. 23:17). None of these passages specify any kind of "addition of idolatry" to these practices to make them sinful. The Hebrew word for "abomination" (toevah), while usually associated with idolatry, appears in Prov. 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony. If this argument holds water then it also applies to things like bestiality and incest. These would have to be acceptable so long as they were not linked to idolatrous practices. Most of the laws concerning the sacrifice of children actually do have to do with idolatry - would this same argument apply?
Interesting. I'd love to see more of that. That does make more sense. So many permutations and connatations, though. I'm guessing the best judge of that would be a Jewish scholar, as far as what they actually meant, for both ancient and modern times.
And then someone well-versed in both Judaic AND Christian studies for how the New Testament ties into it. Fascinating.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-04-25 04:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-25 05:17 am (UTC)Objection: We are not under levitical law.
This argument states that because we are free to ignore other laws that are listed (such as wearing blended material or eating pork) with those regarding homosexuality in the Old Testament that we should be free to ignore these as well.
Unlike the other examples cited, the New Testament nowhere abrogates the entire book of Leviticus, nor the laws against homosexuality.
The prohibition against homosexuality is not part of the ceremonial cleansing code - it is part of the sexual purity laws. Ceremonial examples are not part of God's universal moral law (much of which is repeated in Israel's law). While we are not under the ceremonial requirements of Israel, all people are under His moral law (for more on this issue see Are We Under the Old Testament Law?).
There is a distinction between separation laws (those that kept Israel set apart from the nations - such as diet and clothing) and moral laws that are universal and binding on all people. Because God Himself repealed dietary laws (Acts 10) and erased the salvific distinction between Jew and Gentile (Gal. 3:28-29), we are free from these ordinances. This has nothing to do with freedom from universal moral commands.
That God's moral laws are universal in scope is obvious from the example of God's wrath against immorality in Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Peter 2:8). These people were not Israelites and did not have God's written law yet God held them accountable for breaking the moral law that all people instinctively know (Rom. 2). Just in case this last point were not obvious from history, God pointed it out in the very passage under question! (Lev. 18:27).
Jesus Himself quoted Leviticus as containing one of the most important of all commands (Mt. 19:19 quoting Lev. 19:18). Thus, although parts of levitical law do not apply to people today, the moral law contained in it certainly does.
If this argument hold any water then the homosexual should also allow bestiality and incest, which are also outlawed in this same section and not repeated in the New Testament.
http://www.souldevice.org/ethics_homosexuality.html
no subject
Date: 2006-04-25 05:20 am (UTC)This revisionist reading of Leviticus claims that only in cases where homosexual behavior is linked to idolatrous practices is it forbidden.
It is true that the Hebrew term qadesh refers to something set aside as holy (e.g. 1 and 2 Kings), it is not even used in the levitical passages under question, yet Moses clearly knew this term (Dt. 23:17).
None of these passages specify any kind of "addition of idolatry" to these practices to make them sinful.
The Hebrew word for "abomination" (toevah), while usually associated with idolatry, appears in Prov. 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony.
If this argument holds water then it also applies to things like bestiality and incest. These would have to be acceptable so long as they were not linked to idolatrous practices.
Most of the laws concerning the sacrifice of children actually do have to do with idolatry - would this same argument apply?
no subject
Date: 2006-04-26 05:11 am (UTC)And then someone well-versed in both Judaic AND Christian studies for how the New Testament ties into it. Fascinating.