What do the Bible texts used to condemn homosexuality actually mean?

[R. G. White]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

Thank you

I do know I have experienced rather vicious backlash a few times for trying to say Lev 18 is not just about sex acts, as in right or wrong ones. but thats because so many are bent on using this chapter as "proof" against LGBTQ+ people, and I dont think thats being fair to the context or to the intention of the writer. I have asked the question a few times now, (not to you) about Lev 18:22 and why it is only 11 words out of the whole chapter.  IMO there are a couple of key things there that need to be understood as well.

Its not a good day for us here and Ill likely be gone for a bit after this post. Ill get back eventually to try to say more.

You are right. No Bible passage can ever be used as proof against any person, as if we could judge anyone's character or standing before God. Leviticus 18 is proof against every sexually deviant practice that it expressly forbids.

I believe you are right in your focus on the sanctity of marriage, but we must not miss the fact that every violation of the principles of the 7th commandment affects marriage, directly or indirectly.

Take your time, and may God bless you.

[Bravus]

Thanks, yes, Gregory has pretty much captured my intention.

I was absolutely not claiming that a scientific approach is the best or the only possible approach. Just explaining that it was the appraoch I was imagining when I started the thread.

It is also the only approach I feel competent to conduct, and to be frank, the only one I'm interested in pursuing.

I don't see how an inquiry in which the conclusion is already assumed before you begin is even worth conducting. Why would you bother putting in the work? May as well pack up and get on with something else.

But others have different approaches, and that is 100% OK. I'm under no illusion that my methods are the only or even the best methods.

[Gregory Matthews]

There is another issue that has caused Bravus to struggle with this thread:

*  Several of you have wanted to approach this discussion from the standpoint of what they believe the Bible says in totality on the subject of homosexuality.  There is clearly a valid place for that approach.  

*  Bravus has preferred to consider each text  by itself, as to what it says.  This is also a valid approach that naturally suggests that each text is a part of the overall picture even if not the whole.

*  A problem occurs when one who is looking at the totality of the 
Biblical statements decided to interpret an individual text within the  context of the whole.  By doing that, one is likely to read into an individual text something that is not there, even if it is apart of the whole.

 

Speaking frankly, part of whet I see in the conversation of this thread is some talking over the head of another person without really understanding where that person is coming from.

 

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

thats why I am hoping Bravus will continue to dialogue here with us. I know for a fact there are quite a few "lurkers" following this topic. People are interested in what he has to say.

Yes indeed Bravus.

[Kevin H]

12 hours ago, R. G. White said:

Those are the lessons of your historical research, and good ones indeed, but Leviticus 18 is not talking about heathen worship or free-for-all orgies. It's talking about specific practices that God forbids, if one is to go by the actual words and sentences included in the chapter. If we are going to ignore those, we could just as well say that Leviticus 18 is about ancient agriculture.

This is what has been taught as the historical context in Bible Classes I've attended for college and even pointed out at an Adventist Theological Society meeting.

[Gregory Matthews]

I agree that it is of value for Bravus to continue to post in this thread.

 

[R. G. White]

9 hours ago, Kevin H said:

This is what has been taught as the historical context in Bible Classes I've attended for college and even pointed out at an Adventist Theological Society meeting.

I don't doubt that it is indeed the historical context, and I much appreciate your sharing it. However, as I pointed out, Leviticus 18 doesn't say anything about worship, nor does it mention the kind of orgies that you describe. Rather, it forbids quite a number of specific practices, evidently because they violate the principle behind the 7th commandment, and thus undermine the sanctity of marriage. I think it was quite possible for a thoroughly degraded society to have engaged in orgies as a part of their worship, and also to have approved of many perverted sexual practices as a general part of their society. God would not have wanted His people to imitate either of those two things.

[R. G. White]

9 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I guess comments in this directions are a bit off the trail for this topic, however, its worth noting here that there is no such thing as "an expert," when it comes to scripture. The reason for this is simple. Everyone can say what their own personal experience and thoughts are regarding any topic in the Bible. There is a reason why the gospel is wonderfully simple, and simply wonderful! Anyone, regardless of education level or theological knowledge, can have the privilege of telling what they "have seen and heard, and handled, of The Word of Life." (1 John 1:1-3). Thats one of the biggest reasons that EVERYONE's opinions and understandings are needed here. IF we really knew what we were doing with this topic; I could see LGBTQ+ people feeling safe enough to post in this topic as well. There is NO REASON within the gospel commission why that should not happen.  People are either going feel the need  to sing the Nirvana song "Jesus Don't Want Me For A Sunbeam,"  or this one: (think hard about the reason WHY)

When was the last time any of us sang this song with all we got, and really meant it? The Church doors are SHUT for so many and they dont need to be!

If I'm off the trail, it's because I don't particularly care for where the rest of you seem to be trying to lead me -- to where we are all going to be making every effort to explain away the Scriptures, so we don't have to call sin by its right name. The worst of sinners were indeed comfortable with Jesus, NOT because He condoned their sin, but because they admired the purity of His character, saw that He loved them, and hoped that He could free them from the sin that bound them. If you are saying that you want the church to be just like Jesus, in this way, then I agree wholeheartedly.

[Bravus]

Just a note that, in reading a text, the context is important. In this case, the first few verses of the chapter are part of the context. Those verses say "In order to distinguish you from other nations', not 'in order to preserve marriage'.

Now, I've been blissfully married to the same person for over 30 years, was a virgin when we married and never cheated. She is a marriage and relationship counsellor, and I am 100% an advocate for marriage who both lives and advocates monogamy and loving sexual expression within marriage.

The fact that this is something I value very highly, however, does not override what the chapter actually and directly *states* is the context for these rules.

[R. G. White]

4 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I think this is part of the problem. First of all, no one is trying to "lead" you. Certainly I am not. And how have I "explained away the scriptures?" You are not even making sense.

I was not primarily referring to you. although you did say that you were couching Leviticus 18 in terms of the sanctity of marriage SO THAT it would not be proof against (multi-lettered) people. I probably should have asked you to explain that. It certainly is proof against some of their ways. I feel like this on-line community is seeking to be a place where everyone has an opinion, and everything is a matter of opinion. It leaves me feeling like a fish out of water -- not as badly as when I attempt to participate on a conservative SDA website, but it leaves me wondering what third option there might be if and when the church splits into liberal and conservative factions.

[Bravus]

'Multi-lettered people' like 'R G White' and 'B/W Photodude', or like

Associate Professor David Geelan FACE SFHEA
BEd(Chem), MEd, PhD, GCertSci(Phys), GCertHE

?

Just funnin' - happy to continue the discussion with a focus on the text, seeking to use the tools we have to take opinions off the table.

[R. G. White]

11 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I tried to pm you about this. It looks like you are not receiving PM messages here?

None arrived.

[R. G. White]

1 minute ago, The Wanderer said:

Since we are talking somewhat about HOW to study this subject, Ill venture a comment on this. In no way am I singling anyone out when I say this, but this quote illustrates exactly what most Biblical scholars would object to insofar as how to study the scripture. This point I quoted does reflect upon poor exegetical approach to scripture. A text "by itself," is exactly what enemies of Adventism have accused us of for years. A single text is largely a pretext, when we look at what people usually do with it. I see this point, in particular, as worth hashing out a bit or we will just continue hitting the brick wall. "The text by itself," to me is a wrong approach; however, if what Bravus is looking for was an in-depth word study, I would be happy to participate in that. I am presuming the verse we are talking about is Lev 18:22? Please set me straight on that if I am off-base. Presuming us all, and characterizing us as having a preset notion that guides all of our Bible study here, is simply not fair, and borders on being very judgmental of us. In fact, I find it offensive that we are all labelled like that, unless of course we just shut up and agree. No Bible verse was ever written to stand alone in this way...its always line upon line, precept upon precept. Thats pretty elementary. When I think Lev 18, I think Genesis to revelation, because thats exactly how & why it was written. I would like to think we can move well-beyond this kind of judging of one another.

I agree. In fact, I cited other OT Scriptures using the word "abomination" in order to help with understanding Leviticus 18. Don't get too excited about the amount of projection going on here. There is nothing hidden that will not come to light.

[Bravus]

FWIW I have been pretty clear and pretty detailed in drawing in the whole chapter of Leviticus 18, and linking it to Leviticus 20. I am definitely not focusing only on verse 22.

Please note also that the ambit of the whole project is to look at all the relevant texts in the Bible. That is the project as outlined.

I am happy to add to the original 5 texts proposed the story of Sodom and the NT references to it as well.

I'm trying to do that in a methodical rather than a haphazard manner. Once we have addressed one text or set of texts as thoroughly as seems good to participants we can move on to another.

There is honestly not an agenda in this approach. I consider that God is a God of order, and that we will learn more by being careful, thoughtful and methodical than by being chaotic.

[Bravus]

It may be that the impasse on Leviticus is intractable and we should just move on, but I hope not. Shall we see whether it's possible to proceed?

Essentially, looking at the same context, we seem to have three different competing 'contexts' for Leviticus 18:22:
 

- it's about the sanctity of marriage

- it's about distinguishing Israel from surrounding nations (and their cultural practices)

- it's about sexual sin 

Is that a fair summary of the discussion? If so, how do we decide between these? What evidence is appropriate to deciding?

[Gregory Matthews]

Sometimes I get frustrated with the lack of communication and my apparent failure to communicate.  The following quote, made by  the  Wanderer, and agreed to  by R.G. White, reflects a total misunderstanding of what I was attempting to communicate and is in fact is simply false.

*  We Adventists have been accused of founding a doctrine based    on limited texts, rather than the entire witness of Scripture.

*  As I have always taught, doctrines must be founded on the entire witness of Scripture on that subject.

*  Most Biblical scholars, today,  teach that a poor exegetical approach to the Bible is to read the witness of Scripture into a verse.  On just about every Biblical doctrine, no one verse considers every aspect of that doctrine.  Just another reason for looking to the total witness of Scripture on which to  base doctrine.

*  In actual fact, most Biblical scholars today  believe that should study in depth what an individual text is saying and should not be  approached with an agenda that reads into that text what it does not say.  As I say, every text is limited and for an entire doctrinal statement go to the total teaching of the Bible.

*  Bravus is correct in his attempt to discover exactly what a Biblical text says.  He may not be correct as to what he thinks it says.  And, he may not be correct as to what the total Biblical teaching is on a doctrine.  But, his desire to determine the teaching of a text, is  correct.

Quote

. ..

this quote illustrates exactly what most Biblical scholars would object to insofar as how to study the scripture. This point I quoted does reflect upon poor exegetical approach to scripture. A text "by itself," is exactly what enemies of Adventism have accused us of for years.

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

I do agree with Gregory & Bravus, that Lev 18 is not just about one, certain subject. What would be an interesting study/discussion to me is perhaps for another topic, but what does Lev 18 suggest about how the church should move forward in the gospel commission to LGBTQ+ people?  Yes, its actually in there! But not if we are limited to only talking about one Bible passage.

I'd be interested in hearing your views on that, in your own thread perhaps.

[Bravus]

Again, I have no agenda in seeking to understand the appropriate context in which to try to make meaning of this text.

It may well, indeed, be that all of those three things are in play.

I guess the point is to try to understand whether this text remains binding on Christians now.

If it is about the sanctity of marriage or about sexual sin, it is.

If it is about differentiating Israel from the surrounding nations, it may not be. (Or may be.)

Certainly it is possible for people to be motivated to emphasise one context over the other if they wish to support a particular position.

The implication, if it is indeed about differentiating Israel from the surrounding nations, is why Christians do not have the beard and hair styles of orthodox Jews, since adjacent chapters include rules about those things.

To be honest, I think we have probably taken the discussion of the texts in Leviticus about as far as we can.

I'm happy to move on to the NT texts now, if others are.

[Bravus]

For what it's worth, whether my writing has been good enough to make it come across that way or not, none of my comments in this thread have been intended as condemnations or attacks of anyone. I was trying to describe patterns that were leading the discussion to proceed at cross-purposes. I was not suggesting that those patterns were due to ill-will or lack of good faith on the part of anyone.

Where I have been unsuccessful in clearly communicating that, I apologise.

This is not about winning, nor about 'sides', for me. It is about earnestly seeking the truth, using the methods and approaches I understand.

[R. G. White]

5 minutes ago, Bravus said:

If it is about the sanctity of marriage or about sexual sin, it is.

If it is about differentiating Israel from the surrounding nations, it may now be.

 

This is what I mean about making everything a matter of opinion. Obviously, the chapter is about both. Israel was supposed to be different from other nations in order to give glory to God, and destroying the institution of marriage through sexual sin would not accomplish that purpose.

[Bravus]

(thought better of it)

[Bravus]

Noting that opinions differ on a point is not suggesting that my own opinion is Truth and those of others are false.

It would be helpful if the same courtesy were returned. Deciding that one's own interpretation is 'what the Bible actually says' and accusing anyone with a different perspective of all manner of evil is not a helpful way to proceed.

Anyway, I am tired, and not willing to go any more rounds on these texts. I simply don't think there is more to be learned here.

If there is any appetite to continue, I'm happy to move to looking at Timothy and Corinthians, but if the tone is going to continue hostile I'm not sure I have a lot of appetite for it.

[R. G. White]

Just now, Bravus said:

If there is any appetite to continue...

Why should there be? You have seriously suggested that the whole of Leviticus 18 may be inapplicable to the Christian. So now it's all right to have sex with a near kinsman, including your father or mother -- or your step-mother? How about your sister or grandchildren? Now it's all right to mate with an animal? You certainly don't seem to have taken the time to think through the implications of your suggestion.

I hesitate to even post this comment, for fear of unnecessarily dragging my readers through the gutter, but doesn't someone have to point out the real implications of your seemingly reckless approach to Bible interpretation?

[Bravus]

So I guess that's a 'No'.

Bye all.

[Bravus]

If that is how you experienced this discussion, The Wanderer, I can only apologise again.

It is due to flaws and weaknesses in my communication skills, not to malice in my heart.

I do not think ill of, or wish ill for, anyone who has participated in this discussion.

I was seeking to inquire into a topic using a particular approach. I have learned a lot about what can happen when people come to a discussion with very different sets of approaches to inquiry that they have not made explicit to each other, and some of my attempts to clarify my own approach for others were clumsy, and have clearly been perceived as attacks.

They were not meant that way.